Antifa Member Who Took Axe to Senate Office Given Probation and his Axe Back


We have been discussing the continued incarceration of many individuals for their participation in the Jan. 6th riot.  Despite claims that the riot was an insurrection, the vast majority of defendants have been given relatively minor charges. Nevertheless, the Justice Department has insisted on holding many without bail and some have received longer sentences, like Jacob Chansley (aka “QAnon Shaman”) who was given a 41-month sentence for “obstructing a federal proceeding.”

Thomas “Tas” Alexander Starks, 31, of Lisbon, N.D., faced a strikingly different approach by the Justice Department. The self-avowed Antifa member took an axe to the office of Sen. John Hoeven’s in Fargo on Dec. 21, 2020. Federal sentencing guidelines suggested 10–16 months in prison but he was only sentenced to probation and fined $2,784 for restitution . . . he then reportedly mocked the FBI for returning his axe.  Others declared him a hero and Democratic politicians pitched in for his legal defense.

Starks was caught on videotape axing the door of the congressional office. He pleaded guilty to a single charge of destruction of government property.  The case has received little attention from the media outside of conservative sites.

Starks has made clear that he was neither apologetic nor deterred from the use of such violence. He has posted under the Facebook moniker, “Paul Dunyan,” an apparent reference to his preferred use of an axe as a form of political expression.  He displays the Antifa symbol and, while awaiting sentencing, reportedly wrote: “I am ANTIFA. I will always attack fascists, racial superiority complexes built around nationalism that promotes genocide to fuel a war machine is the worst humanity has to offer.”

It is reminiscent of the defiance shown by arrested Antifa member Jason Charter, who declared “The Movement is winning” after his own arrest.

After his light sentence, Starks posted last month that it was all effectively a joke: “Look what the FBI were kind enough to give back to me!”

Starks was supported by a GoFundMe account for his defense costs despite the company barring people from contributing to defendants like Kyle Rittenhouse until after he was acquitted. He was also supported by Democratic politicians.Last year, I testified in the Senate on Antifa and the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. I specifically disagreed with the statement of House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler that Antifa (and its involvement in violent protests) is a “myth.”  It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”Indeed, Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists…  From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.” It is an illusion designed to promote what Antifa is resisting “white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, and genocide.” Thus, all of these opposing figures are deemed fascistic and thus unworthy of being heard.Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free speech as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”

Putting aside the light sentence, the returning of the axe is rather curious. It would seem an instrument of the crime and could be declared lost in any plea. Instead, it was returned as if it was a form of political expression by the Justice Department.

Starks is now free to axe his way to a better world.It is hard to imagine the poor choice of prosecutors or the judge to cut such a deal with Starks (and not specify that the axe would be lost as an instrumentality of the crimes). However, these may or may not be those responsible from their high school period:




171 thoughts on “Antifa Member Who Took Axe to Senate Office Given Probation and his Axe Back”

  1. Not to disparage some of the good people that work at the U.S. Department of Justice but the DOJ ‘bureaucratic machine” has no credibility – this agency green lighted torture, cruel treatment and human rights abuses – in violation of U.S. federal law and Reagan’s international treaty. Reagan would have wanted Bush DOJ officials to be criminally prosecuted and there are statutes of limitations on war crimes.

    Worse yet, today in 2021, the DOJ funds illegal blacklisting programs that have likely destroyed and severely harmed thousands of innocent Americans. Those innocent Americans need admission of guilt from DOJ in order to help repair their employment records and 20 years of defamation by DOJ – all without charge, without trial, without jury and without an official guilty verdict. Tyranny plain and simple. We need a new agency.

    1. It wasn’t violation of federal law, Holder even admitted so in congressional testimony. The rest of your comment is corr3ct.

  2. Final Vote Count on whether I should remain here:

    I count 4 Negatives and 4 Positives.

    It’s a tie. I did not anticipate the consequence of a tie. Andrew, however, did not turn in an unmistakable ballot, but his explanation implies that I should be ignored not banned. So my election committee interprets his vote as positive.

    Therefore, I’m staying. Thanks for your support! No recounts. No audits. But I’ll put it to another vote in 2023 for those Trumpists who despise me.

    But I don’t hate you. I pity you. Remember that.

    1. You can add my vote in favor of your continuing to comment as long as you abide by Turley’s rules, regardless of what others think. We all have to put up with commenters we disagree with and perhaps consider trolls (for example, I place George and S. Meyer in that group, and they may place me in that group). C’est la vie.

      1. Thanks, Green Anonymous. I do intend to abide by Turley’s rules, and I welcome them as I believe he should ban uncivil and hateful speech.

        However, his civility rule is a bit ironic given the fact that I can’t recall Turley EVER advocating that any academic institution should censor uncivil speech or take any repercussions against such speakers! In addition, Turley has criticized the lack of “bright lines” in speech codes in order to put speakers on notice for the sake of due process. Civility is anything but clear and is altogether arbitrary.

      1. Counting the mail-in ballots after the polls closed, Anonymous voted +1 and Mespo voted -1, and Dave voted +1. So, the remain vote won. I benefitted from the Blue surge. Naturally, the Trumpists will lie that there was voter fraud.

    2. Jeff, please feel free to remain and comment often as free speech is a fundamental freedom in our nation. It’s a Constitutionally protected right and allows all of us to be reminded of some of the absolutely bizarre, misguided and sometimes laughable viewpoints of some posters!

  3. JT, can you find out the sentence given to Dakotah Ray Horton in the District of Oregon Portland? He was sentenced on 18 November 2021 for atta king a federal officer in Portland last summer by beating him with a baseball bat. The photographs attached to the arrest warrant are impressive, but I fear that the sentence, unreported by the media, was not.

    1. According to leagle dot com:

      No. 20-2821.

      United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
      Submitted: June 14, 2021.
      Filed: July 20, 2021.

      The district court imposed a 120-month term of imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release. Horton appeals claiming the evidence was insufficient to support the drug quantity calculation and his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

  4. Why aren’t people seeing the upside to this?

    For a nominal fee, you can now chop down the doors of any subversive globalist whore in that city

    1. Because the “precedent” will not be enforced equally. One standard for one political side will not mean the same for the other.

      The same way anyone within a block of the Capitol on Jan. 6 is treated differently than people who committed Multiple Felonies while rioting in Multiple Cities last year, traveling across state lines, from city to city.

      It is put in everyone’s face, but is not to be discussed.

      1. “anyone within a block of the Capitol on Jan. 6 is treated differently than people who committed Multiple Felonies while rioting in Multiple Cities last year, traveling across state lines, from city to city.”

        This is total BS. The vast majority of people protesting “within a block of the Capitol on Jan. 6” were peaceful. They committed no crimes, and they have not been charged with any crimes. Name a single person who you believe was “within a block of the Capitol on Jan. 6” and charged with a crime they did not commit. Now name someone “who committed Multiple Felonies while rioting in Multiple Cities last year, traveling across state lines, from city to city” and wasn’t charged.

        1. “This is total BS.”

          You already failed to prove it despite using literature that is old and has been revised, deceptive charges and pure lies

  5. States can’t secede, but can they be kicked out, and then told not to return until they get their act together? Becoming a state again should be a process about fulfilling
    minimum requirements, like becoming a member of NATO. I am referring to California.

  6. You’ve become such a tool, Turley, and that’s sad. You know damn good and well that only a JUDGE can sentence a criminal defendant who has been found guilty–not the DOJ or Biden Administration. You know damn good and well that only a court can decide whether someone is eligible for pre-trial release on bail, and if so, the amount of the bail and what other conditions can be required, such as surrendering a passport, and that neither the DOJ nor the Biden Administration controls these things. You know damn good and well that the decision about the amount of bail, if someone charged with a crime is eligible for bail at all (because there is NO Constitutional right to be let out on bail in the first place), depends on a lot factors specific to the individual, such as: whether s/he is employed and what is their job, how long employed, whether they have a family, a stable life style, their ties to the community, whether they have a criminal history, and if so, the types of crimes they previously were convicted of. They won’t get out on bail if they ever skipped on bail before. These things are not under the control of the DOJ or the Biden Administration. There is no one-size-fits-all scheme that applies to bailment for those charged in the Trump Insurrection, even for those who committed the same criminal acts, because they don’t all have the same lifestyles or criminal histories. To say that the “Justice Department” is holding the insurrectionists without bail is just a flat-out lie. When these criminal defendants were arraigned, the DOJ would have the right to make a statement as to whether they should be given bail, but it is always the Judge’s decision.

    But, since it is clearly Trump media talking point that those who took part in the insurrection are somehow being uniquely abused by being held without bail, and because Turley takes his marching orders from Fox, Turley tries to turn it into an attack on the DOJ or Biden Administration, which has no control over these things, all of which is calculated to demean the significance of the Trump Insurrection. Turley mentions “Federal sentencing guidelines”, but fails to explain that those apply to the JUDGE, not the DOJ. Turley knows better, which is why he is a tool.

    The Starks case and the Trump Insurrection have nothing in common. Starks engaged in vandalism. He was not trying to invade the floor of the House of Representatives to try to prevent Congress from certifying the victory of a Presidential candidate by counting the certified vote totals from the various states. He didn’t assault Capitol Police Officers, or spray them with bear spray. Others involved in January 6th erected a gallows, called for hanging Mike Pence for abiding by the law and refusing Trump’s command to disregard the requirements of the Constitution. They urinated and defecated in the Capitol building, defaced the John Lewis shrine, invaded Speaker Pelosi’s office and other offices, and the Q-Anon Shaman hung from the railing, brayed like an elk during mating season and wrote a threat to Pence on paper at the Speaker’s podium. The situations are nowhere near comparable.

    1. Starks committed an act of politically motivated violence against a regime opponent.

    2. The Department of Justice has been “guiding” and “advising” everyone from DAs to judges to law enforcement to hospitals, churches, etc so drop the act trying gas light us as if we didn’t already know what’s been going for years- and that’s aside from fascist progressive billionaires who have been bankrolling millions into local DAs and AGs who later become judges.

      You’re the statist lackey/tool in this picture, thinking you can do damage control by trying to demand we all unsee what we already saw long ago.

    3. Seriously, Natacha? You still think the two-tier justice system which is all too flagrant in today’s America has nothing to do with the Democrats and the Biden administration?
      Pray, tell, what makes Jan 6 an insurrection? I understand the left likes to throw that term around quite a bit. But how many of the participants have been charged with such a crime? None so far, I believe.
      And the 3-month riots by Antifa and BLM thugs all through Summer. What was that? “Mostly peaceful but fiery protests”, never mind that many houses were burnt and innocent lives were taken by the lawless thugs?
      This country is on a precipice right now. Thanks, but no thanks to the injustices perpetrated by the left. But you can’t keep treating people with flagrant injustice, and expect them to take it without fighting back.
      If anything, l you are the tool here. You simply parroted CNN’s propaganda without much thought. It might help if you opened your eyes and see what’s really going on.

    4. “They won’t get out on bail if they ever skipped on bail before.”

      You mean like in Waukesha, where Darrell Brooks, a career criminal and BLM supporter, who had previously skipped bail, was let out on bail and later ran over a bunch of white paraders including children?

      As for the “Trump insurrection”, who’s been found guilty of insurrection? In fact, who’s even been charged with insurrection? That’s right, not a single person, and yet you and others continue to use that inflammatory term.

      Lastly, your argument that the DOJ has no influence in our legal system is just silly and you know it. Turley is simply making the point that there is a VAST difference in the application of the law when comparing protestors on the left and right, when both are guilty of destroying public property and intimidating public officials.

      In short, your “arguments” are pretty weak sauce. Try again.

    5. LOL…. Natacha! Tell that to Obama Judge Tanya Chutkin, and Judge Emmet Sullivan who viciously persecuted Michael Flynn (also directed some choice “non judicial” comments to January 6th political prisoners)….. “Insurrection” indeed….. And, how about that AntiFa provocateur Sullivan (free as a bird on bail) and FBI “set up artist” Ray Epps….. Take your blinders off! Quit gaslighting…..

  7. Wonder what would happen if a member of the Proud Boys took an ax to AOC’s office. Does anyone think this individual would get probation?


  8. And if you steal a rainbow flag you are charged with a hate crime.

    Another example that if you are a ordinary heritage American, this isn’t your country anymore. Keep it up, s@@tlibs! Events such as these will continue to “radicalize” normies.

    Just waiting for some lefty to justify this one.

    I have no desire to change anyone’s mind, I JUST WANT A DIVORCE.


  9. Why have those arrested for charges related to January 6th NOT defended themselves or countersued, based on denial of Civil Rights for not being provided EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW compared to those who have previously trespassed and vandalized the Capitol building or other federal buildings?

    1. Robert, we know that you have deep pockets so you could afford to counter sue. As for the rest of us peasants we have jobs to go to and a family to feed. I guess we only get to let our voices be heard if we are among the wealthy gentry who have the time and high priced lawyers to equalize the playing field. It reeks of a nose in the air response.

    2. Are you not aware that it takes money to file a lawsuit and that these political prisoners are unable to earn money since they’re being held in prison? Seriously?

  10. How is it justice for that silly man in bison horns to serve almost 4 years in prison for interrupting Congress? What did the anti-Kavanaugh protestors get?

    If he’d shown up in a Handmaid’s Tale red cloak and white bonnet, he would have been lauded.

    There is no justice anymore.

    1. Exactly right Karen. The only video is of him acting like a fool and chatting peacefully with one of the officers inside the building. I don’t agree with what happened at the capital, but let’s have a little perspective here.. not to mention fairness.

    2. Chansley’s plea deal involved the DOJ dropping the charges on a number of his other crimes that day, and it’s total bull that “If he’d shown up in a Handmaid’s Tale red cloak and white bonnet, he would have been lauded.”

      If you actually want to know what the anti-Kavanaugh protestors got, look it up, and you can compare it to the range of sentences that the Jan. 6 protesters have gotten so far. You can also compare the actual crimes that various people committed. You’ll find that the people who committed the most crimes on Jan. 6 committed more serious crimes than most serious crimes committed by the Kavanaugh protesters. How many officers were injured by Kavanaugh protesters? Over 100 officers were injured by Jan. 6 protesters, some of officers now have lifelong injuries (like the one whose eye was gouged out). So don’t pretend that the two events are comparable.

      1. You are twisting the facts again and using generalities. Go ahead and take the ten worst crimes on Jan 6, including those from the FBI’s most-wanted list that weren’t charged. I’ll provide one name from the most-wanted list you seem to run away from all the time, Epps. Now compare those ten to the ten worst offenders at Kavanaugh and the destruction of our cities by Antifa, individual to individual.

        Your argument holds no water. Take those ten on Jan 6 with the slightest intent of violence that were arrested and compare them with the least violent at Kavanaugh, so the violence committed was equivalent. Compare them, and you will find that the authorities did not follow the rule of law.

        No one doubts that some on Jan 6 went too far, but there is doubt about who went too far and whether they were left, right or FBI. There is also doubt about who went too far because videos are being withheld. We have already seen more recently released videos showing the government’s case against some of the perpetrators were based on lies known to the government and that were on the withheld videos.

        Your comparisons are ridiculous. You make these ludicrous comparisons intentionally, proving you are a liar.

    3. Chansley didn’t just “interrupt” Congress–he participated in an invasion of the Capitol Building for the express purpose of attempting to prevent Joe Biden’s lawfully-obtained victory from being certified, based on a lie about an election being stolen. In addition to breaking through police barriers, smashing doors and windows and assaulting police officers, they erected a gallows and called for lynching the VP. The anti-Kavanaugh protesters did nothing even close, and they were in the right. There were at least 25 witnesses begging to be allowed to testify against him, but the Republicans in charge refused to allow them to speak. This was for a lifetime appointment to the Court of last resort, based on a nomination of a president who cheated to get into office, and who lost the popular vote. This was a nominee who was vetted by the Federalist Society specifically because his views on certain Constitutional rights, like abortion, was counter to those of most Americans. That you could even attempt to draw a comparison is amazing.

      1. 25 witnesses that suddenly appeared out of the woodwork as soon as he was nominated. Nothing suspicious there. Trump cheated to get into office 😂😂😂. What so he is against abortion he cant be appointed. I didnt know abortion law was the only law that mattered. Every comment you make shows you are a partisan one eyed liar or just stupid. Probably both

  11. “Despite claims that the riot was an insurrection, the vast majority of defendants have been given relatively minor charges.” Due to the propaganda nature of most of the media’s narrative, most Democrats do not understand that the vast majority of protestors on Jan 6 were peaceful. Most of the video footage showed tourist behavior, taking selfies and gawking. That’s why most of them were only charged with trespassing and illegally parading. The punishment for trespassing and illegally parading should not be 10 months of solitary confinement without bail while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, Darryl Brooks was out on $1000 bond after punching the mother of one of his children in the face, and then running her over with his SUV. When he got out on bail, he committed mass murder with that SUV. There is no justice when you compare how the Jan 6 protestors are being treated to hardened career dangerous criminals. Some of the Jan 6 protestors broke a window, and moved a police barricade. One of them was arrested because a gun was found in his car. No guns were found on any person of the Jan 6 protestors while inside the building, to the best of my knowledge.

    It’s actually quite frightening, this show of government power against individual citizens. The first major demonstration was the successful use of a fake dossier to turn the FBI on a sitting president, destabilizing his presidency.

    1. Karen: there’s a difference between “protesting” and invading the Capitol. Those who broke through police barricades, smashed windows, broke down doors and beat police officers, and just those who entered the Capitol after the barriers were breached, are all guilty of various crimes. I know you hear the steady drumbeat from your alt-right media claiming that these fools did nothing wrong, but that’s incorrect. Those who were denied bail did not qualify for bail. Take it up with the judges who conducted their arraignment if you don’t like it. Those who don’t qualify to be around other prisoners are in this situation for their safety or the safety of others, not as punishment. As to the guns, the Trumpsters had confederates waiting outside DC city limits, loaded to the gills with weapons and ammo, waiting for the order from Trump to move in. Whether they had guns or not right at the Capitol itself is beside the point. They were organized and motivated by a sore loser who refused to accept the will of the American people. They erected a gallows and intended to lynch Pence on the command of your orange hero. That’s what’s “actually quite frightening”, a narcissist who lost an election, who lied about victory being stolen from him, despite all proof to the contrary, who stirred up gullible followers to attack and invade the Capitol to try to stop the VP from certifying the results (after he couldn’t beg or bully him to break the law), who still won’t shut up, go away, or stop lying about it, and who has a sizeable number of gullible followers who still think he is running this country.

      1. “…Trumpsters had confederates waiting outside DC city limits, loaded to the gills with weapons and ammo, waiting for the order from Trump to move in. ” Source?

        1. Look it up–multiple news outlets reported this. These confiderates were arrested. And, a couple of them place bombs outside the headquarters of the DNC.

          1. Almost everything you say is wrong.

            Example ABC news and many places.will tell you the pipe bombs were outside the DNC and the RNC. Your inaccurate reporting of the news makes one skip anything you say.

      2. What a load of absolute BS, There was no confederates waiting outside city limits loaded to the gills with guns and ammo. You really are a gullible dhead arnt you, Has any one of these confederates loaded to the gills been arrested??? You mean the FBI hasnt being able to find one. But you actually believe this BS 😂🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️😂😂

    2. “Due to the propaganda nature of most of the media’s narrative, most Democrats do not understand that the vast majority of protestors on Jan 6 were peaceful.”

      Karen, that’s false. Most Democrats do understand that the majority of the protesters were peaceful and did not attempt to illegally enter the Capitol (e.g., by breaking windows and climbing through them). But we are concerned about the minority of protesters who *were* violent and/or committed other crimes that day.

      Why do you mistakenly believe that “most Democrats do not understand that the vast majority of protestors on Jan 6 were peaceful”? (Are you getting your news from bad sources? Are you projecting beliefs onto Democrats for some reason? … I don’t understand why you have this mistaken belief about Democrats.)

      “most of them were only charged with trespassing and illegally parading.”

      That’s false.

      For most of the people who were charged, the charges are not “trespassing and illegally parading.” Multiple times, I’ve pointed out to you the website with all of the individuals charged so far and what they were charged with. Here it is AGAIN:
      So there’s really no excuse for you to be making false claims like “most of them were only charged with trespassing and illegally parading.” Fewer than half were charged with “Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building,” and fewer than half were charged with “Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority” (which is the charge I’m guessing you mean by “trespassing”). The vast majority who were charged with one or both of those had other charges as well, and many weren’t charged with either of the crimes you highlight; they were only charged with other crimes.

      For example, the first person listed was charged with “Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building; Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building.” So that person is not an example of someone “only charged with trespassing and illegally parading.” In fact, I scrolled through the first 100 people whose charges included Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building,” and there wasn’t a single one of them who was “only charged with trespassing and illegally parading.” Can you name even one person in that list of hundreds for whom your claim is accurate?

      Will you acknowledge how flawed your claim is?

      “The first major demonstration was the successful use of a fake dossier to turn the FBI on a sitting president, destabilizing his presidency.”

      That’s false too. The dossier was not involved in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

      I think part of what’s “frightening” is that you believe so many things that are false.

      1. “Karen, that’s false. Most Democrats do understand that the majority of the protesters were peaceful and did not attempt to illegally enter the Capitol (e.g., by breaking windows and climbing through them).”

        Did you do a study, or are you making things up again? Can you provide a legitimate study? No, you can’t.

        “But we are concerned about the minority of protesters who *were* violent and/or committed other crimes that day.”

        Are Democrats concerned about the leftists and FBI personal that were there? How about those on the FBI’s most-wanted list like Epps, who was called out as a fed.

        Karen says there was a lot of propaganda, and you are pushing most of it even though you are fully aware that some of what you say are lies.

        Karen used the phrase, vast majority, and I am afraid that she is likely correct. Studies have demonstrated most people know little of what goes on. When the media focuses on violence, and the Democrats release only the videos that show bad things being done, we can assume most people think that there were many more violent people than there were. Additionally, they are counting those on the right, left and feds.

        Your list is old, as when some of the videos were finally released, the list shrank, as did the charges. You make many false claims, many proven wrong, use old data, and don’t bother with the releases demonstrating unfounded charges. All in all, you are deceitful and a liar.

        1. As an example of deceptive news CNN put out on Twitter: “Waukesha will hold a moment of silence today, marking one week since a car drove through a city Christmas parade, killing six people and injuring scores of others.”

          Did they bother to mention Darrell Brooks? Did they bother to mention he was out on $1,000 bail for driving a car into his girlfriend just a few weeks ago? Did they bother to say that Darrell Brooks had a long rap sheet? No. They said nothing of the kind, and permitted their listeners to think the car drove “itself” into the crowd. That is the level of thinking we get from Anonymous the Stupid. That is the deceit of CNN and ATS.

  12. Why is Turley writing about this now?

    Starks pleaded guilty in April and was sentenced in September:
    Seems like a stretch on Turley’s part, in order to avoid writing about more significant and timely news.

    The DOJ can only control what sentence they ask for. The judge controls what sentence the convicted person is given. Yet JT barely mentions the judge for Starks (“It is hard to imagine the poor choice of prosecutors or the judge to cut such a deal with Starks”) and is silent about the judge in other cases (passive voice: “some have received longer sentences, like Jacob Chansley”).

    What did the DOJ ask for in Starks’ case? JT doesn’t say. The link above says “The U.S. Attorney’s Office recommended five months behind bars plus five months of home confinement for Starks.” Note that Starks did not interrupt any official proceeding, unlike Chansley and the other insurrectionists, who forced Congress to delay the certification of the Electoral College vote.

    “he was only sentenced to probation”

    Actually, he was sentenced to time served plus probation. Turley: why do yo make basic factual mistakes so frequently?

    1. Anonymous, you write of how Professor Turley leaves out this or that and you tell us that the axe mans sentence included time served yet you leave out how much time he actually was in jail. Please inform us more completely if indeed you can. A simple question that you could have simply answered about his time in jail. It leaves one to consider that you might have employed obfuscation. The operative word is “simple”. Just sayin.

    2. 10 whole days in jail. I guess ATS is once again trying to prove himself deceptive. That is good enough reason for Turley not go have mentioned time served.

  13. Jonathan: Thomas Starks didn’t bring an AR-15 to the offices of Sen. John Hoeven who still believes the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Stark didn’t injure or kill anyone. He damaged property and is being held accountable. Who is calling for violence against anyone who disagrees with them? It’s the right. People like GOP politicians Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene–and even Donald Trump who believe violence is a legitimate alternative to free speech. It’s also coming from right-wing conspiracy followers–like QAnon, Romana Didulo, a prominent QAnon leader in Canada, has told her 70,000 followers: “Shoot to kill anyone who tries to inject children under the age of 19 years old with Coronavirus 19 vaccines, blowweapons or any other vaccines”. I suppose you will defend Didulo because she is just exercising her “free speech” rights.

    Speaking of “free speech”, a subject dear to your heart, many GOP controlled states are banning the teaching of race or the racist history of the US in pubic schools. Books that tell the stories of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. are being banned from school rooms. This is a topic you have totally ignored. Danielle Gonzales, managing director at the Aspen Institute, points out in a recent column: “Book banning is anti-American, and these efforts threaten to seriously undermine K-12 education…Telling schools to ignore student awareness of race, racism and stereotypes is dangerous and can lead to increased prejudice…Evidence shows widespread academic benefits to talking and teaching about race and ethnicity in the classroom”.

    Tell us why conservative professors and students are entitled to “free speech” but schools, teachers and school children in public schools are not entitled to the same right.

    1. “Who is calling for violence against anyone who disagrees with them?”

      Andy Ngo is unavailable for comment.

    2. Dear Dennis M, there is ample photographic evidence of ANTIFA members committing physical acts of violence. This violence is perpetrated against unarmed people who can’t defend themselves. Can a skateboard crush your skull? When another man screams that he will kill you it’s a good idea to believe him. You see no harm in giving an axe back to a man who has an obvious violent nature and you see no lack of the application of equal justice for the Jan 6 protestors as being a problem. It would be interesting to see if the Jan 6 protesters were given back the instruments they used to break a glass door. Not likely. The only thing given to them would be jail food for months on end. You just want to be on the side that you somehow think is winning. Your religious fervor is duly noted.

    3. Dear Dennis M, if one takes the time to Google it one would find that Black Lives Mater has a mission statement and is highly organized. The recent past President of Black Lives Matter stated that she has been trained in Marxist theory. In contrast if you Google QAnon you will find no formal mission statement explaining their reason for their existence. No doubt some of their so called adherence believe in wacko ideas but they are not even close to being as powerful and well funded as Black Lives Matter. Fear of QAnon is a tempest in a teapot used as a distraction. When a criticism of Black Lives Matter is presented the response that can be always expected is “What about QAnon”?. Dear Dennis M well done. You have outstandingly done your duty in your defense of “The Party” platform. You can sew another hashtag on your party jacket so everyone can see it at the next party meeting.

  14. “‘[F]ree speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

    And if you disagree with us, we will bash your head in.

    And they’re *not* Brownshirts?!

  15. Please, humor us all, those of you who were all those US/Foreign Govt Instigators causing all the trouble 1/6/2021. We’ve all seen a bit of the videos, show us the rest of the videos & all the other evidence.

    Let the Citizen Owners-Stakeholders view all the evidence.

    Ya, I know JFK & all that other triple pinky swear intel secret, you’re Commie
    /Nazi Bull Sh*t so you can’t /won’t show anything to the Citizens. We Get It.

    1. “Let the Citizen Owners-Stakeholders view all the evidence.”

      The government is required to turn exculpatory evidence over to defendants:
      There is no legal requirement to turn over all possible evidence, if it is not exculpatory.

      More to the point, there is no requirement to make all evidence public, and there are sometimes reasons that evidence is not made public. For example, the transcript of the first conversation between Michael Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak was never declassified.

      Your personal desire to view specific evidence is legally irrelevant, just like my personal desire to view specific evidence is legally irrelevant. If you dislike the law, write your members of Congress to change the law, and make a compelling case for the changes you want. I doubt that they’ll consider “I know JFK & all that other triple pinky swear intel secret, you’re Commie/Nazi Bull Sh*t so you can’t /won’t show anything to the Citizens” to be a compelling argument.

      1. Anonymous, the Flynn Kislyack conversation transcript has been released by The NewYork Times. You will find it interesting that no lifting of sanctions was discussed by General Flynn. Remember they threatened Flynn’s son with jail time to get the General to cop a plea and he spent all of the monies he had saved working for decades in service to his nation on his legal fees. They have no shame. The transcript of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyack is as follows. He was actually found guilty because he was part of the future Trump administration. Would you be surprised if as a Russian citizen Putin threatened to take away all your worldly goods and threatened to put your relatives in jail. As Americans we would not be surprised that something like this would be done in Russia but some of the people of this nation believe that these tactics are admirable if employed to keep their party in power. Thank you comrade Clinton.

        1. “Anonymous, the Flynn Kislyack conversation transcript has been released by The NewYork Times.”

          If you’d bothered to educate yourself about it, you’d know that there were multiple Flynn-Kislyak conversations, and not all of them were declassified.

          For example, the Flynn-Kislyak conversation on December 22, 2016, was never declassified. You can even see in the transcript that you linked to that they refer back to a previous conversation (e.g., Kislyak: “Uh, I just wanted as a follow up to share with you several points. …”)

          “You will find it interesting that no lifting of sanctions was discussed by General Flynn.”

          You will find that Flynn absolutely introduced the expulsion of diplomats into the discussion, which were part of Obama’s response to the Russian interference. Here are some of their exchanges about this:

          FLYNN: Listen, uh, a couple of things. Number one, what I would ask you guys to do – and make sure you, make sure that you convey this, okay? Do not, do not uh, allow this [Obama] administration to box us in, right now, okay? Um.
          KISLYAK: We have conveyed it. And –
          FLYNN: Yeah.
          KISLYAK: It’s, uh, it’s uh, very very specifically and transparently, openly.
          FLYNN: So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they’re looking like they’re gonna, they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that, and I understand that, that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not – is – is – if anything – because I know you have to have some sort of action – to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don’t – don’t make it- don’t go any further than you have to. Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?
          KISLYAK: I understand what you’re saying, but you know, you might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow.
          FLYNN: I know, I, believe me, I do appreciate it, I very much appreciate it. But I really don’t want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s got to go back and forth and everybody’s got to be the tough guy here, you know?

          KISLYAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh, does it mean that the United States isn’t willing to work on terrorist threats?
          FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.
          KISLYAK: Because that’s the people who are exactly, uh, fighting the terrorists.
          FLYNN: Yeah, yeah, yep.
          KISLYAK: So that’s something that we have to deal with. But we’ve heard what you say, and I certainly will try to get the people in Moscow to understand it.
          FLYNN: Yeah.
          FLYNN: And please make sure that it’s uh, the idea is, be, if you, if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis. Then that, then that is a good message and we’ll understand that message. And, and then, we know that we’re not going to escalate this thing, where we, where because if we put out, if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, r mean we have to get this to a – let’s, let’s keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay? ls even-keeled. And then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where we’re gonna go, uh, regarding uh, regarding our relationship. …

          And in a follow-up call:
          KISLYAK: Uh, you know I have a small message to pass to you from Moscow and uh, probably you have heard about the decision taken by Moscow about action and counter-action.
          FLYNN: yeah, yeah well I appreciate it, you know, on our phone call the other day, you know, I, I, appreciate the steps that uh your president has taken. I think that it is was wise.
          KISLYAK: I, I just wanted to tell you that our conversation was also taken into account in Moscow and …
          FLYNN: Good
          KISLYAK: Your proposal that we need to act with cold heads, uh, is exactly what is uh, invested in the decision.
          FLYNN: Good
          KISLYAK: And I just wanted to tel I you that we found that these actions have targeted not only against Russia, but also against the president elect.
          FLYNN: yeah, yeah
          KISLYAK: and and with all our rights to responds we have decided not to act now because, it’s because people are dissatisfied with the lost of elections and, and its very deplorable. So, so I just wanted to let you know that our conversation was taken with weight. And also …
          FLYNN: Good. Good.
          KISLYAK: We are hoping within two weeks we will be able to start working in more constructive way.
          FLYNN: Okay. That’s good, that’s good Ambassador. Well I appreciate that feedback.

          “He was actually found guilty because he was part of the future Trump administration.”

          No, he was charged because he knowingly made materially false statements to the FBI. He was interviewed so they could find out whether and why Flynn lied to Pence about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak. He wasn’t “found guilty.” He ultimately chose to plead guilty. Recall that Pence later confirmed that Flynn had lied to Pence about these conversations (“[Flynn] lied to me, and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him”), and Trump also confirmed that Flynn lied to Pence (“I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI”). Maybe you think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to lie to the VP-elect about conversations with a foreign adversary, but the FBI does not, and Pence and Trump didn’t either. It was appropriate for the FBI to interview Flynn, and Flynn shouldn’t have lied to them.

          1. Nothing you post above shows that Flynn broke any laws. In fact, they showed Flynn to be above board and honest.

            Flynn was fired. Firing is not uncommon in government when an appointee is getting too much heat. In this case, the heat was coming from Flynn’s phony and improper investigation by the FBI along with many others on the Trump team. The liars were from the FBI as already proven, from the Mueller investigation as already proven, from the media as already proven, etc.

            Flynn shouldn’t have been fired, but that happens when an agency like the FBI goes rogue and the media plays politics.

            What happened between the VP and Flynn is the VP’s business and the business of the President.

            We never know if we have all the facts, but ATS likes to make all sorts of ridiculous claims that are meaningless. If Flynn failed to wash his hands before popping candy in his mouth, ATS would be up in arms calling Flynn a criminal. That is what ATS is, a know-nothing, which focuses on incidentals and cannot focus on important events of the day.

      2. “The government is required to turn exculpatory evidence over to defendants:”

        Did they do it in the Flynn case? No. They didn’t do so with other cases. In fact they didn’t reveal the fact that they lied to the FISA Court to permit them to do all sorts of things that would otherwise be illegal.

        You are being deceptive again.

  16. So this is an act by one guy and does not take place in DC at all but 2000
    Miles away; and Turley wants to equate it to the insurrection at the Capitol again to minimize what happened there.

    1. Dear don’t know what’s happening in Fargo, so a wacko who uses an axe and declares himself ANTIFA gets probation and gets his instrument of destruction returned to his possession and a wacko in D.C. with a Viking hat gets 41 months in prison. If your an ANTIFA member who is loved by the left you get a slap on the wrist but if your a QAnon member disavowed by those on the right you go to prison for years. We’re sorry that you didn’t understand the contrast of treatment toward one group versus another. Please inform us about any QAnon member who has been bailed out of jail by anyone in the Republican Party. You say that he was just some guy in Fargo but he has declared himself to be a member of a group devoted to anarchy. Soon when a burglar is caught robbing a safe they’ll let him off easy and give him back his burglary tools.
      This is your dream for the future.

    2. You mean minimize that a bunch of fed informants and statist useful idiots false-flagged and blamed their political opposition?

Comments are closed.