In the day long events commemorating January 6th, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a telling statement to her fellow members and the public at large. Pelosi declared “It is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6th.” Part of that narrative is that this was not a riot but an “insurrection,” an actual “rebellion” against our country. Pelosi’s concern over the viability of that narrative is well-based as shown by a recent CBS News poll. The majority of the public does not believe that this was an “insurrection” despite the mantra-like repetition of members of Congress and the media. The public saw that terrible day unfold a year ago and saw it for what it was: a protest that became a riot. (For full disclosure, I previously worked as a legal analyst for CBS News).
Not surprisingly, the poll received little comparative coverage on a day when reporters and commentators spoke of “the insurrection” as an undeniable fact. Yet, when CBS asked Americans, they received an answer that likely did not please many. Indeed, CBS did not highlight the answer to the question of whether the day was really a “protest that went too far.” The answer was overwhelming and nonpartisan. Some 76% believe that this was a protest that went too far.
That, however, was not one of the four options to the matinee question featured by CBS. It did not allow the public to call this a riot when it asked them to describe “What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021?” Why? There was the ever present “insurrection” and “trying to overthrow government.” However, the other two options were “patriotism” or “defending freedom.” That is perfectly bizarre. The most obvious alternatives to an actual rebellion in a violent clash would be a protest or a riot. However, the public was simply not given those options.
The result was predictable. Some 85% of Democrats dutifully checked “an insurrection” or “trying to overthrow government” while only 21% and 18% of Republicans agreed respectively. For those who did not see the riot as an act of patriotism or defending freedom, they were simply left without a choice.
The poll perfectly captured the state of our media. There is no choice. Using the term insurrection is now a litmus test. In the age of rage, one’s legitimacy is based on your volume and fury. After the attack, I wrote that this was not an insurrection, but it was a desecration of our constitutional process. When I have used “riot” in columns, I have received a torrent of emails objecting to the characterization as proof of being an apologist or “Trumper.”
Yet, “insurrection” and “sedition” are legal terms. They have a meaning. The FBI investigated thousands after January 6th and charged hundreds. Not one is charged with insurrection or sedition or conspiracy to overthrow the country. The vast majority are charged with relatively minor offenses of trespass or unlawful entry or property damage- the type of charges that are common in protests and riots.
None of that takes away from the disgraceful conduct of these people or the legitimacy of their prosecution. It is simply not an insurrection. This was a protest fueled by reckless rhetoric that was allowed to become a full riot by a shocking lack of security preparations by the Capitol police and the District of Columbia. A large national guard deployment was rejected and critical intelligence not shared by officials planning for the long-planned protests. Again, the fault still remains with the rioters themselves but this would have remained a protest if Congress had taken obvious steps of fencing and guard deployments. Indeed, those measures were used previously in Lafayette Park when the White House security was almost breached by rioters.
Yet, there remains a determined effort to keep the “insurrection” narrative “preserved.” The New York Times recently declared “Every Day is Now Jan. 6.” This is not simply important for political purposes. Democratic members and groups are again calling for members (and Trump himself) to be disqualified from running for future offices under the 14th Amendment. The “disqualification clause” was created for actual rebels who attempted to overthrow the government in the Civil War. Self-described “pro-democracy” advocates like Marc Elias believe that nothing says democracy like barring people from voting for the candidates of their choice.
If January 6th was an insurrection, then members challenging the electoral votes were little more than Confederate rebels. As with villages in Vietnam, it seems that democracy will be saved by destroying it.
The problem is that the public is not buying it. Even when the public is not given the choice by CBS of calling this a riot rather than an insurrection, the truth emerges like water finding a way out. The poll also shows the limits of not just Speaker Pelosi but the mainstream media in preserving such narratives. Despite the endless drumbeat of coverage referring to the day as an “insurrection,” the media cannot get the public to ignore what they witnessed — any more than getting viewers to accept reporting on largely “peaceful” protests with images of burning buildings in the background. When the media was instructed to call the violent riots of prior summers “protests,” the effort to “preserve the narrative” failed with almost comical results. This is why the “Let’s Go Brandon” movement is as much a criticism of the media as it is the President.
The failure to “preserve the narrative” is due to the fact that media is now locked into echo chambers of their own making. We have seen the rise of advocacy journalism where the narrative, not the news, controls the reporting. As Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser explained “journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
The media, however, has become less and less relevant to public opinion. Despite the censorship of social media companies and the support of a legion of willing academics and experts, the coverage is largely self-contained. Most networks and newspapers have effectively written off half of the country. They are singing to the choir. That is reflected in the CBS poll. The public was given the same options that viewers are given every night on network and cable programs: either call this an insurrection or join the Proud Boys and call it an act of patriotism.
The disconnect is dangerous. The effort to disqualify Trump or Republican incumbents is unlikely to succeed. That will not diminish the damage. Indeed, it will only further fuel the anger and, yes, the potential for violence on both sides. Despite the CBS poll, there is a choice for the public. It can still reach its own conclusions . . . increasingly without the help of the media.
@”Anonymous” re “2023 Hell is coming” – there is an election in 2022 and one in 2024. To WTF does your cryptic “2023” comment refer?
“[T]here remains a determined effort to keep the ‘insurrection’ narrative ‘preserved.’”
Why?
Because fascists need a Reichstag fire. (But it’s only an ember? No problem. You “narrate” a conflagration.)
You use your political opponents as kindling. And, then, out of the ashes arises the realization of your dream: total control.
Does the Democratic Party have a future?
As long as there are people who believe they should get money for not working.
As long as there are people who profit from being labeled as victims.
As long as there are people who prefer anarchy, throw Molotov cocktails, burn down cities, kill innocent citizens and destroy minority owned businesses so that Kamala Harris promote groups fund their bailout money.
As long as there are politicians who can win by telling people that nothing is their responsibility or fault.
As long as there are rich people who can pretend they care for the poor while being able to buy their distance from them.
As long as we have universities that enforce ideological conformity with left wing ideas.
As long as there is a media that lacks journalistic integrity.
Unfortunately, the future looks very bright for the Democratic Party.
@enemainblack re: Turley “advocacy journalism” – First, Turley openlytcharacterizes his essays as editorial opinion, unlike the MSM, he isn’t disingenuously presenting biased opinions as reports of oibjective facts. Second, I read those essays to which I believe you refer, and nearly the entire content is established, verifiable fact as seen through the lens of laws and legal precedent, vastly unlike the lies and distortions of the MSM. Mischaracterize and spin much?
He is an angry, miserable man, and it shows. He already has the worst life possible; misery likes company
Grima,
Turley is criticizing “the media” as a whole. He does not use the term “MSM.” He is not excluding his own network Fox News, or Newsmax or One America Network.
Turley belittles “advocacy journalism” without recognizing he is the king of advocacy journalism. He tells you what is sedition and what is not. He tells you what the FBI findings are long before the investigation is over. He assures you none of you are racist and voter suppression doesn’t exist. He’s appalled at alleged attempts by Democrats to stack the Supreme Court but has apparently never heard of Mitch McConnell. Turley helps make the worst of you feel better about yourselves.
Enigma: “Turley helps make the worst of you feel better about yourselves.”
+++
That must be why I feel better about myself.
You may not have needed much help!
I think I will need to do a flow chart to figure out your post. Do you think you are one of “the worst”? Or everyone who agrees with him is one of “the worst”? If just you, well I feel bad for you.
Those of us that have been around awhile know that Enigma is an idiot. He never says anything salient, ever, he only chimes in on posts such as these, he is not a regular follower, and it could even be that he is a paid troll. He may not even be the guy pictured in the avatar.
enigmainblackcom: Learn the difference between “journalism” and “blogging.” If you had a clue, you wouldn’t make such stupid comments. And Turley isn’t “telling us” what is or isn’t sedition. The word has a distinct legal definition — similar to the distinctions between first, second and third degree murder. That’s how the law operates. As for the FBI, their investigation showed no evidence of an organized “insurrection” or plot to overthrow the government. And, finally, requiring voter ID is not “voter suppression.”
Oh, it is so wonderful to see very intelligent people like you post here. And it’s a bonus when I agree of course. Nice work giocon1! In one paragraph you blew away the blogger’s main arguments and really showed his ignorance on simple, basic definitions.
Giocon
Now you Trumpists believe the word of the FBI? I kinda recall that you liars believed the FBI was part of the Deep State! Get your lies straight, will you?
No, I don’t believe a thing the FBI says but I can tell the difference between a riot and an insurrection.
If you find it difficult, let me help:
1/6/21 US capitol: Riot
1/6/22 Kazakhstan: Insurrection
I agree that 1/6 was not an insurrection, but I reject the conspiracy theory of the Deep State.
Turley is “the king of advocacy journalism.”
Apparently, you do not understand the difference between the front page and the editorial page of a newspaper. Which is unsurprising, since many newspapers don’t grasp that distinction.
So you’re saying he does it but it doesn’t count somehow because he only does it on multiple television networks and newspapers (plus his blog that had 55 million views last year? Find me the definition of journalist that doesn’t include Turley.
jour·nal·ist
/ˈjərn(ə)ləst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.
Journalist Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Websterhttps://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › journa…
The meaning of JOURNALIST is a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium.
JOURNALIST | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionaryhttps://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › journalist
journalist meaning: 1. a person who writes news stories or articles for a newspaper or magazine or broadcasts them on…. Learn more.
journalism | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannicahttps://www.britannica.com › Literature › Journalism
Journalism, the collection, preparation, and distribution of news and related commentary and features through such print and electronic media as newspapers, …
Journalist definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionaryhttps://www.collinsdictionary.com › dictionary › journa…
A journalist is a person whose job is to collect news, and write about it in newspapers or magazines or talk about it on television or radio.
Journalist
A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worthy form and disseminates it to the public. The act or process mainly done by the journalist is called journalism.
“a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.”
Enigma, in a way that makes all of us journalists as we write for a website. What we write can be read and copied. It’s an OK definition, but it generalizes to such an extent that you can misuse its meaning as you do with the word racist and other words.
Yes, your generalizations place Truly as a journalist, but that doesn’t describe what he does. However, that generalization permits you a deceptive and low way of attack [“Turley belittles “advocacy journalism” without recognizing he is the king of advocacy journalism.”]
Turley is a legal analyst exceptionally familiar with the law enabling him to add legal context to things being said. His affinity is to the law rather than his ideology. He certainly isn’t the king of advocacy journalism. Only a person engaging in smear tactics would gamble his reputation saying such a thing.
I’m willing to stipulate that you writing here don’t qualify as a journalist. Turley is indeed an expert in his field, he is also a lawyer and well-practiced into arguing a particular point of view which he often but not always does. I learn a lot about the law from Turley, I also recognize when he purposely misrepresents the facts which he dopes as well.
I am glad, Enigma, that you see my point. I am not a journalist, and though you publish in a blog, I don’t consider you a journalist either. However, that is not the point. You used the word journalist to impugn the integrity of another unfairly.
You said: “Turley belittles “advocacy journalism” without recognizing he is the king of advocacy journalism.”
Then you continue with your proof.
“He tells you what is sedition and what is not.”
He is an expert, and that is his expert opinion.
“He tells you what the FBI findings are long before the investigation is over.”
He discusses what the FBI is said to have found. However, Turley doesn’t conclude prematurely before all the evidence is in. He might comment on potential findings, but he leaves the door open.
“He assures you none of you are racist”
He doesn’t say that but treats the group as a non-racist group. A moderator should do that when he is not actively involved in responding. We have or had some racists here, but they are from both the left and the right, while most are not racists. Sometimes you sound like a racist, which is peculiar based on your icon. That is, unfortunately, the way things are. Many of us would like to correct the problems created by the government. Some of the things the government has done don’t help black people, which I believe is your particular interest. I have brought up things to benefit blacks in the public school systems, and you show no interest. My family has faced racism far worse than you have, even those in my generation, but you don’t seem able to attack racism at its core. You are focused only on the benefits, not the responsibilities.
“and voter suppression doesn’t exist.”
Almost all worry about voter suppression, and many have provided ways of preventing it, not just for blacks but for others as well. You do remember the actions of the New Black Panthers at the voting booths. That was outright voter suppression.
We don’t want voter suppression. We want one person to get his fair value for his vote. Therefore, we want one vote for one registered American citizen with a process that makes registration and voting reasonably accessible to all. You support policies that might not be called voter suppression. Still, you violate the one vote per person since you choose all sorts of voting methods to dilute the vote of each American citizen, whether black, white, Asian or other.
He’s appalled at alleged attempts by Democrats to stack the Supreme Court but has apparently never heard of Mitch McConnell. Turley helps make the worst of you feel better about yourselves.
Turley places the law in front of all of us to better understand it and deal with the law rather than our emotions. You seem to have lost the ability to put your feelings aside and deal with the law.
I don’t consider anything I write here or even on my blog, journalism. However, I do sometimes write for newspapers and magazines, digital and print. I have done interviews on radio shows and podcasts. Sometimes, I do act as a journalist. I’m not sure you ever do. Every time you say I agree with you, you’re likely wrong.
Sam,
Turley’s whole point is that there is no difference between journalism and editorial any longer. This sad state of affairs was accelerated by Trump’s lying. It used to be that reporters NEVER would call out a politician for lying, but then no one lied as brazenly as Trump. Trump took advantage of this inhibition of reporters to call out his lies, but there were so many blatant ones that journalists could not in good conscience repeat them to their audience without noting that they were false. Look what happened to Fox for hosting Trump’s lawyers who lied that the election was stolen- it is being sued for billions for defamation (but you would not know it because Turley buried the news in another article months ago and has not mentioned it since). Calling out lies makes journalists advocates, but they have a responsibility not to spread lies.
I agree with Turley that the networks each craft their own ( often false) narratives. I agree that 1/6 was not an insurrection. I also agree with Turley calling Trump a “carnival snake charmer” and an “absurd reality television star.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/
“This sad state of affairs was accelerated by” the NYT, decades ago. (The euphemism they used to blur that distinction was “news analysis.”)
Sam,
I have a far more confidence in the NYT than Fox News. Here is a recent NYT article criticizing Fox and the far Right news:
“The Next Big Lies: Jan. 6 Was No Big Deal, or a Left-Wing Plot”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/us/politics/jan-6-lies.html
Now one can reflexively dismiss this article as “fake news,” as Trumpists will, but I don’t.
If you read Darren Smith’s excellent article he posted today, it will explain the great divide in this country- it is ignorance and stupidity (differing levels). I am inclined to blame religion for inducing people to be more ignorant because of its reliance upon “blind faith” as opposed to “reason and evidence.”
Unfortunately, Darren did not explain how society can make stupid people less so. One would suppose higher education, but stupid people distrust colleges and universities as bastions of liberal propaganda and group think. It is much easier to identify a problem than to propose solutions to it.
I did read an article recently which reminded me of something which most of us can relate to, that is, one cannot persuade an adversary that they are being stupid; in order to be enlightened, the stupid must come to that realization themselves in order to wise up.
The solution can only be “thinking* long and hard which we are disinclined to do on our own where so many influential talkers and writers are telling us what to think or how not to think, i.e., “fake news.” Fake news does exist, but one ought never to take another’s word on it; instead, one must think about it themselves before coming to that final determination.
Turley belittles “advocacy journalism” without recognizing he is the king of advocacy journalism.
You may feel that, but he’s actual a well-respected advocate for constitutional law. Since sedition and insurrection are legal terms, and since no person has been charged with sedition and/or insurrection, then our constitutional scholar host is on a solid foundation to define the January 6th event for what it was not, either an act of sedition or insurrection. He’s clearly maintaining a constitutional narrative, in contrast to the hyperventilated and fictitious narrative being pumped out by the Democrats through their advocacy journalists.
No person has been charged. . . yet! Now I’m not hopeful that the current Attorney General has the stones to charge Trump with sedition or insurrection but somebody will get caught holding the bag for trying to stop Congress from certifying the results of the election. His narrative has been to tell you that since nobody has been charged yet, it didn’t happen. I almost pity the fools that were led to believe they were being patriots when fools is the more appropriate title.
His narrative has been to tell you that since nobody has been charged yet, it didn’t happen.
His “narrative” has been and remains rooted in the law. He has a legal opinion on whether the January 6th events rise to the level of insurrection, sedition or treason. If and when someone is charged for those crimes, then I’m certain JT will provide his opinion on the merits of the facts and evidence presented. Even then, no one fits your ilk’s narrative that they are insurrections, seditionists or traitors, until they are convicted in a court of law.
If/when any of those convictions occur. I have no doubt they will be ignored. I’m not even saying Turley is wrong to advocate a particular point of view though I do find fault when he misrepresents the facts. It’s dissing advocacy journalism when he engages in it that is ,my complaint.
I have no doubt they will be ignored.
Your feelings are noted.
It’s dissing advocacy journalism when he engages in it that is ,my complaint.
I must have missed what you consider JT’S advocacy journalism. Perhaps I got sidetracked by all your other words, that according to you, have nothing to do with your complaint.
Please restate it for clarity.
It seems Turley rewrote a Fox News article trying to tear apart the CBS poll and tell us what it really said.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-poll-jan-6
Reading Turley you get the impression the majority of Americans didn’t think it was an insurrection when 85% of the Democrats did and 21% of Republicans did. Turley consistently downplays the events including stating the FBI concluded there was no insurrection when the Attorney General clearly said the investigation isn’t over. This is just one subject but I wanted to keep it simple.
Turley consistently downplays the events including stating the FBI concluded there was no insurrection when the Attorney General clearly said the investigation isn’t over.
I would be a wealthy man if I was paid for responding to someone’s feelings.
I put very little stock in polls. They tend to reflect a perception of truth, not necessarily the truth.
I’m not clear how citing the FBI’s conclusion proves Turley is downplaying the event. It’s their conclusion, not Turley’s. If Garland claims the investigation isn’t over, he is certainly hinting a political investigation might yet uncover something his world renowned FBI could not.
The FBI never said there was no sedition or insurrection. They did say there was scant evidence at that point in the investigation but they hadn’t and haven’t to my knowledge even interviewed those most likely to have headed it up. Investigations of this sort are built from the bottom up. There are plenty of statements from people like Turley saying the FBI cleared Trump et. al. The FBI has said nothing like that. I don’t know how closely if at all you are following the House investigation into January 6th but a whole lot of people are going to great lengths not to testify.
Enigma, with such high numbers being arrested and cameras all over the place, it is hard to call anything an insurrection if none of the charges against individuals mention insurrection.
Probably due to a fear of the political blowback. Some of the defendants have been charged with conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding which is a nicer way to say the same thing.
“Probably due to a fear of the political blowback. Some of the defendants have been charged with conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding which is a nicer way to say the same thing.”
Enigma, I guess that means the Democrats occupying the House ere insurrectionists as well. How about those Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearing or those leftists that tried to burn a federal courthouse down?
You need to start thinking for yourself.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/oath-keeper-capitol-riot-graydon-young/index.html
Enigma, no one doubts that a few people there were crazy and belong in jail, but conspiracy is not the same as insurrection. One man’s desire for an insurrection is not the same as an insurrection. However, if you look a little deeper, you will find an FBI connection to the Oath Keepers, Jan 6 and the kidnapping attempt of Governor Whitmer. All involved FBI operatives pushing crazy people to act crazily.
You need to read the article below and its companion article. You might not believe the words, but the actual videos cannot be denied. We need a real investigation of Jan 6, not the phony one going on right now. You are smart enough to get a better understanding of what was going on if only you put in some time and put your biases away.
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
I meant to attach this but feel free to prove differently.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9920241957
Enigma, you have affirmed that you are highly influenced by push polling.
Olly says:
“Since sedition and insurrection are legal terms, and since no person has been charged with sedition and/or insurrection, then our constitutional scholar host is on a solid foundation to define the January 6th event for what it was not, either an act of sedition or insurrection.”
What, pray tell, would Professor Turley have to say about Trump’s use of the word “insurrection,” for Trump stated:
“The Unselect Committee of partisan Democrats, and two very weak and pathetic RINOs, should come to the conclusion after spending many millions of dollars, that the real insurrection happened on November 3rd, the Presidential Election, not on January 6th—which was a day of protesting the Fake Election results.”
I have agreed that 1/6 was not an insurrection, but, rather, a “desecration” as described by Turley, a characterization which you have never expressed your approval or disapproval. However, neither one of you have called out Trump’s mischaracterization of 11/3 as an “insurrection.”
Will you dare criticize Trump’s calling 11/3 the “real insurrection” at the risk of being labeled a RINO by the hard-core Trumpists here? Or will you simply ignore Trump’s statement as does Turley?
Enigma,
We’ve established that “Fox News Turley” is a hypocrite. Sad, but true.
🤣 and yet you just claimed Turley’s criticism of advocacy journalism includes FoxNews. You should really come to terms with your passive/aggressive opinion of JT. It’s borderline schizophrenic.
Let me draw you a picture since you are struggling to see it the distinction. It’s a bit subtle so please pay attention.
If Turley meant to exclude Fox News, Newsmax, OAN and Infowars, he would use the term “MSM” so that there would be no misunderstanding to which networks he is referring. He knows it would be laughable to deny advocacy journalism at the Radical Rightwing networks. However, his hypocrisy lies in the fact that Turley NEVER manages to expressly point out any faults at Fox News. Except for one time Turley criticized Hannity for attending a Trump rally, I defy you or anyone to find another instance where Turley called out his employer for any criticism. That my friend is hypocrisy because Fox is no better than the MSM.
While Turley does not exclude Fox from his general criticism of the media, he dare not actually single out Fox if he wants to keep his job.
Right. Because JT is afraid of FoxNews? The same JT mind you that has testified before Congress in opposition to their snap impeachments? The same JT that has defied all the weaponized agencies involved in the Russiagate hoax? And yet his profile in courage stops at the doors of FoxNews.
🤔 Nope.
Olly,
He stands to lose several hundred thousand dollars if he is canned by Fox. Moreover, he wants to promote the book I understand he is writing on Fox. I understand that Turley is fearless of rhetorical pushback, but he may need money.
So now you allege JT is nothing more than a presstitute.
Your poor judge of character explains a lot about your allegiances.
That the Trumpists here believe that Turley is one of them would come as an insult to Turley. Turley has no respect for Trump. Turley’s opinion of Trump is on the record-
“NewsMax CEO Christopher Ruddy’s cynical and sensational selection of Donald Trump to moderate the next presidential debate has backfired. Ruddy united conservative and liberal commentators and candidates in denouncing him and NewsMax for the obscene idea — with Ron Paul and Jon Hunstman leading the way in immediately refusing to participate in such a circus. Perry, and Romney were the next (rather belatedly) to refuse to participate. Bachmann has now also declined to participate on a program with look of The Apprentice and the dignity of the Jersey Wives. That leaves Santorum and Gingrich who have confirmed that they will appear with a carnival snake charmer to get on TV.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/
I contend that Turley is a “Never Trumper,” greater praise, I cannot bestow.
I contend that Turley is a “Never Trumper,” greater praise, I cannot bestow.
Sure. That’s merely one of several competing allegations you’ve made about Jonathan Turley. We’ll see which way the wind blows for you tomorrow.
Turley is a complicated man. He used to viciously ridicule Hannity:
https://jonathanturley.org/2009/08/22/palin-hannity-in-2012-a-dnc-fantasy-moves-closer-to-reality/
Now, he would not dare do so, would he?Turley is compromised. He is not free to speak his mind. He is undeniably biased in favor of Fox. Which is why he must reveal his employment status whenever he writes about any topic that bears on Fox so that his readers may discount what he has to say.
Unfortunately, Turley has burned his bridges with the elite crowd and will soon lose the affection of the Trump crowd as well *if* Trump is ever prosecuted because he will not join the Trumpist calls of “witch-hunt,” and his silence in condemning the prosecutors will enrage his Trumpist followers.
I have repeated this prediction many times. Now, it is just a matter if I will be proven right.
I have repeated this prediction many times.
🤔 Despite putting down a marker on every imaginable position, you’ve yet to be proven correct. At this point, I have more respect for Natacha than you. At least she’s committed to her opinions. You should just be committed, at least until a therapist can get you down to one personality.
Olly,
I hope you are not offended when I tell you that gaining your respect is not high on my list. Not surprisingly, you would rather belittle me than to react to the evidence of how Turley is whistling a different tune about Fox and Trump than he did when he was not on Fox’s payroll. Turley is no exception to the general rule that money makes people say and do things which they shouldn’t. However, if didn’t think there was some good in the man, I would not waste my time criticizing him.
So many people compromised their principles to benefit from Trump. Now, many are turning their backs on him and acknowledging their mistakes and hoping to be accepted back into mainstream society. You are Trumpist. Good luck to you. You are going to need it. Turley will not last very long at Fox. And I suspect that his employment at Fox will be left off his future CV! Definitely the nadir of his distinguished career.
Turley is no exception to the general rule that money makes people say and do things which they shouldn’t. However, if didn’t think there was some good in the man, I would not waste my time criticizing him.
So in conclusion, your opinion of Jonathan Turley is that he is a redeemable presstitute.
Brilliant!
Bwahahahahaha
I resent CNN and MSNBC hiring Trumpists who jumped ship after 1/6 just because they will criticize Trump. I don’t believe liars should be given a second chance. But as I have said, Turley is not a liar; a hypocrite certainly. When he ever agrees to a public interview, he will be confronted with his turning a blind eye on the rage fomented by his Fox colleagues and the immorality of his profiting from it. I am eager to witness how he will defend his silence in a publicly broadcast interview.
Personally, I would never hire Turley. Appearing on Fox in order to lend credence to its false narratives is unforgivable. Turley’s fate should befall Dershowitz’s: Newsmax.
“Turley’s fate should befall Dershowitz’s: Newsmax.”
Although both are leftists, they are civil libertarians and believe in freedoms of speech and overall civility. You are a desperate partisan, desperate, but you don’t know what for. Every bend you make reveals you know little of anything, which is why you repeatedly repeat the same lines.
You are Svelaz in drag, trying to sound reasonable and social. You skip over facts because you don’t want to reveal you have none.
“That the Trumpists here believe that Turley is one of them would come as an insult to Turley.”
Thank you, Jeff, for helping to emphasize that politically Turley is on the opposite side of the aisle from Trump. So many of your friends on this blog can’t get it through their heads.
Nancy Pelosi stated “It is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6.” My response to Ms. Pelosi is that she needs to have an “epiphany moment” relating to the events of January 6, 2020. The “narrative” includes facts that are convenient and excludes those facts that are not. It has become abundantly clear that reinforcements were woefully inadequate, and that offers of additional reinforcements were rejected. These issues should be fully explored. Surely those individuals who committed crimes should be prosecuted. The narrative, however, is flawed and has not been developed based on all relevant facts. It’s interesting to me that Roman Catholics celebrate January 6 as the Epiphany. Perhaps, after all relevant facts relating to the events of January 6, 2020 have been fully explored, Nancy Pelosi will be able to let go of the flawed and contrived narrative that she so desperately seeks to cling to. Wake up Little Nancy!
” The majority of the public does not believe that this was an “insurrection” despite the mantra-like repetition of members of Congress and the media. ”
Please update your term ” mantra-like repetition of members of ” to the more accurate term ” gaslighting by “. Thank you.
If that gathering of Americans was an insurrection what do call BLM Marxist and ANTIFA? Oh that’s right just an “idea”. Americans Republican, Democrat and Independent alike are finally wising up to what the Democrat party has become. The Republicans better get in gear NOW before they have the midterms taken from them.
Uh, Margot, did any Democrat president or elected official go on tours to encourage people to believe lies, encourage them to “fight like hell” for their country, and promising them “it will be wild”? And, when the Republicans lose the midterms (which they can ONLY “win” by lying, cheating and gerrymandering), this will be consistent with the dwindling lack of support by the American people.
All I can say is, God bless Jonathan Turley. Because he is not a Trump fan and a likely Democrat, his words have gravitas, and this column here is like a nuclear holocaust to the Democrat narrative about J6.
Turley is a Never Trumper. He has no respect for Trump and called him a “carnival snake charmer.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/
Well….ten posts and we see a bunch of drivel.
Professor Turley calls it as he sees it….and has a very keen eye and excellent trigger control which is the key good marksmanship were we using firearms rather than free speech.
His detractors would be called “Bolo’s” in an Army Rifle Range (meaning failed to qualify as a Marksman) as they have failed to use real Ammo in this exchange.
if delaying a vote is insurrection….what then of the Democrat’s 26 Hour Sit-In thing? Was that Insurrection as it violated the House Rules if not Federal Law?
Had the Sergeant-At-Arms used the Capital Police back then to clear the House Chamber of those “protesting” Democrats….would they have faced Criminal Charges?
The Democrats are in a pure panic….they know….know with absolute certainty….they are going to lose control of the House and even might lose the Senate.
That would mean an instant end to their radical agenda, their partisan investigations, and any chance of finding a way to have perpetual control of Congress…..as their so called Voting Rights Act will go right straight down the drain.
Ya’ll on the Left need to start scanning what is going on around you……what you are hyping just ain’t selling.
After a while….Snake Oil is known for exactly what it is.
The American People are far smarter than the Left thinks…..and in November they shall. prove that to the Left.
Trump is no longer the President, the current President is a dementia riddled old Man and the Vice President is a Loon….and the Democrats shall pay the price of that tomfoolery.
Think not….hide and watch!
Ralph,
If Trump is convicted of tax evasion by the New York Feds, do you think Trumpists will riot in the streets?
I feel like I am one of the few who are aware of what happened in Germany in 1933 when the Reichstag was burned. It was an attack even more damaging than the January 6 riot.
The aftermath was the enactment of laws curtailing civil liberties and accruing power unto the central government.
We cannot and must not let history repeat itself.
The riot can be a disgraceful and reprehensible act AND the political advantage being taken of it can simultaneously be a danger to freedom and our republic. Responsible voters need to send these autocrats packing.
In this analogy, the Republicans are the Nazis. Just to clarify.
The insurrectionists on January 6 who attempted to stop the constitutionally mandated transfer of power, just to clarify. And to add, I am a Republican; alternate delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention, voted Trump in 2020. Fighting for the soul of my party.
You and Cheney and Kinsinger. Well, there’s three of you at least. Do you not realize the sea change over the past 15-20 years in both parties? It’s like about 180 degrees. Big Tech, MSM, creating democracies in countries that don’t want it along with its big brother ENDLESS WAR, CRT, government teacher’s unions leading our kids into every sort of debauchery. These are but a few of the things we are looking at today. You must be a “country-club Republican” I am guessing.
David Blaska: As long as the Republican party is the only party fighting for free speech, fair elections and states’ rights, you don’t have to worry about its soul.
But they are not fighting for any of those. They want to violate free speech by banning books, forcing social media companies to spread lies, and make doctors provide false information to patients. They are out to make it hard for their opponents to vote, and also have the power to disregard elections. They do not care one lick about states rights, they use that as an excuse to keep the federal government from enforcing civil rights laws that the states want to violate.
You just described Progressives Molly.
DB:
“And to add, I am a Republican; alternate delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention, voted Trump in 2020. Fighting for the soul of my party.”
*******£*********
All your version of the GOP has left is a soul given its overdue demise working tirelessly and shamelessly for the corporatists. You were Dim-lite. Trump is the new populist Republican Party. Smell the coffee! Or drink some for that hangover.
Geesh you dont even know what the Reichstag fires were.
It is stunning how you comment on topics you have never ever heard of. AND THEN, realize you are posting on a device that can inform you almost instantly….if facts mattered to you.
I don’t think so.
The Nazis staged the Reichstag fire and then blamed the communists and introduced a crackdown. Here, it is suggested that the Democratic Speaker of the House and Mayor of D.C. allowed the riot by failing to take precautionary measures recommended by Trump when he said National Guard troops would be needed, and Democrat-aligned forces may have instigated the riot through FBI undercover agents and informants, and then the Democrats blamed Trump and his supporters and are now seeking a crackdown. So in the analogy, the Democrats are the Nazis.
Whether the analogy is apt is a different question, but be clear about what it is.
Thank you! Blaming Nancy Pelosi for the Capitol insurrection is exactly equivalent to the Nazis blaming Communists for the Reichstag fire!
Again, you completely misunderstand the analogy. The Nazis blamed the Reichstag fire on the communists and introduced a crackdown. The Democrats are blaming the riot on Trump and his supporters generally and seeking to introduce a crackdown.
“The Nazis staged the Reichstag fire , , ,”
Did they? The accounts I’ve read are equivocal, except on one point: There’s no way a lone arsonist could have started that fire.
Ultimately, it’s irrelevant who started the fire. The important thing is what Hitler did with the fire — the suspension of personal liberties, the Enabling Acts, the wiping out of political opposition, and the consolidation of power. (*That* is the analogy to what democrats are doing with Jan. 6.) Hitler would’ve gotten to the same place, eventually. The fire merely sped up his goal of total control.
ATS, The Republicans are not the Nazis in this analogy. Most of them sitting around are probably good people that should not be there because they are not statesmen or adequately doing their job.
On the other hand, Pelosi, Schumer and almost all Democrats act like Nazis trying to gather power rather than serve the American people. What they do is reprehensible and dangerous. It didn’t take a democratic Germany much time to turn into that racist, socialist country that would wage a world war and commit genocide.
You are one of those that scare me because you would be one of the first to stand behind the Nazi flag and march in lockstep. We have seen you under your different names and icons and recognize you for what you are.
“. . . the political advantage being taken of it can simultaneously be a danger to freedom . . .”
Ditto for Covid.
2023 HELL is coming and revenge is coming with him.
Edward R Murrow is likely rolling over in his grave. I can understand politicians trying to use those horrific events for their own ends. It is truly a sad day when the media not only condones those actions, but becomes an active participant in indoctrinating the public.
Shoot them when they break in the front or side doors.
There was more violence and damage done by Progressives during Trumps Inaugeration, than anything that happened on 1/6. We have eyes. We see the difference, and we aren’t fools that will repeat the Progressive lies over and over again, hoping to get the uninformed angry.
Wen Bars,
I think of it this way, 76% of Americans can and do see, and have not given over their critical thinking to MSM and the narrative.
Upstate,
Turley is criticizing “the media.” He is not calling out the “MSM.” The media includes Fox News.
It is possible for January 6 to be many things. If it is a protest that went too far, where did it go and what did it become. I say “insurrection.” An insurrection need not succeed to qualify as such. Apply this test: what was the purpose of the incursion into the Capitol that day? Merely to drink Nancy Pelosi’s cabernet sauvignon? To those who say that no one has been convicted of insurrection, neither were Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.
Davie ask yourself that question.
what was the purpose of the incursion into the Capitol that day?
You don’t answer your own question. You delve into your abilities of mind reading, but you never state an outcome. How would success look… by midnight…8am the next morning? 48 hours later? What is the worst case scenario? How is this takeover going to look?
While 700 people were arrested, a few dozen, a few unarmed dozen, will be the scapegoats.
You will have me believe a small, very small, group up unarmed yahoos were going to topple the the Government of the Untied States of America?
You are as delusional as the guy wearing the horns hat.
But then nobody believes the goal was to topple the government.
As our host so accurately lays our in this post, the only purpose of this attention is use as a political cudgel.
The end game is to make sure President Trump is removed as a choice of the people to be President.
Some were armed, and others used objects as weapons despite those objects not having been designed to be weapons. Robert Palmer, who has gotten the longest sentence to date, used a fire extinguisher and a wood plank to injure law enforcement.
The goal was to get Pence to act unconstitutionally, to prevent certification of the EC vote, and to keep Trump in office despite his having lost the election. The goal was to support a self coup.
Trump betrayed his oath of office. That some continue to support him only indicates their willful ignorance or lack of patriotism.
By your logic, the women who cornered Jeff Flake in the elevator and harangued him to the point of self micturation, were insurrectionists.
They were in a restricted area and tried to intimidate a U.S. Senator from performing his Constitutional duty, ergo INSURRECTION!
We all note the very few who intentionally used inappropriate physical violence to hurt another. We all condemn that, but we understand that almost all the rest were peaceful and honorable.
That doesn’t include people like Epps, who seems to have a connection with the FBI and a host of other people. It does include leftists who went in but were not arrested.
You focus only on the very few and not the vast majority because you have no relevant argument. You only have an ideology that you will follow no matter what is done.
I’m asking you to answer the question. Instead, you reply by asking more questions that rephrase the original. What was the purpose of the January 6 … incursion? Indeed, How would success look… by midnight … by 8 am the next morning? 48 hours later?”
I’m asking what the end outcome of those being charged sought. How would that look?
I can believe Kamala Harris will evolve into the greatest statesman that ever lived, before I can see exactly what steps would have had to happen in order for these yahoos to stop the certification of the EC votes.
YOU need to detail what would have had to have happened.
That you yourself fails to imagine the details, give evidence to how far from reality your opinion lands.
If anything, I am more conservative than Trump. I support the Constitution. Or is sedition permissible if you disagree with Biden’s tax policy?
If anything, I am more conservative than Trump. I support the Constitution. Or is sedition permissible if you disagree wit
President Trump has never espoused Republican positions. The Dems are so blinded by power, they failed to take advantage of Presidents social liberal leanings. I think Trump would have been very perceptive to immingration reform. Pelosi had a huge blank canvas to work with, but beating Trump was more important than advancing Democrat agenda items.
So, again….you cant lay out the steps to constitutional crisis.
The Constitution is a great document. Decentralizes all the power.
David Blaska: What was the purpose of the riot? Are you seriously asking what over a thousand people thought as they entered the capitol? Because there was no “organized plot,” according to the FBI report, so there was no single purpose. One could imagine from the number of “insurrectionists” taking selfies that their purpose was to make a statement. Others, including the FBI provocateurs, may have had property destruction on their minds. Who knows what shaman-man was thinking. But one thing is clear, and if you knew history it would be clear to you also: No one attempts an “insurrection” against the most powerful country in the world without so much as a firearm. You don’t take over a country with fire extinguishers — you bring your own weapon to the party. This may or may not have been setup by the Dems, but they have taken full advantage of the narrative…because they simply have nothing else.
One type of success was a more aware public. It was not to overturn the government. That is lie that has been propagated by the left. You swallowed the lie which means the left was successful in you being brainwashed.
The purpose of the January 6th protests was an effort to get some sort of resolution the abundant and egregious election irregularities and outfight fraud and illegal activities that marred the outcome. Here are just ten examples from a July 30, 2021 article:
What follows are the true facts surrounding the Nov. 3, 2020, United States presidential election.
1. Bellwether counties: In 2020, former President Donald J. Trump carried 18 of 19 “bellwether” counties (losing only Clallam County, Washington state). The term “bellwether” in the political arena refers to a county or state that aligns itself with the ultimate winner of an election.
Political realignments (gerrymandering of districts for instance) can cause some counties or states to lose “bellwether” status over time. From 1980 to 2016, 19 counties, most of them industrial counties in the northern and midwestern United States, voted for the winner of all 10 presidential elections. Additionally, since 1936, a key bellwether county, Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has gone to the winner of Pennsylvania, regardless of party.
In 2016 and 2020, Trump won that county handily. Any Republican winning Luzerne County in that time frame (since 1936) has also never failed to carry the state of Michigan.
2. Bellwether states: In 2020, Trump carried four vital bellwether states (Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and Florida). These states represent a strong base consisting of urban, suburban, rural, union and ethnic minority voters. Additionally, these states have been won by the same candidate 13 times since 1896, and every single time, that candidate won either the presidency or their re-election.
Bellwether states also come in and out of existence with demographic realignments. For instance, in 2000, George W. Bush became the first Republican to win the presidency without carrying Vermont or Illinois. On all but two occasions since 1896, Ohio’s electoral votes went to the ultimate winner of the presidency. Trump overwhelmingly won Ohio in 2020.
3. Share of primary votes: Share of primary votes during the primary elections is a way to judge outcomes of presidential elections.
Since presidential primaries began in 1912, only four incumbents have lost re-election, all garnering 72.8 percent of the primary vote or less. Herbert Hoover lost in 1932 after earning 36.0 percent in the Republican primaries, Gerald Ford lost in 1976 after earning 53.3 percent, Jimmy Carter (a Democratic incumbent) lost in 1980 after earning 51.1 percent, and George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 after earning 72.8 percent.
The most dominant Republican landslide re-elections in this time frame were won by Dwight Eisenhower (1956, 85.9 percent primary share), Richard Nixon (1972, 86.9 percent) and Ronald Reagan (1984, 98.8 percent). Trump won 94.0 percent in 2020.
In contrast, Joe Biden was trounced in the 2020 Democratic primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada — the traditional indicators of general election viability. His running mate, Kamala Harris, dropped out before primary voting even began.
4. Incumbents who gain votes win: Incumbent vote gain is another key indicator of presidential race outcomes. Since 1892, and as the expansion of the United States slowed, only six presidents have lost re-election. All six had fewer total votes in their re-election campaigns than in their initial campaigns. All incumbents who gained votes won re-election.
In 2020, Trump gained a record 11 million votes. For perspective, former President Barack Obama lost 4 million votes nationally in 2012 and still won re-election.
5. Voter registration by party: Voter registration by party is touted as one of the most accurate predictors of determining presidential election outcomes. Not all states register voters by party, but for those that do, the evidence is plain to see.
As far back as records are publicly available, three of the key states in the 2020 election — Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina — have moved in favor of the same party that made overall registration gains since 2000. In Pennsylvania, from 2012 to 2016, 60 of 67 counties trended more Republican in registration, suggesting a major GOP gain in the state — consequently, Pennsylvania flipped for Trump in 2016.
A legitimate Trump loss in Pennsylvania would show a registration lead expansion for Democrats. However, from 2016 to 2020, 60 of 67 counties became more Republican in registration once again, with the GOP registering roughly 242,000 net new voters, compared to just 12,000 for Democrats.
This number suggests that the margin of victory for Trump should have substantially increased.
6. Down-ballot voting: House of Representatives down-ballot voting is an indicator of success for the top of the ticket.
When Obama won a landslide victory in 2008, the Democrats took 14 U.S. House seats away from Republican incumbents, while losing only five seats. When Reagan was elected in 1980, the Republicans gained a net of 34 seats. When Reagan was re-elected, Republicans clawed back a net of 16 House seats from the 26 lost in the 1982 midterms.
In 2020, with Trump at the top of the ticket, Republicans knocked out 13 incumbent Democratic seats, while not losing a single Republican-held seat. Common sense suggests a Biden electoral landslide would have taken at least a single Republican seat with it.
7. Florida as a key trend indicator: Why is Florida such an important indicator of presidential election success? Since 1932, Florida’s trajectory has correlated perfectly with the trajectory of Michigan and Pennsylvania as a reflection of working-class political sentiment.
In every single election since then, if Florida became more Republican from the previous election, Michigan and Pennsylvania did exactly the same. These three states also largely move together to the left when Democratic nominees make gains.
In 2020, Trump won Florida by a margin greater than 2 percentage points higher than he did in 2016. Despite a massive Republican registration advantage in Pennsylvania, both Pennsylvania and Michigan charted a separate direction from Florida for the first time in nearly a century.
8. Gaining everywhere but losing everything: Despite historic strength and gains of Trump in battleground states and battleground counties, Trump “lost.”
Maricopa County, Arizona, which casts nearly two-thirds of all votes in Arizona, has not voted for the Democratic nominee since it supported Harry Truman in 1948. In 1996, Bob Dole became the first Republican in nearly 50 years to lose Arizona, but he still won Maricopa County.
Trump carried the county by 3 percentage points in 2016 while receiving fewer votes than Mitt Romney had in the county in 2012. In 2020, Trump set a Republican record for net additional votes in Maricopa County by adding roughly 248,000 from his 2016 performance, only to become the first Republican nominee (and incumbent president) to lose the county in 72 years.
That was accomplished by Biden’s gain of nearly 338,000 net “new votes” from 2016, which is nearly three times higher than the all-time previous high Democratic vote gain in the county by John Kerry in 2004. Similar record high vote totals and increases for Trump were also eclipsed in 2020 in the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Minnesota, in “losing efforts.”
9. Victory goes to the minority vote-getter: Trump achieved historic improvements with minority voters across the nation.
Trump netted more than one-quarter of the non-white vote in his re-election campaign, achieving a level of minority support seen just one time since Nixon’s 1960 campaign. His progress was evident in urban areas in the Midwest, such as Wayne County, Michigan; southern Texas, where Trump won counties that had been in the Democratic column for decades; and perhaps most notably, in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Trump’s vote increases in long-held Republican suburban counties, and in working-class counties like Mahoning County, Ohio (which he flipped for the first time since 1972), indicate that his white support did not collapse as reported by the mainstream media. The absence of millions of core Democratic base minority voters raises considerable questions as to how Biden was able to surpass Obama’s popular vote record by 12 million.
10. 2020 was “the most secure presidential election in U.S. history”: Post-election behavior by politicians on both sides and their mainstream media and Big Tech allies is beyond contemptible.
In 2016, with narrow margins in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, Trump’s camp had no concern over recounts or potential audits in any of those three states that decided the election. Biden’s certified margins in Pennsylvania and Michigan are much larger than the margins in those states in 2016, but opposition to full forensic audits either statewide or in suspect counties has turned into an all-out legal and ideological war in 2021 (sometimes referred to as “lawfare”).
If Biden’s team was 100 percent confident they won the election fair and square, then they should feel there is nothing to hide. Audits confirming his certified totals would certainly solidify his administration and simultaneously deal an embarrassing defeat to election skeptics.
Instead, the establishment media insists that, despite thousands of affidavits and personal accounts describing fraud along with the recent Arizona state Senate hearing on Maricopa County’s audit, the 2020 election was “the most secure in U.S. history.”
Democratic secretaries of state are running cover as well. In one example of many, the Colorado secretary of state recently acted outside of her authority, effectively banning audits in the state. The single biggest question to ask all states’ legislatures is this: If your candidate won hands-down and there is nothing to hide, why not conduct a full forensic audit of several of your states’ counties?
A sacrosanct element within our constitutional republic is the privilege, the right and the act of voting for our elected leaders. The American people have taken many of our rights and responsibilities for granted far too long, and this past presidential election clearly woke us up to that fact.
Maybe what is needed now in America is for us all to stop taking our freedoms for granted.
What might be the eventual outcome of the 2020 election, only God knows. I can say, as one who is paying very close attention to it from the very outset, that the confusion, the complexity and the deception by many in the media and within our very own government doesn’t offer the citizenry of our great republic any sense of confidence.
Analysis of the facts:
So what happens if the results of the audit(s) show 2020 election fraud, and that Trump won? What are the potential outcomes?
My sense is that there are three outcomes, along with a set of wildcard possibilities. Outcome one is that Biden and Harris resign — I see the probability of this as zero, and readers can make their own judgments as to why.
Outcome two is where states present recounted electoral votes to SCOTUS (our illustrious U.S. Supreme Court justices). What happens then?
There are four scenarios. In scenario one, SCOTUS declares the 2020 election invalid and suggests Congress reconvene and recount electoral votes — Biden and Harris are then replaced. In scenario two, SCOTUS declares the 2020 election invalid but says the president and vice president remain in office with limited powers to be specified (e.g., no executive orders, no veto power, only perfunctory roles, past executive orders are declared invalid and all are rescinded, and the vice president is not the presidential successor). In scenario three, SCOTUS declares the 2020 election invalid but the Biden administration remains in office (no loss of powers or authorities). In scenario four, SCOTUS completely sidesteps the states’ request and does nothing.
If scenario four plays out and SCOTUS sidesteps and avoids their responsibilities to examine the constitutionality of our election systems and processes, then enters outcome three. An outcome three decision has responsibility landing square on “states rights” found in the U.S. Constitution.
If this occurs, states have a set of options. They can reallocate their electoral votes based on the new audit results and replace those within their respective states who were illegitimately elected in 2020, including governors, state legislators and other state officers, as well as replace congressional members at the federal level (members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate). And a states convention may be immediately held to decide on the presidency and vice presidency.
If the decision is to replace these top two positions, that would be unprecedented in U.S. history.
Bottom line, we have not been here before and yes, there remain many unclear constitutional issues in play. If new audits indicate fraudulent election outcomes in other states, we the people, through our states’ legislators, have somber and serious obligations to consider, if not for us then for future generations of American citizens.
Regardless of outcomes, the people of the United States have some very serious internal decisions to process. Do we choose a monopolistic state-controlled oligarchy, where the few control the many, or do we choose to remain a competitive free enterprise system under a republic form of government, where the many control the few?
I’ll leave you with this because I believe readers know where I stand regarding the future of our republic. However, I also firmly believe that the United States of America has lost sight of our creator, and we are now facing the truest of all tests.
I sense that we no longer have a just government that rules in fear of God. In fact, God has been ripped out of the womb that is Mother America. During the past several decades, America has thrown the law of God out the window. There has been a systematic, intentional effort by the state, by academia and by a select group of wealthy oligarchs to set aside God’s law so that it is not the rule of law in America.
If this is true and the piety reflected by many in our religious leadership ranks keep congregations asleep in their pews, we will lose our country as we know it, forever. As a Founding Father, John Adams, stated in 1798, our Constitution is designed “for a moral and religious people.”
If the essence of liberty is a limited government, then the positive actions and involvement of its free citizens will forever sustain our cause for freedom.
Therefore, get involved, citizen. Your actions at the local level can and will have a national impact. May God bless and protect the United States of America!
Public isn’t buying the narrative.
And yet Trump is more popular today than on the day of Biden’s inauguration. Either the insurrection claims
aren’t working because people actually saw it happening live, or people are more upset about inflation, unfettered immigration with no effective border, and leaving Americans to our enemies in Afghanistan.
From David Blaska, A Liz Cheney, GOP elitist, lemming.
They were PARDONED dimwit.
Resorting to name calling is an admission of defeat. Bobby Lee and Jeff Davis were, indeed, pardoned — before their trials concluded. Therefore, as I stated, they were never convicted.
Their goal was to prevent the certification of the EC count and keep Trump in power.
Did you call the attempt to burn down the Mark O. Hatfiels Courthouse in Portland an “insurrection”?
David Blaska: The South had Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee; the Jan. 6th rioters had … shaman-man. No, I don’t think you can stretch anyone’s imagination that far. Calling this 3-hour selfie-fest an “insurrection” only proves your gullibility.
David Blaska, I don’t see the one phrase that more accurately describes what happened Jan 6. Self coup or attempted coup. That actually fits well with what Trump wanted. He wanted to invalidate a legitimate election by attempting a badly organized coup.
An “insurrection” in the US is akin to an Italian feast without pasta or wine.
Unsurprisingly, JT is silent about the terrorism charging enhancements for a number of the Jan. 6 criminals. These are *not* common. Maybe he isn’t even aware of them because he’s not paying attention to the details of the cases.
He is also silent about Trump betraying his oath of office and trying to pressure Pence into acting unconstitutionally. Many of the rioters bought Trump’s unconstitutional desires and considered Pence a traitor. They were trying to pressure Pence into acting unconstitutionally too. THAT is why many of us consider it an insurrection.
Enhancements reflect the intent on he part of the government to punish. The charges reflect the intent and actions on the part of the offender.
Terrorism enhancements are thinly veiled attempts to make the offenses seem greater than they are.
God bless cocaine Mitch for keeping this craven and dangerous man Garland from ascending to the highest court in the land.
It is not new are surprising that Republicans are ok with what happened on Jan 6. Another dumb article by JT. And technically Jan 6 was an autocoup attempt. And the attack on the capital was only one part of it. The scary part is that Republicans supported the only autocoup attempt on US history.
The Dems are desperately trying to stave off defeat in November – by any means fair or foul.
What surprises me is how rabid our resident Lefties are.
Question: are they stupid or wilfully blind?
Neither.
Both.
Question: are they stupid or wilfully blind?
One causes the other, that is the goal of propaganda media
( I would use the word, ‘ignorant’. Ignorant denotes missing knowledge. We are all ignorant of subjects. Stupid denotes those unable to learn said knowledge.)
monumentcolorado: After reading their comments, I’d say both. Stupid to think that the readers on this site are as gullible as they are; wilfully blind because it’s too easy to fact-check their statements, yet they never bother to do so.