This is the one year anniversary of the disgraceful rioting in the Capitol building. The scenes of that day are seared in the memory of many of us. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the riots. However, I have long maintained that there was no evidence to support a criminal charge against Trump for incitement. Yet, a year ago, various legal experts declared that Trump should be charged based on his speech and his delay in calling for protesters to leave Capitol Hill. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging him with incitement. So, a year later, what ever happened to the prosecution of Donald Trump?
Racine and others were not restrained by Republicans in Congress and clearly were eager to make the “clear” case for prosecution. The fact is that they were restrained by the Constitution and the media attention over their dubious claims quietly faded away like so many other “slam dunk” charges highlighted on cable news programs.
Democratic politicians and commentators are still demanding that Trump be criminally charged. Former Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, now an MSNBC analyst, recently declared that Attorney General Merrick Garland would “go down in infamy as one of the worst attorney generals in this country’s history” if former President Trump is not charged. Garland seemed to respond to the pressure this week by pledging that his department would charge any responsible “at any level.”
Those three words revived the hopes of many on CNN and MSNBC, which spent four years trafficking in often unfounded theories of criminality against Trump and his family. Indeed, many of the same legal experts reappeared to offer assurances that Trump can still be frog marched to the hoosegow.
It is all too familiar. Just a year ago, cable networks were riding high on ratings by offering a steady diet of blockbuster stories establishing clear criminal conduct by Trump or his family. Former House counsel Norman Eisen was assuring viewers that Trump was “colluding in plain sight” and the criminal case against Trump for obstruction of justice was overwhelming. Professor Richard Painter was explaining the clear case of treason against Trump. Professor Laurence Tribe declared the dictation of a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting constituted witness tampering. Tribe further claimed strong cases for obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, and extortion by Trump or his family. Others explained that Trump could be charged with negligent homicide over the Covid-19 crisis.
The same figures were back on Jan. 6th to declare the Trump speech to be sufficient for prosecution. Legal analyst Elie Honig said he would “gladly show a jury” his inflammatory remarks and “argue they cross the line to criminality.” Professor Richard Ashby Wilson said, “Trump crossed the Rubicon and incited a mob to attack the Capitol as Congress was in the process of tallying the Electoral College vote results. Trump should be criminally indicted for inciting insurrection against our democracy.” Laurence Tribe declared, “This guy was inciting not just imminent lawless action, but the violent decapitation of a coordinate branch of the government, preventing this peaceful transition of power and putting a violent mob into the Capitol while he cheered them on.”
So what happened? Even if you assume that Trump was protected by his own Justice Department, it was only a matter of days before the Biden Administration was in place and ready for new prosecutions. Moreover, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that week that he was investigating Trump for a possible incitement charge. He was heralded in the media with global coverage. Then nothing happened.
The reason is that the speech itself was not a crime. Indeed, it was protected free speech. They knew that a court would throw out such an indictment and, even if they could find a willing judge, any conviction would be thrown out on appeal.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.
The fact is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
He ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to “try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.
Notably, the Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg referred to a planned march on Congress after declaring that “revengeance” could be taken for the betrayal of the president and Congress. The Supreme Court nevertheless overturned his conviction. Likewise, in Hess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets, holding that “at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one official declared, “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.” That was ruled as the hyperbolic language of advocacy.
That is why Racine did not arrest Trump, even after he left office shortly after the riot.
The House is still trying to generate new evidence not found by the Justice Department. Despite arresting hundreds and investigating thousands, the Justice Department never found an “insurrection” or “rebellion” to be charged. Instead, most people were charged with crimes like trespass or unlawful entry. A few faced more serious charges of assaulting officers. This remains a protest that became a riot due to the reckless rhetoric of the rally and the lack of preparation by the Capitol.
None of that belittles the responsibility of those who rioted or excuses their conduct. These individuals are being rightfully prosecuted and have been given severe sentences given these charges.
Moreover, the House could still find that “smoking gun” evidence that supports a criminal charge against Trump. Yet, the media is hyping “bombshell” disclosures that do little to move that needle. For example, Vice Chair Rep. Lynne Cheney recently announced that they had proof that Ivanka Trump asked her father to issue a statement to encourage protesters to leave the Hill but President Trump still delayed in making such a statement. That is not a crime. Being callous or slow in making public statements may make you a bad person or bad president but it does not make you an actual criminal. This is not some form of nonfeasance in failing to take an action required by law. Such a prosecution would allow the prosecution of politicians for a wide array of statements not made in times of political discord. It would gut the First Amendment.
Such analysis is hardly popular with images of rioters smashing windows in the Capitol being replayed on cable networks. In an age of rage, one must be unequivocal and amplified in your outrage to avoid suspicion. I recently told the Washington Post that a viable case against Trump would need to show that he took concrete steps in enabling, anticipating, or coordinating the riot. In response, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin (who has called for burning down the Republican party and expulsion of Republican members) declared “I have no idea what Turley is talking about. You don’t need to prove Trump intended the riot. He intended to obstruct Congress. This is what @RepLizCheney was explaining last week.”
That reference is to the crime of “corruptly obstructing an official proceeding,” a charge against some rioters. However, Trump was not among them. Swapping out “incitement” or “insurrection” for obstruction does little to address the fundamental constitutional barrier. It would still criminalize free speech and run counter to controlling case law. Democrats have in the past challenged electoral votes and have participated in protests over certification. In January 2005, Boxer joined former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones to challenge George W. Bush’s victory over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the state of Ohio. Boxer argued that Republicans had engaged in voter suppression. Many who are condemning the challenge today heaped praise on Boxer in 2004. That is not itself an obstruction of Congress. For Trump to call for the same opposition, it is not itself obstruction.
Moreover, if Trump is not legally responsible for the riot, he is not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop. What the Committee would need is evidence that Trump actively withheld resources or obstructed efforts to quell the riot. Thus far, the record shows that refusal of a large national guard deployment was refused on Capitol Hill and not at the White House.
From the D.C. Attorney General to the current U.S. Attorney General, there has been no paucity of time or lack of investigation over the last year. They certainly know where to find Trump who is hiding in plain view at Mar-o-Lago. Indeed, Rubin (who praised Garland’s nomination, as did I) recently declared him to be a mistake for failing to arrest Trump. The other possibility is that there was a will but not a crime.
The Capitol Police, all branches of cops, failed.
First. When the mob came up the outdoor steps:. Bullhorn. Stop now or get shot. Start the firehouse aimed right at them. Those who come forward shoot in their feet. If they hold a gun then shoot em in the chest. If any keep coming keep shooting.
If they breach the outer doors to the building. Bullhorn. Get out. If they don’t leave. Shoot em all.
Remember Ashli Babbitt
-January 6, 2021
Lacking ‘ prosecution of Donald Trump ‘, there certainly has been no let-up in the ‘ persecution ‘ of him . . and this will certainly continue, building in intensity as November approaches !
If there is an active investigation concerning Donald Trump, the people doing the investigating better get moving. 2024 will be here before we all know it. He currently is the front runner by a wide margin. If he were to get re-elected, he will have no reason to act nice.
How did Trumps support for the 2 Repo senators running for Georgia work out in 2020? or the runoff in 2021? Yep, put the dummy trump on the ballot and see the huuuuuuuuuuuuuge number of votes he gets
The Democrats, their supporters in the media, and those who support their misbegotten agenda all labor under the delusion that those who rioted on 1/6, and the supporters of Trump in general constitute some sort of zombie army all under the nefarious spell and control of the Evil Genius Trump and his Svengali like powers.
The truth of the matter is a sizable portion of the country is enraged, and has been long before the 2016 election. Trump was and is a symptom, not a cause. If DJT were hit by a bus crossing the street today that rage will not change or end. The divide will continue to expand. 1/6 may have been the first, but certainly not the last mass expression of the anger and disgust many have with the professional ruling class and the social and economic destruction they have wrought over the past several decades. No one on either side of the aisle is immune, they all have brought us to this point.
People need to take a long hard look at what is going on in Kazakhstan right now. Those events are closer here than anyone cares to contemplate. Without fundamental change nothing that anyone can do to Trump is going to stop that from coming. He was a convenient symbolic rallying point, nothing more. If anything the draconian restrictions of personal liberty and the economic destruction of the past two years has only accelerated the pace.
So go ahead and laugh, mock, and dismiss almost half the country. When it all goes up in flames and you find the loudest who expressed their contempt drug to the nearest lamppost, you’ll have only yourselves to blame.
It’s the last thing I want, I just want to be left alone to live a quiet boring life, but I’m honest enough with myself to see it coming.
As obscene as the Capital attack was, if you can pull yourself away from its sensationalist drama, the greater affront to democracy was the plot going on with the WH all thru December 2020 — to undermine the Electoral College results from the States. That was an act of treason.
That plotting, no secret in DC at the time, didn’t even make it into the Articles of Impeachment. Why not?
That plotting, no secret in DC at the time, didn’t even make it into the Articles of Impeachment. Why not?
Because no lawyer would risk the ridicule of saying something so stupid?
This really supports Turley’s piece. All of those crimes committed by Trump, but not a single one made it onto an Article of Impeachment.
Maybe, just maybe, no crime was committed, thus evidence doesn’t exist.
To me, the stand-out sentence in Professor Turley’s blog (with which I agree) is: “This is not some form of nonfeasance in failing to take an action required by law.”) (fifth paragraph from bottom)
“Whatever happened to the prosecution of donald trump” It was called impeachment Turley. Can’t wait for you to tie yourself in pretzels on what’s to come. By the way, is it worth the money FOX pays you?
and how much does Soros pay you to troll?
Turley’s is being strategically naive here. From past experience and by Turley’s own advice the Jan 6 committee is taking its time to gather all the evidence and they mean ALL of it before deciding whether any charges would apply.
Just because Trump didn’t directly call for violence or send his mob to the Capitol to disrupt the certification of the election doesn’t mean he didn’t have that idea in mind. Turley often ignores the overall context of Trump’s multiple false claims and setting up his supporters to believe that the election was being stolen from him. Trump spent months making false claims that the election was being rigged or that massive fraud was being planned. Trump knew what he was doing and the texts from his own allies and supporters begging him to stop his followers attempting to illegally stop the certification show they knew he went too far.
Trump deliberately withheld making any comments or statements telling his supporters to stop. He wanted it to continue. That’s conduct unbecoming a president and a direct violation of his oath of office.
Multiple audits and forensic audits have proven his claims to be false.
It’s only a matter of time before the documentation sought by the Jan 6 committee from the archives is released and new evidence surfaces.
It’s strange that Turley is wondering why it’s taking so long despite the fact that Turley himself has advised to not rush such inquiries.
“Just because Trump didn’t directly call for violence or send his mob to the Capitol to disrupt the certification of the election doesn’t mean he didn’t have that idea in mind.”
***********************************
Thought police much?
Trump told his useful idiots to march to the capital.
And as the article above notes to peacefully call for change. Thought you’d applaud that, Fishy.
“. . . they mean ALL of it . . .”
“ALL” = whatever satisfies their desires
Do people really believe that those politicians are objective seekers of the truth? Or are they just hoping that others believe it?
Svelaz rhetoric is from a guy who seldom gets anything right. We just proved that he got the NY memorandum wrong as to who gets prioritized for the antivirals and he similarly got everything wrong about approvals for the vaccines. He is batting zero and keeps on providing junk, ignorance ,lies and stupidity. He does the same in his present posting.
Along with being an inaccurate reporter of information he is also a lousy mind reader. “he didn’t have that idea in mind.” The guy is crazy.
S Meyer,
“ Svelaz rhetoric is from a guy who seldom gets anything right. We just proved that he got the NY memorandum wrong as to who gets prioritized for the antivirals and he similarly got everything wrong about approvals for the vaccines.”
Wow, resorting to outright lying S. Meyer? Not surprised.
You didn’t prove anything. I’m fact it was you who was proven wrong. You claimed the vaccines were not fully approved and you were given direct proof as per your own request that your claim was not true. Even you conceded you were proven wrong. In that same post you went on an irrelevant rant trying deflect from your own admission that your claim was wrong.
Nobody, including you was able to provide proof that the ACTUAL document outlining prioritization emphasized treatments be administered only to non-whites. You’re massive liar S. Meyer.
Svelaz, you are an idiot. I provided you with the exact words from both sets of documents. The wording was clear but you can’t read and are ignorant. Go ahead and take the parts of the document I showed you and demonstrate why one shouldn’t call you stupid or a liar. You are also a waste of time.
Take not how you don’t use quotes. You can’t because you are a liar.
Here is one quote from the FDA that says the same thing I said and you rejected.
“The products are legally distinct with certain differences …”
ONE CANNOT TRUST SVELAZ. HE LIES CONTINUOUSLY EVEN AFTER ABSOLUTE PROOF IS PROVIDED.
Sam, they are following Turley’s own advice. By now it is pretty well known Trump supporters will declare that every single detail hasn’t been investigated and therefore the committee’s findings are invalid. Remember Trump’s own supporters are demanding every single possible clue or discrepancy in the election MUST be investigated to ensure it was indeed a valid election. In order for Trump to be fully validated that he did not incite or support the attempted coup or insurrection ALL evidence must be investigated. Turley himself has promoted that kind of scrutiny as tantamount before considering any potential charges.
6 committee is taking its time to gather all the evidence and they mean ALL of it before deciding whether any charges would apply.
Novel concept considering congress is limited by the constitution, and cannot conduct criminal investigation. But you did expose the lie that they are just persuing facts in support of their rule making power.
Iowan2,
“ Novel concept considering congress is limited by the constitution, and cannot conduct criminal investigation. But you did expose the lie that they are just persuing facts in support of their rule making power.”
The constitution doesn’t limit congress from investigation at all. Congress has the authority to investigate anything. Nothing prohibits congress from gathering evidence that can later be turned over to the DOJ. Congress has the power to subpoena documents, video or witnesses. Any evidence that can be chargeable will be handed over to law enforcement, FBI, DOJ, ATF, etc. which ever would have authority to prosecute depending on the charges.
“The constitution doesn’t limit congress from investigation at all. Congress has the authority to investigate anything.”
Once again, this pinhead, who has been wrong on almost every post, makes another stupid statement. The Constitution delineates what the branches of government can do, not what they cannot do. To make it understandable to the low IQ person at the other end of this reply, the Constitution might not say anything about its members torturing Svelaz, but that doesn’t mean they can do it.
Congress was not given authority to investigate by the Constitution. The courts found that to legislate, Congress needed the ability to investigate. However, that power is to investigate for legislative reasons. Congress cannot legally investigate everything.
Svelaz, you can’t stop spouting your ignorance. Just the other day, it was proven that BioTechN was legally different than Comirnaty with a quote from the FDA, but that didn’t stop you from spouting your nonsense and accusing others of lying or making mistakes. Nor did copying the NY regulation, proving you wrong about racial preferences to qualify for the oral antivirals. Every time you open your mouth, there is a falsehood.
SVELAZ CANNOT BE TRUSTED FOR ANYTHING.
Professor Turley: I think you have forgotten the wisdom of the old saw, that “all good things come to those who stand and wait”. The Select Committee is revealing evidence every day of former President Trump’s initiation of and criminal participation in the conspiracy to overturn the results of thr 2020 election. Wait, Sir, and the indictment of the ex-President will come about. I have no doubt, knowing the flexibility of your character, that no matter what the evidence shows, you will say indicting a former President is unwise even though his actions nearly overturned 24” years of our democracy. You used to be a man I admired. Sadly, you have become a right of center crank, worried about Hunter Biden’s laptop and Ashley Biden’s diary, concerns you never showed about the GOP’s use of Hillary Clinton’s emails to win the 2016 elections.
(I think the good professor’s staff.need to correct what appears to be error near the bottom of Paragraph 5, which says,”Trump further claimed strong cases..” I think it is supposed to read, “TRIBE further declared…” Other than that, the professor, as usual, is right on…
Image appears to be everything in this age. Facts may be stubborn, but they are easily ignored. Passion and rage are pushed over law and facts. I fear for the Republic
It is clear that your education and understanding is based on media reporting, and by the way, it is ” losing,” not “loosing.” I don’t want to be rude, but you are setting yourself up for this…
Professor Turley, for all your words about how bad this was, you are a Trump sycophant. Trump also said he would walk down to the capitol with them. As President he is responsible for his words. He is the person sworn to protect the Constitution, He did not. He tried to stay in power after loosing the election. He should be prosecuted in an attempt to overthrow the lawful election. His call to Georgia to find 12000 votes was an attempt at coercion to overturn the election. Those that support Trump will find he fails at everything he does. How did the Georgia Senate election turn out in early 2021? Trump supported 2 Repos, both lost. Had Trump not supported them, they very likely would have won. So go ahead Repos, support your baby trump and see where that gets you.
Applesauce
Unfortunately you are a baby so you neither know nor understand what you are talking about. Try quoting statements by Trump. Try getting your facts straight. We have enough intellectual babies in the WH today. We don’t need you to add to them.
“His call to Georgia . . .”
Speaking of voter fraud in Georgia:
“Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger . . . revealed Tuesday there is an active investigation into credible ballot harvesting [which is illegal in GA] allegations in the state.”
https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/georgia-official-who-bucked-trump-confirms-active-investigation-into-ballot-harvesting
“’We didn’t get the information until November. So it’s really almost a year after the election. I don’t know why the people were holding on to it. Why didn’t they bring it to us right away so we could have done an investigation immediately?’ said Raffensperger.”
I said a year ago that such fraud investigations take time, that they are not like an episode of “Law & Order” — especially when the miscreants have so much to lose.
They have Trump on audio tape.
“They have Trump on audio tape.”
You sound so childish, “They have Trump on audio tape.”. Almost everyone alive has been on audio tape, so what you say has no meaning. Do you not understand that an adult would quote Trump’s words in context and explain the point they are trying to make. Children have difficulty doing that because they they haven’t learned enough to do better.
It’s not credible until it’s proven to be credible and that requires an investigation. So it’s currently not credible until it is proven with 100% certainty. Otherwise it’s just pure hearsay.
“Otherwise it’s just pure hearsay.”
Apparently, you have not read the facts of the ballot-harvesting investigation in Georgia. Either that, or you do not understand the meaning of “hearsay.”
You must be talking about all the ballot fraud in 2020. All the evidence that never made it to court, What was it 60 cases lost? 61? I lost count. Perhaps you are in possession of the evidence? Why was the evidence never brought to a court?
“You must be talking about all the ballot fraud in 2020.”
I am referring to the *current* ballot-harvesting investigation being conducted by the GA Secretary of State. Learn how to read.
“The House is still trying to generate new evidence not found by the Justice Department.”
Bread and circuses.
That kangaroo committee and the Covid theater are the circuses.
To distract attention away from what? — Failed democratic policies: rampant inflation, a plummeting standard of living, shortages everywhere, Covid debacles, Afghanistan folly, saber-rattling in China, poll numbers barely north of freezing — and a democratic party being consumed by the Squad’s fascism and socialism.
Anon You Dems been trying.to remove DT since he became Rep candidate. From Russia collision, Tax Returns, fraudulent Financial Reports, then Jan 6, 2021. Now barring any big health issues, DT will run, be elected In 2024. Problem is; will there be any remnants of the US Constitution remaining then? Many arses will be really chapped,
“[Trump] is not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop.”
If he is, then scores of democratic mayors and governors are in for a perp walk.
Do these people really want to set this precedent?
Or do they expect this precedent yo not apply to their people?
Today’s Democrats cannot run the nation. They need to distract the public from their failed policies. It appears yelling the word ‘Trump’ is all they have in their arsenal.
Trump’s words need to be repeated continuously: “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
That is not violence but protest against authoritarian Democrat leaders.
“ Trump’s words need to be repeated continuously: “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
But Trump’s supporters didn’t do that and Trump did nothing to stop it except offer a feeble statement to “go home”.
Trump wanted it to happen. He literally asked Mike pence to do declare votes invalid without any constitutional justification. Already multiple Republican led forensic audits have shown Trump has been lying all along.
Trump was far from the Capitol, where the FBI and leftists were also urging agitation and pushing open gates while Trump was still speaking. The ultimate fault for the breaching of the Capitol likely lies at Pelosi’s feet, so we need to investigate what she required of the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol police. We need to know all, including emails, telephone discussions and staff discussions. Then we have to work our way down to every individual involved and every recording, including those that have not been released. We need full disclosure from the FBI, including depositions. People like Epps need to be wholly explained, including his prior activities. He needs to be placed under oath. We need to know why his name was removed from the FBI wanted list and who removed it. He has been identified, but we hear nothing. We have to reinterview the person that killed Babbit by a non-partisan along with the police officers that beat the woman in the western tunnel.
Everything needs to be released to the public. Then we have to assess how the rule of law has been managed in the Jan 6 incident and when federal facilities were attacked during the summer. We need to know who was involved in those incidents and what punishments were meted out.
The people are looking for a consistent standard of justice along with transparency. You recognize that politics was involved with the investigations, so you want to hide the details and forget about a consistent standard of justice. I want the opposite. Both sides treated equally with transparency.
You are a fascist.
Trump did nothing to stop it except offer a feeble statement to “go home”.
If feeble statements are a crime, Joe and Kamala are going spend the rest of their life behind bars.
“Trump did nothing to stop it” seems to be the phrase of the moment. But despite what the Dems and Cheney claim, he did attempt to both prevent and stop violence — both before Jan. 6th when he requested that 10,000 National Guard be sent to the Capitol (which was rejected) and after the violence broke out. Cheney claimed that “for 187 minutes, President Trump refused to act.” But, as the Wash. Examiner clarified, “The 187 minutes, which Cheney refers to frequently, is apparently the three hours and seven minutes between the portion of Trump’s speech in which he called for his supporters to “peacefully” protest at the Capitol and the 4:17 p.m. video telling them to leave. During that period, contrary to Cheney’s assertion, Trump tweeted twice — once, at 2:38 p.m., saying, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” and then, at 3:13 p.m., saying, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order — respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” Finally, at 4:17 p.m., Trump posted a video telling the rioters, “You have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order.”
“10,000 National Guard”
Actually, it was 10,000-20,000 National Guard troops.
But other than approving a massive increase in law enforcement at the Capitol Building, Trump really did nothing to quell the violence. (/sarc)
And, really, in spite of *refusing to approve the use of the National Guard, Pelosi is just heartbroken about the violence. (/sarc)
“. . . Trump did nothing to stop it . . .”
You mean other then to approve multiple times, *before* Jan. 6, the deployment of the National Guard? That deployment that was denied, multiple times, by both Pelosi and Bowser. Now why did they do that?
The left realizes that a continued assault on the right whilst their “build back batter” debacle crmbles around their feet will only push more republican/ independents to the polls in 2022 to stand against them. They want to silently allow their puppet media to sell their disasterous plan via the usual media subterfuge.
As an Independent (not a Trump supporter), at this point, I would be more likely to stay at home than vote for Biden.
I hope Trump does not run in 2024, as I do not think it would be good for the country. Although if he did and won the popular vote and the electoral college, watching the Dems meltdown would be amusing.
If DeSantis were to be the GOP candidate, I would vote for him.
Upstate says:
“Although if he did and won the popular vote and the electoral college, watching the Dems meltdown would be amusing.”
Well, if you are that mean-spirited, I would find it amusing to watch lying Trumpists meltdown if Trump is perp walked.
He’s a Trump! He’s a Trump.
He’s a Trump all the way.
His dad was a klansman to his last dying day.
If you vote for the Donald you vote for a snake.
Go back to your doctor and get pills for your brain!
Easily the dumbest thing I’ve read on this site. Congratulations Brandon.
“He’s a Trump! He’s a Trump.
He’s a Trump all the way.
His dad was a klansman to his last dying day.
If you vote for the Donald you vote for a snake.
Go back to your doctor and get pills for your brain!”
A snake, a snake, what rhymes with snake?
Poor Anonymous’ brain, knows not real or fake.
A snake, a snake, what rhymes with snake?
Poor Anonymous’ brain, sharp as a figgy pie put to bake.
A snake, a snake, what rhymes with snake?
Poor Anonymous’ brain is as dangerous as a garden rake.
A snake, a snake, what rhymes with snake?
Poor Anonymous’ brain is sadly rotting at the bottom of a lake.
A snake, a snake, what rhymes with snake?
Poor Anonymous’ brain, knowledge’s thirst it will not slake.
Poor Anonymous, he has trouble with the rhyme,
For Trump lives in his head most of the time,
It’s a shame Poor Anonymous can’t kick the Trump habit,
He will be roasted on Turley’s site like a tasty bunny rabbit,
Poor Anonymous, please keep posting and coming back,
Your logic and words have the force of a wet paper sack.