Destroying Democracy to Save it? Court Advances Effort to Block GOP Candidates from Ballots

Below is my column in the Hill on the recent decision of a federal judge to allow a challenge to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) from appearing on the ballot as an insurrectionist. In my view, the underlying claim is meritless. The theory, supported by figures like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, runs against the clear language and history of the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Here is the column:

As the country braces for the midterm elections, the left seems to be rallying behind three D’s: Democracy, Disinformation and Disqualification. The latter effort just received a huge boost from a judge in Georgia who has allowed a challenge to knock Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) off the ballot as an insurrectionist. Nothing says “democracy” like preventing others from voting.

Many of us have criticized Greene for her inflammatory rhetoric and her extreme views. No less dangerous, though, is the means being used by some of Greene’s critics to get rid of her. It is all part of a new movement to defend democracy by denying it. To paraphrase the Vietnam strategy, democracy can only be saved by destroying it through the denial of speech or the right to vote.

Many Democratic politicians and pundits have long pushed for censorship as vital to freedom. However, if such freedom-is-tyranny claims seem Orwellian, they are nothing compared to the push to disqualify dozens of candidates from appearing on ballots.

Judge Amy Totenberg ruled that critics could potentially strip Greene from the ballot due to her public comments before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot in Congress. Totenberg ruled that Greene’s critics could bring a challenge under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, known as the “Disqualification Clause.” This is the same clause cited by some liberal members of Congress and legal experts as a way to bar dozens of Republicans, including former President Trump, from office for allegedly engaging in insurrection against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

This argument most recently was used against Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), who also has been opposed by House colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Cawthorn prevailed in a federal court, which dismissed that effort; an appeal of that ruling will be heard May 3 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va.

There are similar efforts to block members like Arizona GOP Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs from appearing on state ballots.

Totenberg gave a green light to these constitutional claims despite both the constitutional text and history showing that the claims are meritless.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865, following the end of the Civil War. At the time, many members were not pleased to see former Confederates like Alexander Stephens (D-Ga.), the Confederacy’s vice president, appear in Congress to retake the very oath they previously violated by waging war against the country.

Whether Jan. 6 was a riot or an actual insurrection remains a matter of deep and largely partisan disagreement — but the disqualification clause was written in reference to a real Civil War in which more than 750,000 people died in combat. The Confederacy was a separate government with its own army, currency and foreign policy.

There is another problem: To the extent that a person can be disqualified under the 14th Amendment, it requires action from Congress, not a local board of election. Despite an otherwise long, careful opinion, Totenberg blithely set aside such details, including an 1869 decision by then-Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. The case in question challenged the right of Hugh W. Sheffey to hold a Virginia state court office, given his support for the Confederacy. Chase ruled that Section 3 did not disqualify Sheffey because “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and disqualification from office “can only be provided for by Congress.”

Congress later passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which overrode the Disqualification Clause except for “Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states cannot impose their own qualifications for Congress because it would “erode the structure envisioned by the Framers.” Under such an approach, partisan state election boards could simply conclude that a member is an insurrectionist and prevent voters from being able to make such choices for themselves.

Totenberg simply insists that barring an insurrectionist is the same as barring someone from running for president who is not a natural-born citizen or who does not meet the age requirement for Congress. However, age and citizenship are easily ascertainable qualifications stated in the Constitution for all candidates. There is no additional finding or action required for such disqualifications. Totenberg is suggesting that a local board declaring a representative to be an insurrectionist is the same as confirming the age or place of birth of a candidate.

As with the calls to censor disinformation, the growing calls for disqualification represent a serious threat to our democracy. Countries like Iran routinely strike candidates from ballots due to their underlying views or perceived disloyalty. Just as free speech allows good ideas to counteract bad ideas, free elections allow good candidates to prevail over bad candidates. The problem is that you have to be willing to live with the judgment of your fellow citizens rather than control what they read or who they may vote for.

In fairness to the court, Totenberg complained that “the parties devoted little time and few pages to the complicated questions inspired by this novel situation.” As such, she did not feel comfortable in granting an injunction for Greene. However, that expression of reluctance at the end of the opinion belies the sweeping language used to get there.

With the other pending cases, this issue may now be headed for a Supreme Court showdown. In the meantime, the Democrats will likely see in November whether the “three D’s” resonate as well with voters as they did with this judge.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

494 thoughts on “Destroying Democracy to Save it? Court Advances Effort to Block GOP Candidates from Ballots”

  1. In a democracy, there are official decisions. One example is the vote counts in the States determining who won the Presidency. These can be challenged to an official recount, but then if not overturned by the recount, the original decision stands.

    Another class of official decisions are court case verdicts. And, appellate decisions.

    Another class of official decisions are laws passed by elected representatives. Or, Constitutional Amendments ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    Where Trump debased his office was in defying an official decision about having lost the election (after the recounts and court cases firmly established his loss). Trump’s noxious, egotistic theory is that who won is still a “matter of opinion”. It is not. To aver that official decisions of the greatest magnitude can be dismissed with open defiance is an insurrectionist’s creed. It is subversive infowarfare.

    Trump fomented a rebellion against the authority of the many States through the Electoral College to elect the next President. He and his co-conspirators should go to prison for this brazen “gaming” of the Constitution.

    Joe Biden is equally brazen in his defiance of the Constitutional duty of Office to see that the laws be faithfully executed in regards to illegal immigration. He should be co-impeached with VP Harris for the largesse of their criminality in harboring by now millions of illegal aliens, and advancing the reach and power of international smuggling cartels.

    This country is facing its gravest threat to democracy in failing to punish those who game the system. Gaming the law has been turned into a sport of the elites, and the only ones who can restore discipline are a determined citizenry able to uphold that which is official, i.e. not a matter of opinion. The elites have been playing the citizenry into taking up opposing-team-postures, while the core of democracy rots under corrupt gaming.

    Only an independent-thinking citizenry who can penalize those who game the system without regard to “cause” can save our democracy.
    This means having the courage to believe solutions to problems be not only the right choices, but obtained through the right process. Cheaters will have to be thrown under-the-bus to assure the 2nd part.

  2. The usual suspects

    Ignoring the fact, the law, the Constitution. Not a single person has found any part to the Professors post to be wrong in the law or Constitution. But here they are. All dressed up in their ignorance like true dilettantes.

    Pushing the Big Lie.

    1. JT stated his opinion and interpretation of the law. Others disagree. Given this is uncharted territory based on poorly written clauses in the constitution, opinion is all we got.

      1. Given this is uncharted territory based on

        Not uncharted. Prof. Turely provided judicial precedent. One authored by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

        Lower courts are bound by superior court decisions.

        “The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states cannot impose their own qualifications for Congress because it would “erode the structure envisioned…”

        “then-Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. ruled that Section 3 did not disqualify Sheffey because “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and disqualification from office “can only be provided for by Congress.”

      2. No, we also have the fact that Greene called the storming of the Capitol “our 1776 moment”.

        1. Do you have a problem with 1776 ?

          Should Paul Revere have stayed home ?

          Should the minutemen at Lexington and concord born the abuses of the British ?

          “To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer the Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune, Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep.”
          Hamlet – Shakespeare

    2. “Not a single person has found any part to the Professors post to be wrong in the law or Constitution.”

      Judge Totenberg found it to be wrong, and her legal opinion counts more in this legal case than Turley’s does.

      1. Judge Totenberg found it to be wrong, and her legal opinion counts more in this legal case than Turley’s does.

        Judge Totenberg is bound by superior court precedent. She ignored the precedent. Judges do that sometimes. They suffer no consequences
        It helps to read and comprehend the post, so as not to expose your ignorance.

        1. I see that you one again cannot admit that you made a false statement (“Not a single person has found any part to the Professors post to be wrong in the law or Constitution,” despite Judge Totenberg having found it wrong).

          You believe that she ignored precedent. That is for a Circuit Court to determine.

          1. Again with the bat$hit crazy.

            We defer to appeals courts and ultimately scotus – because they get it right.

            But the people are the ultimate authority – not the courts.

            to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

    3. Turley accuses Democrats of spreading “disinformation”. You have to be really deep into discipleship to fail to see the big picture: the disinformation here is the BIG LIE that Greene helped spread, and her support for storming the Capitol to prevent Biden from taking office, calling it “our 1776 moment”. Everything she is accused of saying and doing that she was confronted with at that hearing is supported by audio, video and in writing. Claiming that Democrats are engaging in “disinformation” is a flat-out lie. Turley may disagree whether the law allows Greene to be kicked off of the ballot, but he is engaging in not only partisanship, but outright deceit when accusing Democrats of “disinformation”. Sadly, it’s the projection tactic used by Fox all of the time: accuse your opponent of wrongdoing you are guilty of. The BIG LIE is the reason why Greene should be disqualified from ever serving in Congress in and of itself, not to mention the long list of outrageous things she has said and done.

      1. The Crazy Lady is at it again.

        “Turley accuses Democrats of spreading “disinformation”.

        Read the hoaxes printed in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

        1. This post is about Greene. Everything she was questioned about is proven by audio, video and in writing. Instead of standing up and admitting the truth of what she said and did, she lied and claimed she didn’t recall.

      2. No one is disagreeing that Greene said what she said.

        None of it constitutes incitement to violence – much less insurection.

        This is all more abuse of the legal system – trying to bend the law and constitution to protect YOUR power.

        This is not about whether Greene is republican of democrat. It is not about whether what she says is true or not.
        It is not about whether she is a good person or a bad one.

        It is simply about whether what she said was illegal.

        IT WAS NOT.

        While Debbs died before I was born and was an anarchist, socialist and communist – I defended his right to speak out against the US govenrmnt even in the midst of a war.

        I have defended Nazi’s and the KKK marching in our streets. As have generations of ACTUAL liberals.

        You seem to think that because you do not like MTG that makes her criminal.

        Members of he squad. Pelosi, Maxine Waters have said far worse than MTG.

        Words are not a crime.

        There was no insurection – if there was Trump would be president.

        This inability to grasp obvious reality is evidence that despite education the left has below average IQ’s.

      3. There is no lie that you can tell that disqualifies you from membership in congress.

        Lying is the stock and trade of politicians – particularly on the left – do not try to impose stupid standards you do not want applied to yourselves. You will be out of power soon enough.

        The constitution specifies the qualifications to sit in congress.

        There is no requirement that you beleive the earth is round, or that climate change is real or the election was not stolen.

        This hearing should not occur.
        It is a huge mistake on the part of the left.

        When you fail – you will make Greene stronger.

        In the end she has an abuse of power and an abuse of rights claim against you, and she should prevail.

      4. When they came for the communists,
        I remained silent;
        for I was not a communist.
        When they locked up the social democrats,
        I remained silent;
        for I was not a social democrat.
        When they came for the trade unionists,
        I did not speak out;
        for I was not a trade unionist.
        When they came for the Jews,
        I did not speak out;
        for I was not a Jew.
        When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

        I will defned the rights of maxine waters and MTG to say whatever they please.
        If you do not like it – take that up at the election.

        I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It

        1. You seem to assume that “the 15000 hours of Cap hill videos” is all Brady material. You have no basis for such an assumption.

          There was no “Pelosi’s/McConnell’s/US intels Insurrection/Coup.” You are a conspiracy theorist.

          You don’t say why you linked to that Newsweek article.

          1. “There was no “Pelosi’s/McConnell’s/US intels Insurrection/Coup.” You are a conspiracy theorist. ”

            ******

            There’s no Theory about the conspiracy.

            A large parts of it have been admitted to in public.

            The massive Voter/Vote Fraud of 11/3/20 continues to be shown to the public.

            Do you ever read/view anything that isn’t old corrupt/dying media/govt propaganda for your info?

            ******

            The Newsweek article is only useful to point out that there were intel operations going on before & on that day.

            As I understand it right now there are men that were at Jan6 rally that are still illegally being held in the DC Gulag as political prisoners having all of the Right’s being violated.

            Those people are entitled to all the exculpatory evidence the govt has yet it hasn’t been given to them.

            The Pelosi/McConnell coup are just using the J6, MTG, etc., as an attempt to keep Trump of the ballot & keep the entrenched managerial class running things in DC/State Houses..

            BTW: Tomorrow France is having their 2nd vote this month. They are able to vote on paper ballots & use no vote machines.

            Will there be fraud there also? We’ll see.

            1. There was no “Pelosi’s/McConnell’s/US intels Insurrection/Coup.”

              “Do you ever read/view anything that isn’t old corrupt/dying media/govt propaganda for your info?”

              Yes.

              Do you ever read/view anything that doesn’t come from a conspiracy theory sites like InfoWars and Banned.Video for *your* info?

              “there were intel operations going on before & on that day.”

              Duh. There are intel operations going on every day of the year. See, for example, https://www.intelligence.gov/

              “As I understand it right now there are men that were at Jan6 rally that are still illegally being held in the DC Gulag as political prisoners having all of the Right’s being violated. ”

              Here’s a list of people who’ve been charged for J6 crimes: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
              Please do name the people you allege are “illegally being held,” and let’s test your allegation by looking at the evidence.

              “Those people are entitled to all the exculpatory evidence the govt has”

              Yes.

              “yet it hasn’t been given to them.”

              What’s your evidence that they haven’t been given all of the exculpatory evidence? For example, if you’re assuming that video evidence that’s been withheld is exculpatory, what is the basis for your assumption?

              “The Pelosi/McConnell coup”

              Again, there was no “Pelosi/McConnell coup.” Repeating a false claim doesn’t make it true.

              1. “Please do name the people you allege are “illegally being held,” and let’s test your allegation by looking at the evidence.”

                I think it was you who asked someone for a court case. That someone provided a court case for you. Afterward, we heard nothing from you. Are you playing the same game with my friend OKY?

                1. OK, so you’re saying that Joe Biggs is “still illegally being held in the DC Gulag as political prisoners having all of the Right’s being violated”?

                  As a start, he’s not being illegally held. Here’s the general docket for his case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59704100/united-states-v-nordean/ (Bigg’s has been charged in a conspiracy with Nordean and others, which is why that link says Nordean)

                  The judge determined that they should be held pending trial, Biggs and others appealed, and the Circuit Court confirmed that they should be held: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59704100/107/united-states-v-nordean/

                  That you disagree with their ruling does not make it illegal.

                  1. Holding people 23 hours a day in solitaire confinement I believe is still called illegal torture.

                    Seems to me that alone should have been reason for granting a motion to dismiss without even considering the violations of their other Civil Rights.

                    Hell one guy in the DC Gulag was blinded in one eye it’s said by a DC guard.

                    How are any of them to a least get a unbiased DC Judge let alone, reasonable bail, an unbiased Jury when the DC voting base was about 97% Dems, etc…., then the public should hear about Pelosi/DC Mayor/Intel attempting setups/Coup by pulling Local/Cap Police, refusing Nat Guard.

                    Most of them are poor without the means or knowledge of how to get a competent lawyer for a decent defense let alone a cute one like Christine from Night Court. If they are going to get set up & screwed by the govt they at least deserve a pretty attorney I think.

                    So what was Biggs claimed to be doing, set up to meet with some guys for pizza & beer afterwards?

                    I haven’t heard who that Nordean is.

                    One news report I heard was that people like Biggs were welcomed into the Cap.

                    Regardless Biggs has been in jail for over a year & denied basic Rights.

                    1. Oky1,

                      Biggs has not been denied basic rights. He is not being held in DC. He was in a FL jail for most of the last year and was recently moved to a jail in VA. He was not in solitary confinement for most of this time. He has a lawyer, John Daniel Hull of the Hull McGuire law firm, and if Biggs couldn’t afford Hull, then Biggs could have a public defender instead.

                      Do you have these same concerns about all people held in jails throughout the US, or are your concerns limited to people jailed pending trial for J6 crimes?

                    2. Few if any of those charged regarding J6 should be in jail at all.
                      The Bill of rights guarantees reasonable bail.

                      And yes, my views are the same regarding the myriads of others held for other crimes in the US.

                      Recently a protester got 30 yrs for stealing a coat rack.
                      In CA a gruesome double murder got – 30 yrs.

                      We have major problems with sentencing disparity in the US. Some racial, but more regional.
                      Major cities usually result in slaps on the wrist will in small towns, you could get life for shoplifting.

                      Yes, I have problems with that.
                      The Defund the police movement – had some valid issues to protest, that were lost in abysmal messaging and violence.
                      And they were wrong about other issues. Further the worst problems are not with police but, prisons, judges and prosecutors.

                      Those problems are on the left and the right.

                      The kavanaugh protests were indistinguishable from the J6 protests.
                      There was nearly as much violence. One protestor took an axe to a senators door.
                      All charges were ultimately dropped and the axe was returned.
                      Nothing at J6 was as egregious.

                      Ultimately with Both J6 and left protests like Kavanaugh – protests – in the capital MUST be allowed.

                      But actual violence must not be tolerated and must be punished equally.

                      The left is setting an abysmal precedent here. In myriads of ways.
                      When the GOP retakes congress, they would be perfectly justified
                      investigating the lawfare that mangled election laws,
                      Zuckerbucks,
                      The media as an election influencing conspiracy for supressing the Biden story.
                      The former CIA officers for illegal campaign contributions.

                      and on and on and on.

                      There DOES need to be some real investigations – but of GOVERNMENT.

                      Congress is not law enforcement, it is law creation.
                      But DOJ/FBI are and they failed to do their jobs.

                      Regardless whatever the law is the rule of law requires that it is applied equally regardless of politics, wealth, race.

                      The left is actively destroying core liberal values.

                      The rule of law,
                      Blind justice.

                      This is not surprising because at its core identitiy politics is inherently at odds with western values.

                      MLK asked us to judge each other on our character, not the color of our skin.
                      The left rejects that entirely and demands we be judged on a collection of attributes that have nothing to do with character.

                    3. The best lawyers in the world are meaningless if you rot in jail waiting trial .

                      That is true if you are a J6 defendant or a local drug dealer.

                      Federal public defenders are good – but their politics preclude their providing any J6 defendant with a competent defense.

                      regardless, this is sending a message – but not the one you think it is.

                      You are PROVING Trumps message to the working class that the system is rigged against you.

                      Protest the drug overdose death of an addict in police custody and you can burn down the country without consequence.
                      Protest an election in which there was massive institutional corruption and lawlessness – and you can rot in jail.

                      You do not understand how badly the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop has hurt you.

                      It alone is sufficient justification for the protests on J6. It definitely “influenced” the election.
                      It with near certainty flipped it
                      But worse it means the very institutions that you base your claim the election was NOT stolen Lie, are corrupt and untrustworthy.

                      If our institutions would conspire and lie – hiding evidence of crime and corruption to win an election – why should we doubt they would engage in election fraud ?

                      The left and the media and “the deep state”, and the democratic party, and social media have all been caught in so much misconduct and lies, that it is reasonable to beleive there is nothing they would not do to get their way.

                      The DOJ sought to classify parents unhappy with their kids education as domestic terrorists.

                      Why should the working class Trust our institutions ? You ?

                      You complain of right wing conspiracy theories – while strive vigorously to make Alex Jones look sane.

                      If you wish right wing conspiracy theory to be an effective epitaph – those conspiracy theories need to be all FALSE.

                      Everytime you are caught in conspiratorial misconduct – you make it easier to buy into conspiracy theories.

                      The more you supress desent – the less you are trusted and the more likely people will beleive ever crazier claims.

                  2. Free Joe Biggs!

                    33,441 views

                    ·

                    Mar 29, 2022
                    48
                    Share
                    Download
                    Bowne Report
                    Bowne Report

                    Staff Sargent Joseph Biggs was born during the ominous year of 1984. What he and hundreds of other patriots, now political prisoners have experienced over the course of a year due to the tyrannical Democratic Party for merely questioning a clearly rigged Presidential election utilizing their First Amendment rights backed by the unyielding intent of the Declaration of Independence would make George Orwell’s skin crawl.

                    Recently, Biden spoke of liberty and Dictators while in Ukraine. But history and truth will ultimately separate fact from hypocrisy. Biggs of course represents hundreds of patriots and ultimately millions of Americans. Thrown in a feces and blood drenched gulag cut of from their civil liberties due to a Country half asleep and America’s first bonafide Dictator inhabiting the Oval Office.

                    https://banned.video/channel/bowne-report

                  3. Read your actual complaint and the supporting documents.
                    Even assuming that he was guilty of absolutely everything – there is NOTHING in this that justifies denying bail.

                    Frankly there is nothing in here that would warrant 2 years in jail in my very conservative county.

                    There is no claim of violence to a person.

                    The obstructing a proceeding nonsense has been addressed previous. I believe by Turley.

                    That law does not apply.
                    It particulaly would not apply if as the left claims the certification is pro foma.

                    No one has ever been charged with this nonsensical charge regarding congress before – because it does not apply.

                    As it is being interpretted here – it violates nearly every clause in the first amendment.

                    The prosecution is LITTERALLY claiming – one can not protest POTENTIAL congressional actions.

                  4. That a ruling is lawless – makes it lawless – whethr you or I agree.

                    Are you going to defend Dredd Scott or Plessey V Fergessons – Those were all final rulings of the courts.

                    You do not seem to grasp that the courts are NOT the final arbiters of either truth of law. The people are.

                    Ultimately the truth is what it is. We can hope that courts get it right.

                    One of the reasons for the purportedly conservative – but actually politically neutral rules for applying the constitution and law is to increase the odds that the courts rulings match the truth, and that the law is applied politically neutral.

                    Oddly the left keeps claiming that applying the law narrowly and as written is somehow political.

                    We are lawless when government becomes about political power – rather than the protection of individual rights.

                    1. This country is so ph’in captured by the enemy.

                      ******
                      Veteran and former Green Beret Jeremy Brown (on right) and the FBI agents who came to his home to recruit him as an operative on January 6. (left)

                      On Thursday afternoon, September 30th, at 3:45 PM Eastern the FBI raided Jeremy Brown’s home and arrested Jeremy. The charge is trespassing. The FBI sent 20 vehicles for his arrest. DHS and Pinellas County law enforcement were also present. The FBI was in Jeremy’s home for 5-and-a-half hours looking for evidence.

                      The FBI searched his house, RV, and trailer. Then they arrested Jeremy and took him away.

                      Jeremy’s family contacted The Gateway Pundit the next morning.

                      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/confirmed-liz-cheneys-j6-committee-now-holding-onto-evidence-fbi-running-operatives-jan-6-protests-will-lie/

              2. It does not matter where video came from.

                If you beleive the video is faked – catch them.

                You keep trying to pretend that compelling evidence is weak because of who is providing it.

                The best video of the Alishi Babbit shooting was taken by a member of Antifa.

                that does not change the truth of the video.

            2. The official results were announced less than 4 hours after the polls closed – despite an all paper ballot system, and no mailin or absentee voting. and counting 35M votes.

            1. It doesn’t seem that he understands the law, Brady material or what happened on Jan 6. Perhaps he can only see what he wants to see by nature of his emotional needs.

              1. It is already established that some of the video from J6 is brady material that was NOT turned over to the defense.

                The prosecution used a previously not made public clip in the prosecution of one defendant and that defendants attornies realized the clip was exculpatory regarding another defendant – they – the defense attorney’s provided it to the other defendant and the judge dismissed the charges.

                There should have been disciplinary measures by the judge against the prosecutors.

                If you do not grasp that video that proves one defendent is innocent is BRADY material you have no idea of the law.

                Regardless, there are 3 huge problems regarding the Capital video.

                There is no prosecutor who can or will review the entire 14,000 hours of video to determine whether it exculpates HIS defendant.
                They are just not going to do it. Prosecutors typically look for enough evidence to convict – which is generally very little, and then they STOP.
                This is not unique to prosequting J6 defendants, it is comonplace throughout the country. They do this deliberately – there is no brady violation for evidence the prosecutor did not review. Once a prosecutor beleives they have enough to convict – looking further into the case RISKS turning up evidence that will hurt his prosecution. Turning up more evidence of guilt is just not worth that risk.

                Given that – with respect to J6 the ENTIRE 14,000 hours of video should be turned over to ALL defendants.

                I would note that Brady is an obligation of prosecutors – but in the real world we all tend to be cognatively biased.

                In the instance I cited – the prosecutor almost certinly reviewed the video he was using to prosecute his defendant dozens of times without ever grasping – it exculpated other defendants. Prosecutors are looking for evidence of guilt – they can easily and innocently look straight past evidence of innocence. Further a prosecutor is not going to think like a defense attorney. He will miss obvious exculpatory evidence that is too many levels removed.

                But there is much more than turning this over to the defendants.

                Beyond brady, the left and the govenrment are claiming this is a seminal event.

                Yet the american people are expected to judge it and those participating based on a tiny portion of the story – based on the narative of the media and the impeachment prosecutors.

                We should see the WHOLE story.

                That is not a brady argument. It is not even a criminal court argument.

                FOIA requests have been filed for all the video – there is no reason those should not be granted.

                1. SFB ‘s like this squat batch aka Natachka cannot change the embedded parts of The Constitution without prrmission of a 2/3 majority of the 50 States in a vote of the citizens thereof.

                  Every part used to add the democratic procedures and protections used to construct The Constitution into a Constitutional Republic res publica of,for, and by The Citizens will not change one jot by the socialists.

                  Milley and the rest of the traitors are more likely to face a Nuremberg Trial which means plead guilty with a plea for clemency.

            2. Some video has been turned over as Brady material. If you’re arguing that video that was not turned over is also Brady material, you actually have to make an argument, not just ask a question.

              1. There is no way for anyone to know if the material not turned over is brady material – because only DOJ and the capital police have it.

                Regardless, Brady violations are incredibly common – because brady is flawed. Prosecutors will not go looking through what they have asking – could this help the defense. They do not have to actiuvely hide things. There are 14000 hours of J6 capital video. All they need do, is never bother to look at most of it.

                But this goes beyond brady and defendants.

                This is OUR government – the people have a right to know what actually happened on J6. We do not need anyone to curate it for us.

                I am prefectly willing to see those on the left have the entirety of 14000 hours of video.
                But I expect that it will all be made available to everyone.

                Experience – in the last few years, in the last few decades teaches that when government is hiding something – there is something BAD government is hiding.

                1. So tell us if that material later made available is it that those that took a stupid plea deal they will likely still be just as screwed & with no chance to appeal?

                  1. On occasion plea deal reserve some appeals rights, but commonly there are very little grounds for appealing a plea deal.
                    Even actual innocense is usually not sufficient.

                    But prosecutorial misconduct is still likely grounds to appeal

          2. “You seem to assume that “the 15000 hours of Cap hill videos” is all Brady material. ”

            We have seen people cleared based on video evidence of their innocence. Whether it is 1 out of 15,000 hours or not, it is Brady material. When you know proof can exist in videos, are you one of those horrid individuals that throw people in jail without first checking?

            1. Most people that follow this type stuff seen the FBI get caught setting up those guys in the Michigan gov kidnapping case.

              Those boys caught up in it were facing real time!

              Who was in the leadership position in the FBI that put the agents up to that?

              Just as important who was in the leadership position that decided to take the leader of the Michigan scam & put him over the Jan 6, 2021 scam?

              Who in the hell are the American people suppose to call for help, the Foxes that keep raiding the hen house?

              For me the hell of it is, is do the Foxes realize the Billionaire Lunatics, B Gates, Soros, Schwab, etc.., that are really running all this crap are out to destroy the world so those Fopxes that think they’re so sharp are just as gone as the rest of us.

              What is the prize they hope to win?

            2. About 4:30 min. Mute your volume at 1st, their volume is still ph’d up & needs turned down.

              ***

              Power Grid Kill Switch Discovered

              321,670 views

              ·

              Apr 21, 2022
              129
              Share
              Download
              Bowne Report
              Bowne Report

              The next clandestine move for the architects of the Great Reset following the Plandemic Vaccine rollout that is slowly happening in killing millions as I speak is cyberwarfare.

              And just as the Plandemic was publicly forecasted amongst its conspirators months before its rollout. So too it goes with the coming Cyber Warfare predictive programming of the flip of the Power Grid Kill Switch. But which governments have embedded what is known as the Swiss Army knife of malware into critical infrastructure? All signs point to the United States Government. A move that will plummet civilization into chaos and total submission unless you are one of the few that has already made preparations.

              https://banned.video/watch?id=626180b7a1a5fc1f75982fc2

          3. It is all relevant to the american people
            It is ALL subject to FOIA.
            None of it can be legitimately classified.

  3. We are A Constitutional Republic Res Publica Of, By, and For The Citizens. IT INCLUDES Citizen direct voting Rights.

    WE are Not a socialist as their group falsely claims.Nor are they Democratic. To be so would require a Constitutional Amendment. They are 180 degree polar opposite socialists. End of that fiction. INCLUDING General Milley who violated his Oath Of Office.and those who followed him.

  4. Insurrection – an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

    What happened on January 6 was an insurrection, JMHO

    In the days leading up to January 6 there were lots of meetings among Repo party members on how to disallow votes from Repo states that went for Biden.
    You can deny it all you want. The Repo party has gone off the wall whacko under Trump.

    1. What happened on January 6 was an insurrection, JMHO

      If only you could find even one prosecutor willing to go to court with that charge.

      Until then. NO.

      1. In the court where Greene is being questioned about regarding her qualification to be elected the prosecutor states it as an insurrection. The judge does not correct him or states it is not. So It can still be categorized as an insurrection.

        1. That is not how it works.

          Prosecutors are free to ask leading or hostile questions based on false premises – and the judge is not required to correct them.

          The statements of attorneys in court are NOT under oath. Their questions are not testimony – the answers are.

    2. By that definition, the entire Civil Rights Movement was an insurrection. You would do better to review the considerable corpus of holdings from actual insurrection cases.

      1. When in the civil rights movement did they attempt to throw out electoral college votes? I guess I missed that one.

    3. If that was an insurrection, it was the silliest effort to resist government authority ever conducted on the face of the earth. A “revolt” or “rebellion” without a single firearm? Come on now.

        1. Not a single shot was fired. Except for the unarmed vet, shot and killed by a Capitol Police.
          I’m not going to waste my time chasing down the weapons charges. While the right to keep and bear arms is still in affect, DC makes almost all gun possession illegal. Having a gun and participating in the overthrowing of government are not synonymous.

          1. Having a weapon during a riot is illegal. People brought firearms with the expectation that they would use them against authorities. Lots of militia wannabes were chomping at the bit to engage in a firefight with authorities.

            1. People brought firearms with the expectation that they would use them against authorities.
              Carnivals across the land will pay you well for your mind reading abilities. “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

              1. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in DC v Heller “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

                1. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

                  Does that mean the Second Amendment doesn’t exist? If you believe Scalia enough to quote him, why don’t you believe the rest of what he believes?

                2. You are literally correct, but you do not understand what you wrote.

                  Government can and does infringe on rights all the time.

                  Even the staunchest libertarians accept that will occur in atleast a small number of instances.

                  But government power to infringe on rights is constrained.

                  All rights should be subject to “strict scrutiny” regarding infringement – but most are not.
                  However since Heller and McDonald the 2nd amendment is.

                  Strict scrutiny requires that Government must prove that an infringement is necescary.
                  Merely asserting it is not enough, the burden of proof rests with the government that infringement is required.

                  Next the govenrment must prove that the infringement is the least necescary to accomplish that necescary infringement.

                  The constitutional right to bear arms is not limitless – but the burden of proof regarding each and every infringement rests on the government, not the individual.

              2. They arrested some of them in a Virginia motel, where they had a cache of weapons, waiting for their exalted leader’s call to arms. That has been proven.

                1. They did not bring weapons to the Capital. PERIOD.

                  There is nothing illegal about owning weapons, having them in your car, your home, your hotel room.

                  The former mayor of my city has 15,000 firearms in his basement. He owns about a dozen cannon’s.
                  He also owns a pharmacy and some idiot tried to rob him and was shot.

                  There would have been nothing illegal about 10,000 capital protestors showing up with AR-15’s on J6.

                  But they did not.

                  I strongly suspect that had 10,000 protestors showed up with AR-15’s – there would have been no violence.

                  The capital police beat up and killed two women – they were cowards – they were NOT going to take on 10,000 peaceful armed Trump protestors.

                  One of the things you keep missing is that the violence was CAUSED by the unconstitutional acts of Pelosi.

                  Absolutely no one would have objected had the capital police set up checkpoints 100 yrds from the capital and barred anyone from taking weapons or backpacks into the capital – so long as the protestors were allowed in.

                  Nothing would have happened had the capital police limited the numbers in the capital to about 500 at a time.

                  These people came to protest a lawless and likely fraudulent election. The fact that you think they were wrong does not alter the fact they were practicing legitimate free speech, free assembly, and petitioning government.

                  Government, the press, the courts do not get to decide what people can and can not protest.

                  1. “They did not bring weapons to the Capital. PERIOD. ”

                    Scores of people used weapons during the riot, and in many cases, those were weapons they brought with them.

                    1. “Scores of people used weapons during the riot, and in many cases, those were weapons they brought with them.”

                      ATS, it is tough to believe anything you say because you conflate things that do not belong together. Months back, when the discussion pertained to those entering the Capitol Building, you said they had guns. You forced others to spend time to prove you wrong. They did, so you expanded what you said to the Capitol Grounds so you could not be caught in a mistruth. That was deception and is precisely the way you carry out your business.

                      You expanded from guns to weapons. You want to portray large numbers of people as dangerous and ready to kill or maim. John Say recently tried to stop that deception by telling you weapons could be almost anything, including shoes and other apparel. When caught in a lie, suddenly the Capitol becomes the Capitol grounds, and weapons become shoes and clothing. You will do and say anything to promote your lies and not admit your significant failures.

                      That forces one to make sure that each word (you use) is appropriately defined. I am interested in the weapons present because I know there were some, but to be precise (and to keep you honest), I wish to learn more.

                      So we don’t run into the usual problems where you conflate all types of things, list the “scores” of weapons by person, kind of weapon, how it was used, when it was used along with the location of the person and the weapon at the time of use. It is your previous deception that makes revealing this list necessary. I don’t wish anyone to be surprised that what they thought was a gun was actually a shoe, or a knife was actually a chopstick. I want to be assured those “scores” of persons were involved with immediate threatening behavior in their particular use of their ‘weapon’.

                    2. You keep repeating this debunked weapons nonsense.

                      No one used a firearm in the capital except the capital police.
                      No one possessed a firearm inside the capital – besides the capital police.

                      Yes, some people arrested had firearms in their homes or hotel rooms, or cars.
                      That is legal.

                      CLEARLY they did not use them and did not bring them into the capital.

                      Most of not all the “weapons” charges are the typical nonsense that my wife sees as a public defender all the time.

                      Bathroom slippers and uncooked eggs are considered by the courts to be “deadly weapons”.

                      There is not a single police officer that was shot – there is not a single officer that was stabbed. Frankly most of the injuries of officers come from BEATING protestors – that is hard work and you can get injured – especially if they defend themselves.

                      That said there was a SMALL amount of actual violence – especially at the West Tunnel – though it is not clear who started it.
                      Protestors claim – with some video to support it, that a black female police officer kicking the crap out of an older white women – who later died was the trigger for the violence.

                      I do not know if that is true – but there is some evidence to support it. One of MANY reasons that not just the defendants, but the COUNTRY need ALL the video.

                      There is video of someone throwing a fire extingusher – I doubt they brought that with them – however that is an unjustified assault with a weapon.

                      There is video of some people using a flag pole as a battering ram. Obviously that is a weapon. I doubt they brought that with them.

                      Once violence ensues – people reach for what is nearest and use it as a weapon.

                      Again we need to see all the video to know the root of this.

                      So that we are clear – there is a world of difference between and officer using shields and batons, to prevent people from entering or even to drive them back, and an office beating the crap out of a person on the grounds.

                      That is ONE reason why we need ALL the video

                    3. When I was 14 my grandfather gave me a swiss army knife. I carried that for years on my keychain. I took it to school – which today would get me expelled.

                      I never thought it was a weapon – though it was. It was also a tool – and I used it as a tool many times.

                    4. When we had no money and lived in a dangerous area my wife used to carry a roll of quarters in her fist. Brass knuckles were illegal.

                  2. John, the words “weapon” and “firearm” are not synonyms. You falsely claimed “They did not bring weapons to the Capital. PERIOD,” and I corrected your false claim by pointing out that scores of people used weapons during the riot, and in many cases, those were weapons they brought with them. If you were a truthful person, you’d say “I was wrong” instead of trying to move the goalposts to “firearms.”

                2. “Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful,
                  Because I can show you that outraged citizens are what made the country what she is and led to any major milestone.
                  To be honest, this is not a tranquil time.”

                  “Too many see the protests as the problem, No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take the streets.”

                  Chris Cuomo.

                  1. Except that Natachka has yet to prove fact one o or didley squat or membership in the Squats.

            2. Having a weapon during a riot is illegal
              Cops cant have guns during a riot? Are they specifically exempt from the law you imagined exists?

              1. That claim was just nonsense.

                A riot does not change the law.

                It does however change the perception of what constitutes a threat by police officers.

                I would highly recomend that gun owners be far more careful with their guns during riots.

                But they are still as legal as they were before.

            3. “Having a weapon during a riot is illegal.”
              FALSE
              “People brought firearms”
              FALSE
              “with the expectation that they would use them against authorities.”
              so you are able to read the minds of people who do not exist.
              There were not firearms in the capital – aside from the capital police.
              And none were used.

              “Lots of militia wannabes were chomping at the bit to engage in a firefight with authorities.”
              Given that did not happen – that is obviously false.

              YOUR claim of people itching to get into a conflict with the capital police is blatanly false.

              Watch the actual video – with the exception of the West tunnel where it is alleged that a black female office beat an older white women to the ground triggering a melee there was no violence elsewhere involving the police.

              In most instance protestors were welcomed. In numerous instances protesters were told that they would be allowed to proceed – but asked to wait patiently as the police secured congressmen. Universally protesters complied.

              There was far more conflict between protestors and police at the Kavanaugh hearings.

              The majority of those present were former active or former law enforcement or military – they actually understood the process,
              they were not looking for a fight with the capital police – many of whom supported them. They were seeking to bring their demands to congress.

              That is not a guess – it is what they said they wanted. No mind reading involved.

              1. Some people brought firearms: true. Several have been charged with it, and one was convicted of this recently, while others are pending trial.

                1. Provide actual cites. The FBI and Capital police have denied that anyone aside from the Capital police had firearms inside the capital.

                  No one else used one.

                  It is not illegal to posses firearms.

                  Weapons charges are NOT firearms. They are rarely things most of us consider to be a weapon.
                  I am sure the guy who threw the fire extinguisher either was or will be convicted of weapons.

                  So we are clear – you have STILL not established there was a single gun brought by a protester into the capital, much less used.
                  You have not established that a knife was brought into the capital – much less used. Though I would be completely shocked if several of these people did not have hunting knifes as that is extremely common for former and current military and law enforcement.
                  Regardless, none USED knives.

                  No capital police officer was shot. No capital police officer was stabbed. In fact outside of the West Tunnels I have not seen any evidence of protesters engaging in violence towards the capital police. The relationships between the police and protesters were cordial. Protestors followed all directions of the police – except possibly to leave – though we have not established that they were directed to leave – many were invited in. Outside of the west tunnel no doors were breached until AFTER the police moved out of the way. The capital police engaged in efforts to delay the progress of protestors throught he capital – that all remained PEACEFUL.

                  Even after Alishi Babbit was murdered – protestors did not attack the police.

                  Regardless, there easily could have been an actual insurrection at the capital – 10,00 protesters could have brought AR-15’s.
                  That is what an insurrection looks like.

                  1. John, it is illegal to bring firearms onto the grounds of the Capitol.

                    You can find the people charged with firearms violations here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases — just do a text search on “firearm.”
                    Guy Reffitt was recently convicted for illegal possession of a firearm in the Capitol Complex on J6: 18 US Code 1752(a)(1) and (b)(1)(a).

                    “outside of the West Tunnels I have not seen any evidence of protesters engaging in violence towards the capital police.”

                    Then you’re not paying attention, since there’s video and testimony under oath by officers who were physically attacked elsewhere.

                    You don’t pay attention to a lot of things.

                    1. “Guy Reffitt was recently convicted for illegal possession”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, did Reffitt fire his weapon? No! Was it ever off his hip? No!

                      You keep talking about weapons as if people were firing at officials. They weren’t. Your big name never fired the weapon and kept it on his hip. That is not violence.

                      You are a liar and trying to project a riot that did not occur. You should be known as Anonymous the Stupid to all, or at the very least, ATS.

                      There was one known death from a gun fired by a Capitol Policeman. A 105-pound woman was shot dead, but she was a “stupid Woman” to you. That says it all. You are a bloodthirsty idiot.

          2. “Not a single shot was fired.”

            You’re trying to move the goalposts. skipkirkwood made the false claim that it was “without a single firearm,” and I gave him/her evidence that that claim was false.

            “I’m not going to waste my time chasing down the weapons charges.”

            You don’t have to “chase” anything. All of the weapons charges are listed on that same DOJ page I linked to. The weapons charges are not limited to firearms charges, because firearms are not the only weapons that exist.

            “DC makes almost all gun possession illegal”

            It doesn’t.

            “Having a gun and participating in the overthrowing of government are not synonymous.”

            No one claimed they are synonymous.

            1. “You’re trying to move the goalposts”

              ATS: You moved the goalposts a long time ago when you moved them from the Capitol Building to everywhere on the Capitol Grounds. When you moved the goalposts to discuss firearms, you forget that you were wrong in their use and the injuries/ deaths to law enforcement. The only person shot and killed was Ashli Babbitt, who you called a Stupid Woman. She was shot almost point-blank with her arms and legs spread apart in full view. You were deceptive about who was in the room she was entering and the risk she created to Congress. You knew nothing about her, her motives or what she was trying to do. You don’t care that the details of her death have not been adequately released. To you, despite the apology, she is just a Stupid Woman.

              You also argued about how the protestors entered the building. Today with the videos on display, we can see the Capitol police letting the protestors enter the building. Of course, that moves your goalposts again because, according to you previously, all the arrested protestors did something wrong. Now, with the videos available, we see a protestor getting off because the judge found he did nothing wrong, which was proven in the videos. With the knowledge that people can be proven innocent based on video recordings, you place another roadblock into their proof. You argue against releasing the White House videos and then say that they may not contain material evidence. Another backward and deceitful argument against the Brady Law material argument which would lead to a fairer trial. That is expected from you because you are a fascist who seems to desire violence to further his cause. (Ahsli Babbitt is partial proof of that opinion) Damn the videos, says ATS, move full speed ahead to prosecute and convict people, innocent or not; to the h-ll with the Brady Law and anyone that believes differently than the Fuhrer.

              When you asked for a court case showing where Trump had won, ‘just one case,’ in court, you moved the goalposts because you were given that one case and ran away until faced with another poster who provided an entire list of court cases. That was too much for your credibility, not his, for you immediately insinuated that the report’s writers might not be credible. Unfortunately, for your credibility, each case was clearly labeled with the name of the case hyperlinked for proof.

              On the other hand, you continuously quote unverified reports from the Washington Post, moving your goalposts every time there is new material proving your source to be wrong. Nonetheless, you consider those sources credible.

              There are too many lies, deception, and too much movement of goalposts in almost all your postings. You are not credible, and any response you provide has to be reevaluated entirely because your deception has no end.

              1. Good summary Meyer! I’ve debated Anomaly before; it is the same game every time and there is no end to it.

                1. Thanks, Ray. Anonymous the Stupid is one of those that would effectuate fascist murder. That is my opinion for good reasons. I say that based on what he says, how he says it and what I experienced.

                  He calls it a mistake, but he was serious when he called Ashly Babbitt a Stupid Woman.

                  I read your spats with Anonymous, and you are on target. Keep it up.

                    1. Thank you. You must be telling me that you liked what I wrote before. Here it is.

                      ATS: You moved the goalposts a long time ago when you moved them from the Capitol Building to everywhere on the Capitol Grounds. When you moved the goalposts to discuss firearms, you forget that you were wrong in their use and the injuries/ deaths to law enforcement. The only person shot and killed was Ashli Babbitt, who you called a Stupid Woman. She was shot almost point-blank with her arms and legs spread apart in full view. You were deceptive about who was in the room she was entering and the risk she created to Congress. You knew nothing about her, her motives or what she was trying to do. You don’t care that the details of her death have not been adequately released. To you, despite the apology, she is just a Stupid Woman.

                      You also argued about how the protestors entered the building. Today with the videos on display, we can see the Capitol police letting the protestors enter the building. Of course, that moves your goalposts again because, according to you previously, all the arrested protestors did something wrong. Now, with the videos available, we see a protestor getting off because the judge found he did nothing wrong, which was proven in the videos. With the knowledge that people can be proven innocent based on video recordings, you place another roadblock into their proof. You argue against releasing the White House videos and then say that they may not contain material evidence. Another backward and deceitful argument against the Brady Law material argument which would lead to a fairer trial. That is expected from you because you are a fascist who seems to desire violence to further his cause. (Ahsli Babbitt is partial proof of that opinion) Damn the videos, says ATS, move full speed ahead to prosecute and convict people, innocent or not; to the h-ll with the Brady Law and anyone that believes differently than the Fuhrer.

                      When you asked for a court case showing where Trump had won, ‘just one case,’ in court, you moved the goalposts because you were given that one case and ran away until faced with another poster who provided an entire list of court cases. That was too much for your credibility, not his, for you immediately insinuated that the report’s writers might not be credible. Unfortunately, for your credibility, each case was clearly labeled with the name of the case hyperlinked for proof.

                      On the other hand, you continuously quote unverified reports from the Washington Post, moving your goalposts every time there is new material proving your source to be wrong. Nonetheless, you consider those sources credible.
                      There are too many lies, deception, and too much movement of goalposts in almost all your postings. You are not credible, and any response you provide has to be reevaluated entirely because your deception has no end.

                    2. You must be confirming that you’re the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

            2. Your arguments are disengenuous.

              It is not 50,000 BC – “insurections” are conducted with guns – lots of guns, and lots of ammo,

              There was none.

              With respect to weapons charges – you can be convicted of with assult with a deadly weapon in PA if you use a bedroom slipper to attack your spouse. You can be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon if you drop an uncooked egg on a police car from a highway overpass.

              With specific respect to J6 defendants – if they move a chair they could be subject to a weapons charge.

              When prosecutors are creative – charges to not mean anything.

              Do you have evidence that any protestor in the capital bought a firearm into the capital ?
              Used it ?

              I am not moving the goal posts – YOU are.

              If 20 protestors came with handguns – that would STILL not be an insurrection.

              An insurrection is when 10,000 guys show up with AR-15’s

              Hopefully there is enough of a spotlight on democrats that future elections will not have so much lawlessness and fraud.

              There will ALWAYS be lawlessness and fraud – the claim that any election was “perfect” – would be Trump like – except it is coming from the left.

              We do not ever have perfect elections. Most of the past 20 years elections are NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
              The frequency of razor thin elections has increased and that raises the requirements for fraud and error prevention.

              We are not close to good enough.

              But it is certain that 2022 will be heavily scrutinized. Zuckerberg has bailed on his election fraud scheme so democrats will not have a government run GOTV program in 2022.

              The political environment is such that there are likely to be fewer close elections and that regardless of close elections – republicans will take the house and the senate. No one is going to war over fraud in a couple of house races.

              Further, election integrity volunteers are going to be all over the place. If there are ballot drop boxes – they will be heavily surveiled. There are will probably be enough real time surveailance that if we see the same ballot harvesting as 2020 – the police will be called and people will be caugt red handed with carloads of ballots.

              The higher the odds of getting caught the less likely the fraud will occur.

    4. I remember an attorney I liked that gave himself a heart attack arguing such total bullsh*t you are here.

      Think about your position, what’s it worth? Spit?

      Why do you feel the need to completely distort the facts & make yourself in public a liar?

      There were over a Million Peaceful unarmed Citizen/Owners of the US Govt exercising their “Rights” 1Amd of regress at a Permitted Event that it seems clear had at least Govt sponsored agent provocateurs show up cause criminal behavior to make them all look poorly, but it Failed! Where are those Q Leader trouble making Ph’ers anyway????

      Why hasn’t Prof Turley mentioned the +Million Peacefully Americans there on Jan 6?

      Why hasn’t Prof Turley addressed why those Mil + Peaceful Rally Attendees request to have legal issues resolved Peacefully????

      Yes please, such as address the small amount of Violent Govt/Non-Govt Violent ones of Jan 6, but because of the know abuse against the Jan 6 Citizens the govt must turn the rest free & pay them reparations for the govt torturing them.

      1. Oky1 asks:

        “Why hasn’t Prof Turley mentioned the +Million Peacefully Americans there on Jan 6?
        Why hasn’t Prof Turley addressed why those Mil + Peaceful Rally Attendees request to have legal issues resolved Peacefully????”

        BECAUSE Turley is a NeverTrumper!

        He called 1/6 a “desecration.” He called for Trump’s Congressional censure for his “reckless” 1/6 speech. It must dig down deep in every Trumpist’s conscience that Turley utterly rejects their faith in this “absurd television reality star” as he once described Trump.

      2. “a Permitted Event”

        The rally had the required permit. The march did not have the required permit.

        “Why hasn’t Prof Turley addressed why those Mil + Peaceful Rally Attendees request to have legal issues resolved Peacefully???? ”

        They *are* being resolved peacefully. Most of the people who attended the rally were not charged with any crimes, but for the several hundred who’ve been indicted for crimes, the crimes are being peacefully addressed in court.

        Oky1, you say “Yes please, such as address the small amount of Violent Govt/Non-Govt Violent ones of Jan 6, but because of the know abuse against the Jan 6 Citizens the govt must turn the rest free & pay them reparations for the govt torturing them.”

        Here’s a list of everyone charged with J6 crimes: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
        A bunch have already been sentenced. Of the rest, some are in jail pending trial, and others aren’t.

        What are the names of the people you say should be paid “reparations for the govt torturing them,” and what is your evidence that they’ve been tortured?

        1. I do not recall the section of the 1st amendment that says a permit is required.

          BTW the Permit for the J6 rally explicitly notes that some participants may move on to the Capital

          This is more fake news.

          1. Perhaps you also “do not recall” rulings by the Supreme Court about content-neutral time, place, or manner restrictions. For your edification: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm

            “the Permit for the J6 rally explicitly notes that some participants may move on to the Capital”

            But not in a march. The permit-holders explicitly stated that they “will not conduct an organized march from the Ellipse at the conclusion of the rally,” and the permit explicitly states “This permit does not authorize a march from the Ellipse.” Marches in DC require permits.

            Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between legally walking on sidewalks and illegally marching down the middle of a street? Perhaps you don’t understand why a city like DC requires permits for marches?

            The J6 march, which Trump encouraged his rally-goers to carry out, lying that he would go with them — “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building … And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. … we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. … let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue” — did not have the required permit.

            1. Anomaly,

              “Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between legally walking on sidewalks and illegally marching down the middle of a street?”

              Please provide evidence of an illegal march by Trump supporters down the middle of the DC streets on J6.

  5. Consider this scenario: the Democrats flood the country with third-world immigrants. The Democrats then kill the filibuster and pass amnesty and a federal election law giving illegals the vote. The Democrats then pack the Supreme Court to make it all stick.

    The right erupts in anger to an obvious existential threat, so the Democrats declare the right “insurrectionists” and call in the military. General Milley enthusiastically orders the bombing of rebellious counties surrounding Chicago and Manhattan and the grid is shutdown in Texas and Florida. Within 60 days, we are a one-party dictatorship backed by a military junta with nuclear weapons.

    I draw two conclusions from this scenario. First, it might be awful, it might not be likely, but it might also not be unconstitutional (sorry for the double negative). Throughout our history, democracy has depended critically on neither side resorting to sub-constitutional tactics that crossed red lines. Many in leadership on the left have abandoned such distinctions. This Judge Totenberg is a perfect example.

    Given the above, my second conclusion is that if the military becomes suborned by the Democrat Party, we are all in serious trouble. The Democrats don’t dare proceed to civil conflict without military backing. They are working on that. Declaring the rest of us “insurrectionists” is just a tactic to sic the military on us.

    1. The Republicans take control of the Congress and the White House in the next election by means of gerrymandering and voter suppression. They then pass national voter suppression and give the federal government the power to gerrymander all states to hep Republicans. SCOTUS, being Republican, is ok with this. They then repeal the 13th, 14th, all the other civil rights amendments, replacing them with one that makes Christianity the official religion and one to give all whites the right to own guns. They bring back slavery and appoint Trump as king.

      1. The Democrats seem to be the ones getting slapped around for gerrymandering – and, again, define what you mean by “voter suppression.” Demonstrate you understand how amendments are repealed. What “other civil rights amendments?” How do you envision slavery being brought back?

      2. There is so much wrong with what you wrote, I’ll just focus on the obvious: “They then repeal the 13th, 14th, all the other civil rights amendments, replacing them with one that makes Christianity the official religion and one to give all whites the right to own guns. They bring back slavery and appoint Trump as king.”

        Nobody in a leadership position on either side has advocated that. Try not to rant when you write.

          1. My scenario is unlikely, but it illustrates my point. Whether something is constitutional or not, there are some things wise leaders should not do. I still hold that the Democrats are crossing those lines.

            You are simply being absurd.

        1. Wasn’t it a Republican administration that passed “the 13th, 14th” amendments? Wasn’t it the Republicans that pushed through the civil rights amendments?

          Sammy and ATS are perfect leftists. The truth to them is meaningless.

          1. “Wasn’t it a Republican administration that passed “the 13th, 14th” amendments? Wasn’t it the Republicans that pushed through the civil rights amendments?”

            The Republicans haven’t been that Party for a very long time. They have become the Party of the Southern Strategy and they only get partial credit for the Civil Rights Amendments being passed and all the credit for the Voting Rights Act being gutted… twice.

            One could right a dissertation about the great role the Republican Party once played in this country. Today they are something else entirely and you can’t very well take credit for one and ignore the other.

            1. only get partial credit for the Civil Rights Amendments being passed and all the credit for the Voting Rights Act being gutted… twice.

              SCOTUS found parts of the Voting Rights Act violated the constitution. Squealing you don’t like the ruling is in a different universe than citing the errors of the opinion.

                1. Section 5 of the VRA should have been declared unconstitutional from the start.

                  The federal government can not treat some states differently from others.

                  Further the concept of preclearance is unconstitutional. The constitution give congress the power is SOME federal elections to pass laws governing the conduct of elections in all 50 states. There is no power for the executive to individually review specific state laws.

                  If there is a real problem with a states voting laws – the courts have always been free to find them unconstitutional – or in violation of federal law – where federal law applies. That is true of ALL 50 states – not a few specific selected states.

                  Regardless, S5 was passed as a temporary measure lasting 5 years.

              1. SCOTUS did what SCOTUS does. They have found every Civil and Voting Rights Act in history at least partially unconstitutional. SCOTUS has never in history not been controlled by which white men who have made some terribly racist decisions. They still find Gerrymandering and racist redistricting okay (as long as you call it something else). They’ve said Black people had no rights a white man is bound to respect and approved of segregation. I do happen to agree that it was unfair to only apply preclearance to parts of the country. It should exist everywhere.

            2. enigma – the Republicans get Major credit for the Civil Rights Acts. Without them it would have never passed.

              1. I give them some credit, how many of them did they propose? Democrats certainly took the hit, losing a significant portion of their racist base (guess where they went?) and losing the South for multiple generations.

                1. Emotions project feelings, but facts are more reliable. I think one southern democrat may have turned Republican. You can correct me if I am wrong, but the rest remained as Democrats. As far as the people are concerned, the vast majority died as Democrats.

              2. And section 5 was to expire after 5 years – hat would be 1970, finally in 2013 SCOTUS said enough is enough, this section was unconstitutional from the start. But 43 years is ridiculous.

      3. . They then repeal the 13th, 14th, all the other civil rights amendments,
        “They” lack the power.
        2/3 of congress has to pass the amendments…then 2/3 of the States have to ratify congress’s act.

        When that happens. “they” become ‘we’

        This is Jr High civics
        Yes that is exactly how you choose to illuminate your ignorance.

    2. That military junta might not have the success that you imagine. They will never use nuclear weapons on American soil against Americans, and most American troops will not turn weapons on Americans. Don’t let your fears run away with you.

      1. I agree with you, my scenario is unlikely. I’m just saying, we need to keep the military nonpartisan or we’ll both be wrong. When the military forces its personnel to undergo CRT training, it’s basically saying they want conservatives to get out. That’s not nonpartisan. That kind of ethnic cleansing was real, but I think (hope) it backfired. In any event, I no longer trust Milley or Gilday. I want them fired for a host of reasons.

  6. “the left seems to be rallying behind three D’s: Democracy, Disinformation and Disqualification”

    All Americans should rally around Democracy.

    There may be some of the left who rally behind Disinformation, but many of us do not, and the GOP — the party of the Big Lie — rallies around Disinformation more often than those on the left.

    “Nothing says “democracy” like preventing others from voting.”

    That’s more the GOP again.

    “There are similar efforts to block members like Arizona GOP Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs from appearing on state ballots.”

    Apparently JT has chosen not to update his Hill column in light of the ruling yesterday in AZ.

    JT is also silent about Greene’s testimony yesterday.

    Among other things, she claimed “I was asking people to come for a peaceful march,” when no one had obtained the required permit for a march (required by DC law), and the permits that were obtained for the rally specifically note that they did not have a permit to march (e.g., “This permit does not authorize a march from the Ellipse.” — https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/21-0278-Women-for-America-First-Ellispse-permit_REDACTED.pdf ). That unpermitted march was highlighted by Judge Mehta in some of his J6 rulings.

    Greene was also shown on tape saying “America reelected Donald J. Trump for 4 more years. You can’t allow it to just transfer power peacefully like Joe Biden wants and allow him to become our President.” But not a peep out of Turley condemning Greene for that.

    I doubt that this attempt to disqualify Greene will work. I’m more curious whether any of her testimony conflicts with evidence that the DOJ and J6 Committee have, for example, if she lied about whether she asked Meadows to invoke the insurrection act or if she lied about the extent of her ties to Ali Alexander.

    1. “There may be some of the left who rally behind Disinformation, but many of us do not, and the GOP — the party of the Big Lie — rallies around Disinformation more often than those on the left.” This is garbage. Stop throwing your vote away, vote 3rd party!

    2. “All Americans should rally around Democracy.
      There may be some of the left who rally behind Disinformation, but many of us do not, and the GOP — the party of the Big Lie — rallies around Disinformation more often than those on the left.”

      BREAKING: DNI Declassifies Handwritten Notes From John Brennan, 2016 CIA Referral On Clinton Campaign’s Collusion Operation

      This happened quite a while back and you still don’t know it. You must be Anonymous the Stupid.

      https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/06/breaking-dni-declassifies-handwritten-notes-from-john-brennan-2016-cia-referral-on-clinton-campaigns-collusion-operation/

    3. So if the criteria for holding office is the questioning of an election it must follow that Hillary Clinton, and Stacy Abrams should not be allowed on a ballot to run for any public office. Equating Jan 6 with the Civil War is on it’s face ridiculous. It’s also disrespectful to 618,222 Union solders who died in the Civil War not to mention the loved ones they left behind. The traces of the tears of those loved ones can still be found on the monuments of our fallen heroes. To cheapen their service by comparing it to Jan 6 is a national travesty. If their is any place to stoop lower the Democrats in Congress will undoubtedly find it.

  7. “ No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

    Greene gave comfort and aid to those who were trying to overturn a legal election. She supported their actions. Which is disqualifying according to the constitution.

    The court is determining whether this support (aid) for their actions thru her comments and calling the election stolen give enough reason to put her qualification for office into question.

    She wanted to deny the votes of millions based on false claims. That’s a far more dangerous threat to democracy than just challenging the qualification of a lawmaker. How often do people like Greene call for support of overturning a legally certified election? Greene’s behavior in court showed she cannot stand behind her belief that the election was stolen while under oath. She doesn’t dare to stand behind her belief under oath in court. She’s essentially a coward when it comes to facing the consequences of stating her “strong” belief that the election was stolen. It’s easy to hide behind the shield of free speech, but it’s much harder to take ownership of the responsibility and consequences that come with it. She cannot be shielded from the consequences

    1. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

      Which is exactly what Congress did.

      Congress later passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which overrode the Disqualification Clause except for “Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses.”

      Judge Totenberg is the only person violating the law and the Constitution.

      1. Iowan2,

        That law only applied to former confederates. It would not apply to Greene. She is not a former confederate. All former confederates are dead by now. Congress would need to legislate a brand new act for Greene to be exempt from the 14th amendment’s 3rd clause.

        1. You have all the facts. backward
          The ammedment applied to everybody.

          THE LAW, following the ammendment, exempted all.

          Congress later passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which overrode the Disqualification Clause except for “Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses.”

          Why is Judge Totenberg ignoring the law?

          1. Iowan2,

            “ You have all the facts. backward
            The ammedment applied to everybody.

            “ THE LAW, following the ammendment, exempted all.”

            No, it just exempted only the members of the 36 and 37 congresses. Not all future congresses. All former Confederate members were disqualified from reading running for any office by the 14th.

            The act of 1872 does not apply to anyone else who is not a former Confederate or any member of Congress after the 37th Congress.

  8. Lets be real.
    MTG is a nut job.

    Yet, to try and keep her off the ballot under the excuse that she participated in an insurrection… that’s a joke.

    There’s no legal basis for this because event the FBI admitted that on Jan 6th, there was no insurrection.

    If there’s no insurrection… then you can’t claim her to be an insurrectionist.

    If the Dems want to keep her off the ballot, they can flip to the GOP party and vote against her in the primary and get a different GOP candidate.
    Or find a Democratic candidate that has greater appeal to the voters.

    -G

    1. Not sure what you have in mind, but no one from the FBI has testified under oath that “there was no insurrection,” and there is no FBI document saying “there was no insurrection.”

      So far, no one has been charged with insurrection. Several people have been charged with seditious conspiracy, and if I’m remembering correctly, one person has pleaded guilty to it so far.

      1. You are making as much sense as Sammy. Doesn’t speak well for your belief that you are clairvoyant.

    2. The notion that the FBI declared (an had the authority to declare) that Jan 6 was not an insurrection and thus an ordinary protest is a Republican lie.

    3. An insurrection is a violent uprising against an authority or government. The FBI made no such claim that it was not an insurrection.

      1. “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.”
        That is the caselaw defintion.

        the overt purpose of the protest was to persuade congress not to certify the election.

        No one sought to disband congress. Nor did anyone seek to prevent congress from form doing its duty – which you do not seem to grasp was NOT to certify the election results.

        The duty of congress was to DECIDE whether to certify the results.

        Asking even demanding that those in power excercise that power is a constitutionally allowed way is NOT overthrowing government.

        in 1876 Tilden won the popular vote and the electoral college. But there were fraud challenges in several states.

        Much like today. Congress did not certify the election and instead appointed a commission to look into the fraud.
        That commission determined that Harris not Tilden won the election.

        All that was perfectly constitutional.

        That was very nearly exactly what protestors demanded.

        You can not be engaged in “insurrection” when you demand that government do something that is constitutional and has been done before.

        You can beleive these people to be wrong.

        I would further note that prior to certifying the election – attempting to overthrow Biden – as oppsed to the federal government would not be overthrowing the constituted government. Biden was not yet president. He was not president until 2+ weeks later.
        The protestors certainly were not trying to overthrow trump.

  9. Again and again Turley shows his cards as being a political operative. If Turley believes that this law is destroying democracy, then Turley might as well denounce all laws that are on the books to protect democracies.

  10. Turley often forgets that those republicans who supported the insurrection or preventing congress from doing their job were indeed violating their oath of office. Greene argues that she was just exercising her free speech rights. What she doesn’t understand or is oblivious about is that she is not immune from the consequences of exercising it. In her case it was about denying the votes of millions over false allegations of voter fraud. Allegations that were proven to be false by multiple audits, manual recounts, and even by private Republican sponsored auditing firms.

    Greene’s court appearance showed a lot of uncomfortable realizations for Greene when she was confronted by her own words under oath. Suddenly she couldn’t or wouldn’t take ownership of statements she proudly made on social media. Liking posts that said Pelosi should be shot. Posts telling Trump supporters to come to the rally jan 6 because something special was going to happen.

    Greene couldn’t state if she agreed the election was stolen under oath after saying it repeatedly on Twitter and Facebook. It was telling how she couldn’t bring herself to answer the question because suddenly her “opinion” can have consequences in court.

    Turley has his own opinion just like everyone else. But he’s not one of those who supported the violence and illegal disruption of a congressional function that would have denied the votes of millions because of false allegations of voter fraud.

    1. “Turley often forgets that those republicans who supported the insurrection or preventing congress from doing their job were indeed violating their oath of office.”

      Why do you call it an insurrection when the FBI doesn’t?

      Based on the recently released questions of impropriety (John Say highlighted a few citations recently), why are people not entitled to their own opinions?

      1. Anonymous,

        The FBI made no mention of an insurrection and it never claimed it wasn’t.

        “Based on the recently released questions of impropriety (John Say highlighted a few citations recently), why are people not entitled to their own opinions?”

        Nobody is saying people are not entitled to their own opinions. That doesn’t mean they are not immune from being criticized for their opinions just as Turley is.

        1. “The FBI made no mention of an insurrection and it never claimed it wasn’t.”

          The FBI never claimed it wasn’t a birthday party. Was it a birthday party? Do you see how your logic fails?

          1. Anonymous,

            “ The FBI never claimed it wasn’t a birthday party. Was it a birthday party? Do you see how your logic fails?”

            The only thing that fails here is your asinine rationalizations.

            1. A negative claim is not a claim. There was no rationalization involved. Whether it is your affinity for violent students or your perverse attitude concerning claims never made, you still can’t figure your way out.

        2. It is the oppinion of MTG that the 2020 election was stolen – that oppinion was shared by a plurality of americans.

          Holding that oppinion is NOT a crime. It is NOT insurrection.

          Acting within the law and constitution motivated by that opinion is not a crime.

          Even if that opinion should at some future time be proven FALSE – which is not happening.

          Holding the opinion and acting within the law and constitution on that opinion would not be a crime.

          The constitutional remedy if MTG offends you is to vote her out.

  11. Meanwhile, the Repo party has become the party of lies. Not only the big lie about the 2020 election, we now have McCarthy lying about whet he said and the Baby Donald Trump seems to be so proud of his little darling. Sad, we have come to a really sad place in our Democracy.

    1. Yeah, so much better having the Dimwits in power. Where would we be without the highest inflation in modern history coupled with $5 gasoline and a foreign policy that left over a billion dollars of military hardware in the hands of the Taliban? So wonderful having 12,000 people a day pour across our southern border and ya gotta love the high crime rates, especially in Dimwit-controlled cities. And now Biden’s darling son’s laptop is exposing daddy’s lies about “never discussed Hunter’s business dealings” and, in fact, the senile hack was part of the money-grabbing schemes. See you in November, sadsack.

      1. Inflation is caused by economic forces beyond the control of any US politician. But instead of thinking rationally you just will go support the racist fascists.

        1. Too much money chasing too few goods and services.
          Look at all the EO of Biden, and profligate printing of money.

      2. It’s not the highest inflation in US history, and if you adjust $ for inflation over time, it’s also not the highest gas prices.

        1. ATS, is inflation going up? Are gas prices climbing? What is your conclusion? Do you think your rhetoric denying a faltering economy will make things better? Is that how you work? Do you wait until things fall apart? Not smart.

      3. Trump bears responsibility for inflation due to lying about COVID, causing it to be worse than it had to be. Because businesses and schools shut down for about 2 years, gasoline production went down, and when Biden reversed Trump’s 10% unemployment rate and people started returning to work and pleasure travel, production has not gone up. Petroleum companies are making record profits that they are using for stock buybacks and are slowly ramping up production. Factories and other businesses slowed or shut down, too, and many workers went back to school or to other jobs, so there’s a shortage of workers. And, due to Trump’s tariffs, import of computer chips and other supplies went way down, so the lack of supplies and backlog of orders for consumer goods are the main reasons for higher prices. THIS IS TRUMP’S FAULT. Biden inherited this mess left by Trump.

        Afghanistan: Trump made a deal with the Taliban to draw down our troops from 14,000 to 2,500, and he turned loose 5,000 Taliban prisoners, and THAT’S why the difficult withdrawal.

        Democrats did not cause the migration at the southern border. This has been a problem for decades, but it’s a hook used by alt-right media.

        1. “Trump bears responsibility for inflation due to lying about COVID, causing it to be worse than it had to be.”

          Crazy Lady, based on your analysis, Biden is killing people all over the place. Look at how many deaths have occurred under his watch. Biden had the vaccine and anti-virals along with masks and everything else. Crazy Lady, what do you think Biden is doing wrong?

        2. US gasoline production is virtually unchanged over 25 years.
          If anything it rose SLIGHTLY during Trump

          it remains unchanged under Biden.

        3. US crude oil production peaked in early 2020 and STILL has not come close to recovering.

        4. Nutacha

          “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”
          Milton Friedman. The laws of supply and demand dictate that if money supply is constant and production rises – prices ……
          DECLINE – always and everywhere.

          This is the litteral truth of thousands of years prior to the creation of central banks.
          Constant slow deflation – with periodic bouts of inflation when governments think they can debase the currency to spend more.

          In 2020 and 2021 – SPENDING has driven inflation – because the primary buyer of US debt has been the Fed for a long time.
          That means that as govenrment spends more – the money supply just keeps growing.

          What we are watching is the obliteration of the idiotic economic theory called MMT. that has held sway since the start of Obama’s term.

          Did Trump;’s massive covid spending contribute – Absolutely.

          But Trump is responsible for only about 1/3 of the gargantuan increase in debt and therefore money supply in the past 2 years.

        5. It is self evident to anyone with a clue that the ONLY measure that would have made Covid LESS bad was for government to leave the problem to people and their doctors.

          Forcibly imposed public health policies have not been effective ANYWHERE.

          The only country in the western world that did not have MORE excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 was …. Sweden.

          What was done violated the hypocratic oath – First do no harm.

          People got Covid and died – more than 90% are people highly likely to have died within a few months.

          But Covid public health policies killed the economy, increased drug overdoses, and suicide, and depression and anxiety and decreased standard of living.

          And that is a small portion of the negative impacts of public health policies.

          Again FIRST DO NO HARM.

        6. Nutacha

          You are so incredibly divorced fro the real world.

          China makes 10% of the computer chips in the world.
          Taiwan makes 40% – the problem is in Taiwan – not china.
          Tariffs had nothing to do with it.

        7. You cite the laws of supply and demand driving prices up – which is correct – but you miss half the laws of supply and demand.

          As you note oil companies are trying to produce more oil. Production is not rising as fast as it could – not because companies are not motivated – but because they are choked in govenrment constraints.

          The Biden admin does not want more gas and oil.

          That is not some secret, it is LITTERALLY their openly admitted policy.

          What we are seeing with Gasoline is LITTERALLY what they wanted. It is not some side effect or some mess they inhereted.

          This is not a secret.

          The left today is NOT very secretive about what they want what their policies will be.

          They are just surprised that people who supported them when those polices were represented as having no cost are violently opposed when they actually have to pay for them.

          What we are seeing is the INTENDED consequences of “Green” energy policies – higher prices unreliability and angry consumers.

          Trump wanted to spend alot of money on Covid – hence inflation.
          Democrats trippled down – hence alot more inflation.

          Lockdowns and draconian policies – hence economic decline, loss of jobs, increased depression, increased anxiety, increased suicide, increased drug use and increased drug addiction

          Demoralize and diminish police – crime rises.

          In most instance the left can not even cope with the 2nd order consequences – the trivially foreseeable consequences of their policies.

          Whether you like it or not – Biden did not inherit a mess from Trump – Trump inhereted a mess from Obama/Biden – and rapidly cleaned it up.

          Biden took office with the wind at his back and in less than 2 years he faces gales of his own making.

          The release of Taliban prisioners did not result in the disasterous afghan withdraw.

          Lets separate this into two parts.

          First was the collapse of the afghan government – aside from Biden’s culpability in trying to get the Afghan prime minister to lie, that was ultimately not the US’s fault – not Trump not Biden.

          The Afghans were given the tools to remain a free country if they wanted. THEY failed.

          That should be self evident from Ukraine. With a tiny fraction of the resources the Afghan’s had Ukraine is defeating the 2nd largest army in the world – compared to which the Taliban is JV.

          The collapse of afghanistan is because you can not impose freedom on people – they have to want it. They have to be willing to fight for it and die for it. And kill for it.

          The Botched withdraw is completely independent. The withdraw from afghanistan resembled the collapse of Vietnam because it was the same. It was the US government unprepared for the predictable collapse of the Afghan government.

          Woult the withdraw have gone so badly under Trump ?

          Highly unlikely. Trump would have told the Taliban – We are leaving. We are doing it OUR WAY. You can step aside and not interfere and we will take as long as we want and do it how we want – or we will make a bloody mess for you.

          The US military – actually a small portion of green berets and airpower defeated the Taliban the first time – in 90 days.

          The US would have had no problem setting the taliban way back on their heels and leaving – had we wanted to.

          Had Biden told the Taliban F’off – leave Bagram and Kabul alone until WE SAY SO, or face the might of the US – they would have backed off.

          Biden was WEAK. That weakness has cost peoples lives all over the world.

          Teddy Roosevelt famously said “walk softly and carry a big stick”
          Biden mummbled incoherently and forgot there was a stick.

          Trump would have gesticulated wildly, but he would have made damn sure everyone knew he had a very big stick and was prepared to use it. The same was True of Ukraine.

        8. The problems at the southern border have been arround for a long time.

          But inarguable Trump handled them better than Obama and Biden has done much worse than Obama.

          Regardless, if you hang a sign out that says – “come on in, and bring your drugs” – you should not be surprised when people come.

          I would further note that again the mess at the southern border is not some mess Biden inherited.

          It is AGAIN exactly what the left wanted – minus the anger stirred up in the american people.

          Biden explicitly said – that 2M people coming in from the south would be fine with him during the campaign – so now we have 3M.

          Quit ranting and trying to blame it on others when the policies you WANTED piss people off.

          The mess at the southern border is NOT an accident. It is what you WANTED.
          You just thought people would not get upset.

          You are litterally losing the votes of children of illegal immigrants – because they do not want to lose their jobs, their opertunity to illegal immigrants.

    2. The United States IS NOT a democracy !
      If this Republic was a democracy, we would not have Transgender Appreciation Day…
      Only 2 million persons identify as Transgender.
      That is about .03% of the population.
      Yet 99.97% of the population must endure a new lifestyle.
      If we live in a democracy as they continue to say, how does the minority get do make rules for the majority.

      1. “Yet 99.97% of the population must endure a new lifestyle.”
        I feel so sorry for you. You have been forced to be transgender? How has allowing other people the ability to live their lives the way they want degrading your lifestyle?

        1. “How has allowing other people the ability to live their lives the way they want degrading your lifestyle?”

          You mean like males competing against females in female sports?

          Or perhaps you mean their propagandizing their pathology to *children,* in the classroom and in children’s stories.

          Or perhaps you mean their disgusting smear campaigns against anyone who disagrees with them.

          Or maybe you mean their culture-wide attempts to substitute their delusions for reality.

          The only good thing about that disgusting movement is that it has forced feminists to acknowledge the men and women are biologically different.

          1. Wow, anger issues?
            You really need to get out and see what children are being taught in classrooms. They are bring taught how to be descent human beings. Something I guess you missed growing up.

      2. The US is a representative democracy and a constitutional federal republic.

        If you believe “The United States IS NOT a democracy,” then you’re ignorant.

        “Yet 99.97% of the population must endure a new lifestyle.”

        Being trans isn’t a “lifestyle,” and it’s pretty sad that you describe it as something you have to “endure” when people are living their lives without harming you.

        1. Where is that in the Constitution
          Exactly? Why was it voted down 9 times? Jhst another socialist big lie.

          1. Michael, did your HS English teacher not teach you that when you use a pronoun like “that,” the referent should be clear?

            “Where is that in the Constitution”

            If you’re asking where is the word “democracy” in the Constitution, I never claimed that the word “democracy” is in the Constitution. I claimed that the US is a representative democracy, and the Founders’ writings make this clear: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/

  12. Turley said of Greene in the article he cited:

    “Before addressing the constitutional question, it is important to note that Rep. Greene also referred to President Biden as a “piece of s**t.” Regardless of how one feels about Biden, it should be deeply offensive to all Americans to have an elected official use such language toward our President. During the Trump Administration, I made the same objection to vulgar attacks on him and his cabinet and staff. In our age of rage, there is a sense of impunity or license for adults to act in ways that we have long barred in our children from name calling to profane attacks.”

    Let that be a lesson to you Trumpists who make vulgar attacks about “our President” Biden. I accuse Trump only for being a priven liar. That is not vulgar; it’s an undeniable fact. Ironically, it was Turley who engaged in “name-calling” when he said that Trump was a “carnival snake charmer.” I confess that I do enjoy repeating that quote often because it is a far more picturesque in describing Trump than using the plain word “liar.” To date, Turley has never given any indication that he has altered his low opinion of Trump’s moral character.

    1. I will use language that would make a UNITED STATES SAILOR BLUSH When it comes to a piece of garbage that you hold up as a good man. That piece of Dingle Berry Biden. I will not use cuss words in here though because of simple decorum. But a make no mistake about it. What Miss Greene called that piece of trash Biden, I am fully in agreement with her. And I’ve said publicly. Person to person.

      And everybody I know on a personal basis here in NW Montana, and men I know down in Wyoming and in both Dakotas, feel the same way I do about that usurping slime piece of shi!! He has all but destroyed this Nation in 1 year!!!!!!!! All of us was 100% better off with a real President. A President that did have his full faculties about him. That piece of trash Biden, doesn’t even know where he’s at half the time. Even the people that work for him don’t even wanna have nothing to do with him.

      Fox News has played the tape of him walking around in a room full of people that actually work for him!!!!! and every single one of them, ignored him. And as much as I absolutely despise each one of those pieces of Dingle Berries, I don’t blame them. The man is, a joke!!!! A flat out old piece of shi- joke.

      1. Remington,

        I hear Montana is beautiful country. It’s too bad the same can’t be said of the people who live there if you are any indication.

        1. You keep vascillating between Trump is an evil liar that has deceived half the country and helf the country are evil hating racist homophobes who support Trump.

          Let me give you are clue – neither are true.

          Insulting half the country is not going to win elections.

    2. Constitutional requirements to be a President of this Republic
      “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1
      If we take the time to study history, we find that very few of the President had good moral character. Every past president has been proven to be a liar.
      Our current President tells whoppers daily, he lacks good moral character and evidence indicates that he is not mentally stable.

      1. Tinkertom,

        I’m glad you acknowledge that all our presidents have stretched the truth. However, history will record that Trump was in a class by himself. His lying was pathological. Senators Graham, Cruz, Romney, Bush, and Rubio all said so when they ran against him for the Republican nomination. Those who deny that Trump is an inveterate liar are liars themselves- Trumpists.

        1. So please share with us his biggest, most awful, horrendous lie. I won’t bore you with “if you like you’re doctor you can keep your doctor”. The only reason people are willing to call Biden’s outrageous statements “gaffes” instead of lies is that no one believes he has the capacity to form a lie; the guy is so far gone he actually believes his “lies”.

          1. Matt,

            I have made this offer before to Trumpists, but perhaps you are not aware of it.

            I am perfectly prepared to concede that Biden is mentally unstable IF AND ONLY IF you are willing to admit that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar.

            Fairer than that I can’t be.

            1. That is pretty dumb. Biden is either mentally unstable or not and has nothing to do with Matt’s beliefs. Basic logic eludes Jeff.

            2. You’re confused. I have no interest in whether or not you think Biden is senile; that train’s left the station. I note that you failed in your response to reply to the actual substance of my post: What’s the biggest, juiciest lie Trump stated as POTUS?

              1. Matt,

                You know the answer, but I suspect that you would admit that Trump is a congenital liar only at the point of a loaded gun.

                1. You say so but have never been able to supply a list of significant lies he made as President.

                  That demonstrates a big mouth without a brain.

                2. Translation: You got nothing. Dood, you should find another forum to rant on, somewhere no one calls you out. Like, Twitter (at least, for now).

                  1. Nope. I’m staying put, like it or not. You lying Trumpists will not cancel me here. Only Turley can if I violate his Twitter-like Civility Rule. Not gonna happen. Tough.

                    1. Why cancel you, a person that proves the conservative case night and day.

                    2. No one is trying to cancel you.
                      No one hates you. Even though you clearly hate half the country.

                      Your entertaining.

                      I look forward to each of your posts.

                      Frankly if you ever got a clue – you would be much more boring.

                      One of the things I hope for here is a serious intellectual challenge from someone on the left.
                      I have not encountered an intelligent lefty in a long long time – but some do exist, you are not one of them.

                      But you are funny.

                3. You can not speak you own mind clear beyond insults and ad hominem – and you expect we can beleive you about someone else’s mind ?

                  I do not know Matt but I suspect at the point of a gun – he would say whatever you want

                  What would that prove ?

              2. Which of Trump’s many lies is “the biggest, juciest lie” is a matter of opinion.

                Instead of asking for a single one, consider some big categories of lies he’s told.

                He told a slew of lies about Covid. Some examples:
                “We have it [the coronavirus] totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s — going to be just fine.”
                “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”
                In March of 2020: “Anybody that wants a test can get a test.”
                “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
                “No, I’m not concerned at all.” [That might not have been a lie, but if he wasn’t concerned at all, then he should have been. Also not a lie but terrible: “I don’t take responsibility at all.”]
                “I couldn’t have done it any better.” [When asked if his coronavirus response could have been better]
                “This is going to go away without a vaccine. It is going to go away.. We are not going to see it again.”
                In June of 2020: “At some point this stuff goes away and it’s going away.” “It’s fading away. It’s going to fade away.”

                In my personal opinion, nothing compares to Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election: that he won and it was stolen from him. Some examples:
                “this year they [big tech] rigged an election. They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before.”
                “we won this election and we won it by a landslide.”
                “If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. … He has the absolute right to do it.” [“it” = unconstitutionally refuse to certify EC votes from key states Trump lost]
                “Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft and there’s never been anything like this. So pure theft in American history.”
                This is called The Big Lie for a reason.

                As Judge Carter recently ruled, “Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process. … The Court discussed above how the evidence shows that President Trump likely knew that the electoral count plan was illegal. President Trump continuing to push that plan despite being aware of its illegality constituted obstruction by “dishonest” means under § 371. The evidence also demonstrates that Dr. Eastman likely knew that the plan was unlawful. … Based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

                1. “We have it [the coronavirus] totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s — going to be just fine.”

                  Yet that is what the left’s hero, Fauci, said to Trump, yet Trump closed the border and fast-tracked a vaccine while the left did everything they could to thwart him.

                  His opinion (not fact) was correct at the time, and what the manual you used to bring up said a President should say under such circumstances. Trump’s comments toward China were the only comments he could make, considering that the left created our dependence on China.

                  Anonymous the Stupid, you have posted these things before. I don’t need to deal with more than one to prove you an idiot and a deceitful person. I think my last big reply to you says it all.

                2. Your honestly going to use Covid as your example of Trump lying ?

                  First an actual lie requires the person saying it to KNOW it was false.

                  such as when the Clinton campaign brought fake claims it had created itself to FBI/DOJ and accued Trump of committing crimes.

                  That is a LIE ?

                  Or Bill Clinton saying – I did not have sex with that woman.

                  Trump beleiving and repeating optomistic information he received from Fauxi and CDC is STUPID, it is not a lie.

                  Conversly Fauxi has Actually lied – to all of us and to congress.

                  Next – regardless of what ever defintion you use for LIE – if Covid is the issue – Trump is not even close to Biden for “lying”.

                  Have Trump and republicans made mistake regarding Covid – absolutely – but they are not even close to the scale of democrats.

                3. With respect to Covid – a recent very thorough study of excess deaths throughout the world has found that Sweden had the best results of any western country with ZERO excess deaths during the pandemic.

                  That does not mean no one died of Covid in sweden. It means that the total deaths in Sweden from 2020 through the present are no different than those that would have occured without covid.

                  Further the nations with the most draconian responses had the highest numbers of excess deaths.

                  Excess deaths is the total number of deaths beyond the pre-existing trend from the prior 6 years.

                  It includes deaths from Covid, deaths from drug overdoses, suicides, and many other causes.

                4. You keep confusing motives that you do not like for criminal or unconstitutional acts.

                  That is an incredibly stupid and dangerous means of mangling the law.

                  Motive is not an element of a crime.
                  Intent usually is.
                  Intent and motive are entirely different.
                  Intent means that you did an act that constituted a crime deliberately.

                  You did not accidentally kill someone – you did so deliberately.

                  If you kills someone deliberately – and you are not acting in defense of self or defense of others – or the few other justifications for killing
                  you have committed a crime.

                  It is not a crime – because you are a racist.
                  It is still a crime – even if the person you killed was a bad person.

                  Your MOTIVE is irrelevant in determining whether something is a crime.

                  If the acts alleged are legal – an allegedly bad motive – does not make them a crime.

                  Challenging elections is legal and constitutional.
                  Doing so in congress the day of certification is legal and constitutional.

                  Conspiring – even with what you beleive is a bad motive to challenge the certification of the election – is legal and constitutional.

                  Hillary ranting and raving that the Russians stole the election – was evil, and immoral. It was also legal.
                  Hillary trying to persuade electors to change their vote – was legal.
                  Those democrats who rose to challenge the certification of Trump in 2016 – acted legally.

                  Plotting, conspiring, … to challenge the certification of the election in 2020 is legal and constitutional.

                  MOtives are irrlevant

                  Further those who fixate on motives are in great danger of the shoe being on the other foot.

                  Republicans are likely to retake the house and the senate in 2022.
                  And the whitehouse in 2024 – regardless of what republican runs.

                  Starting in 2022 – using YOUR argument – house republicans could impeach Biden and most democrats in congress.
                  As well as this judge.

            3. Why are facts the subject of negotiation or compromise.

              You can accept Biden’s obvious and increasing cognative problems or you can look the fool.

              As to Trump – you keep this “liar” nonsense up.

              Yet, Trump’s appeal to his base is rooted in the FACT that he is NOT.

              It will be interesting to see what Biden does as his administration goes down the Tubes.

              Sen. Hassan has earned the Ire or the left- for visiting the border.
              Myriads of democrats are quietly or not so quietly embracing bits and peices of Trumpism – in the hopes of surviving the Tsunami they see headed their way in November.

              As has been said – miracles could happen – democrats could hold onto power – but at this moment – no one – not even democrats beleives that.

              Several analysts I respect – those that have actually bothered to seek the pulse of the people are noting an enormous angry backlash – much worse than 2016.

              Maybe that will not happen – but it is clear that Democrats are affraid of it.

              I support Biden in killing the Title 42 regulations – because Covid is no longer a crisis.
              It is currently disengenuous and fraudulent – LYING for democrats to push Biden to continue title 42 as a means to contain illegal immigration.

              The ends do not justify the means.
              We have a mess at the southern border that we need to deal with. Even if we choose to allow 3M people in each year – that should not happen in the anarchistic and chaotic way it is, that enables human and drug trafficers.

              Regardless, the majority of americans do not want 3M legal immigrants a year.

              We need to enforce the immigration laws we have while we decide what laws we should have.
              Numerous democratic polititions are quietly talking about building the wall – as well as wishing Trump had finished.

              The democratic party is in chaos right now, and could end up in open civil war.

              The AOC wing has lead democrats to their own waterloo. And having so utterly failed the children that democrats bet on are now abandoning them

              Regardless, democrats have two huge problems that are directly on point to your claim Trump is some massive liar.

              The democratic policies do not work, and they have lied massively about them.

              I have asked you repeatedly about examples of Trump telling significant and proveable lies.

              You have failed to come up with one.

              The collusion delusion – was not one lie – but hundreds. They were significant, and they were proveably WRONG.

              Pretty much everytime the media, the left, democrats use the term disinformation – you can KNOW that they are about to call what is likely True a lie.

              The Hunter Biden laptop story was not Russian disinformation.
              Now even the left media is starting to challenge lies the rest of us saw from the start – Hunter Biden chronies had unfettered access to the Obama whitehouse. Whether they met with Obama, Biden or pretty much anyone else in the whitehouse – it is SELF EVIDENT that what Hunter Biden was selling was the ear and influence of the whitehouse.

              That what he was selling was the power of the US government.

              Most of us grasp that Joe was deeply involved.
              But lets consider that he was not.

              Hunter was STILL Selling the same thing – the power of the US Govenrment – if he was not leveraging that of the vide president – then who was he selling ? There is not a good answer for democrats.

            4. Who was lying in the debates – Trump or Biden ?

              Who was lying about the 2016 election – Hillary, Schiff, Muellers angry democrats, the media – or Trump ?

              You actually have a huge problem on you “trump is a liar” narative.

              Trump stood up to the entire left. To democrats, to some republicans, to the media, to Biden, to Clinton, to the deep state,
              he stood nearly alone – but for supporters that you claim are all racist, sexist idiots.

              And Trump – not his adversaries proved right – about everything.

              Even the election – many might not quite yet be ready to accept that there was ballot fraud.

              But you have already lost the “stolen election” – fight. The media, deep state, democrats, left, and social media conspired to “steal the election” by burrying the Truth about the Bidens.

              We can argue whether that was legal – but we all KNOW that it happened. The truth was supressed – it was LIED about, for the sole purpose of winning an election.

              “The Ends justifies the means” – for those of you on the left. You will LIE as needed to get whatever you want.

              We are past debating whether the Big lie was the collusion delusion or the Biden corruption.

              We have a long long long long string of lies – from YOU. And you have the termidity to call anyone else a LIAR ?

              People are not stupid.

              They may or may not agree with Trump – but contra your ends justifies the means idiocy.

              The big LIARs are on the left – not Trump, and it is not a close call.

                1. If it is ineluctable – you will have no problem providing clear and substantiative instances where Trump has inarguably lied and the facts to back that up.

                  You do not seem to grasp that stoming up and down shouting “Liar, Liar, Liar” does not make it true.

        2. Democratic presidential candidates also said negative things about each other.
          They mostly stand behind Biden now.

          That is politics.

          The criticisms of other politicians is only meaningful if it is grounded in reality.

          Regardless, you seem to fixate on the fact that some republicans have said bad things about other republicans.

          So what – with the possible exception of what I hope is the divorce between the rest of republicans and neo-cons the rest is jockying for position. The GOP is in no danger of fragmenting.

          The same is not true of the democratic party. Increasing numbers of democrats are pushing Biden to revert back to Trump policies.
          Someone is going to be disappointed. either independents and moderates are going to abandon the party – atleast at the polls, and Republicans will obliterate democrats, or the democratic party will make a strong move towards the center – in which case it will lose the support of most people under 35.

          The democratic party has no common ground with itself. Moderates would have tolerated this woke nonsense – had it worked.

    3. Jeff, Turley never said he had a low opinion of Trump. You interpret his words wrongfully to satisfy your zeal for placing hatred above grace.

      If your reading were merely adequate, you would find Turley’s profound distaste for your type. He prefers honor to baseness.

      1. S. Meyer,

        “Jeff, Turley never said he had a low opinion of Trump.”

        Actually he did. When Turley called Trump a carnival snake charmer it showed he had a low opinion of him. It’s the fact that he called him a name to describe him that is significant. How often do so see Turley calling others names? Can you cite or find examples of Turley calling anyone else names?

        1. def of snake charmer: an entertainer who exhibits a professed power to charm or fascinate venomous snakes

          How come Trump didn’t work his charm on Jeff?

          How does being a snake charmer show a low opinion of another?

          Do you have difficulty understanding words?

          1. Anonymous,

            It’s not the definition it’s the fact that Turley called trump a name to describe his low opinion of him.

            How many times does Turley call others names when he’s critical of their positions?

            You seem to have difficulty understanding context.

            1. “It’s not the definition…”

              Why do you think the definition of a word has no meaning when a person uses that word?

              1. Anonymous,

                The point is Turley called Trump a name which describes his low opinion of him. Describing Trump as a “Carnival snake charmer” is still describing someone who pretends to have power to deceive a lowly snake which is just a lowly huckster who often panders to dimwits who would believe he is doing something incredible when he is not meaning Turley had a low opinion of who Trump is.

                1. When Trump came in I should opened up a bunch of glass shop repair shops & sold all these people who live in glass houses lots of rocks.

                2. “The point is Turley called Trump a name which describes his low opinion of him. ”

                  Would you call a plumber in to do surgery?
                  Would you call a doctor in to do plumbing?
                  Are plumbers and doctors not worthy people?

                  Trump in 2011 was essentially unknown to Turley. Wasn’t Turley saying he wouldn’t call in a television personality to do a presidential debate among candidates?

        2. Svelaz – have you ever tried to charm a snake??? It takes skill and practice. Carnival snake charmer is not an insult.

          1. Paul. you do realize that it was common for Carnival snake charmers to use fake snakes to amaze the dupes paying to see the show…at a carnival. It’s the same place where you are constantly cheated and lied to. You know those places where the games are rigged against your favor.

            1. Svelaz – Turley did not say Trump was a fake snake charmer, he was a carnival snake charmer. So, I ask again, can you charm snakes?

      2. Meyer claims:

        “Jeff, Turley never said he had a low opinion of Trump.”

        You are in such denial. I’m sure calling Trump “an absurd television reality star” was his way of praising his character.

        1. Turley didn’t’ praise his character or mean what you foolishly believe.

          In essence, Turley said you don’t have a plumber doing surgery, and you don’t have a surgeon doing plumbing. Each person has specific expertise.

          You are easily confused. Ask Turley for today he has a different opinion. He also has an opinion of people like you. Quietly he laughs and wonders how young you were when normal development ceased.

          1. Anonymous says:

            “Quietly he laughs and wonders how young you were when normal development ceased.”

            On account of his principles, Turley has had to resign himself to the sad fact that his blog is overwhelming populated with those who sneer at the very elite liberal Eastern law school which he is undoubtedly proud to serve. Imagine the result were Turley to invite a handful of his blog family to sit-in on one of his GW law classes to interact with his students!

            Now THAT IS laughable, but I don’t think Turley would be among those laughing….

            1. “who sneer at the very elite liberal Eastern law school ”

              Conservatives don’t sneer at the school. They sneer at law school students and professors who do not understand freedom of speech. Take note, of how it is the conservatives that support Trump while you and your ilk try to tear him down.

            2. You keep talking about Turley as if you are telepathic.

              I do not think you know your own thoughts very well.

        2. Jeff
          I say insulting things about Trump all the time.

          But I STILL live in the reality – where Trump was demonstrably a better president than every other 21st century president.

          There is almost no one here that thinks Trump was perfect. But we still live in reality.

          We are not playing your game of “admit this about Trump”.

          Even if Trump actually was the invetterate liar you claim – which he was not, he would STILL be the best president of the 21st century.

          If it helps you – Bush and Obama were poor presidents. They had lots of problems. Each would be a contender for worst president ever.

          But Biden is such a disaster that he completely obscures their failures.

          Reality is about FACTS and those facts allow us to make comparisons.
          No president was perfect, most were deeply flawed.

          But few if any were as bad as Biden and you have to go back to the 20th century to find one better than Trump.

          That is reality.

          It is blatantly obvious reality.

          And you are oblivious to it.

          It is not just politics that divides us. It is grasping reality.

          Obama and many others in the democratic institutional complex recently gathered to complain about the problems of disinformation.
          They are absolutely correct that we have a huge problem – but they appeared clueless to the fact that THEY are the diseminators of disinformation. They are completely unable to accept that their ideology has failed and they have become adept at hiding from reality.
          They all live in a bubble – one you are in, where up is down, good is evil, and identity is everything – except when someone else focuses on identity.

    4. Nina Totenburg’s sister, a product of New York and San Francisco, a leftist Obama appointee who puts left wing politics before Constitutional criteria has just (again) put her bias on display. It will be enjoyable to read the appellate decision telling her brush up on the law and the constitution. Democrats know the voters are going to massacre them come November hence the desperate efforts to “win” an election before anyone gets to vote. Also fun to read posting such as yours that ignore the Moron-in-Chief, President Asterisk, the senile gaffe-machine.

      1. Matt,

        You should heed what Turley thinks of personal attacks on judges like yours:

        “During the campaign, President Donald Trump was roundly criticized for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge who was presiding in a case involving his now defunct Trump University. He argued that, because of the Mexican heritage of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel (who was actually born in Indiana), the judge was biased against him and referred to him as a “hater.” That “hater” however just handed down a major 101-page ruling in favor of Trump’s signature policy: the wall with Mexico. President Trump did not mention the controversy in his tweet praising the decision.”

        “Trump made repeated disparaging comments about Judge Curiel. He told Fox News that Curiel had been “extremely hostile” toward him due to his position on immigration: “I think it has to do with, perhaps, the fact that I’m very, very strong on the border — very, very strong on the border,. He has been extremely hostile to me. Now, he is Hispanic, I believe.” He then repeated those comments on CNN in noting that “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico.” Then at a political rally in San Diego where Curiel sits, Trump said “I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is not doing the right thing.” He added that Curiel “happens to be, we believe, Mexican.” At the time of Trump’s comments, I was one of many voicing strong objections to the personal attack.”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2018/02/28/judge-once-maligned-by-trump-as-a-hater-rules-in-favor-of-border-wall/

        Be more like Turley.

        1. ““During the campaign, President Donald Trump was roundly criticized for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge who was presiding in a case”

          What is funny is that when talking about her own credentials, SC Justice Sotomayor made almost precisely the same statement as Trump.

          1. This is the fundimental problem with the left today.

            When you make all politics about identity

            Inevitably all politics becomes about identity.

            Lost completely is judging people by their character rather than the color of their skin.

            Time will tell whether Justice Jackson is a disaster or a decent Justice.

            But Biden and the left demeaned her.
            First she was picked because of her sex and race – I am not saying that – President Biden explicitly said that.

            It is an open give from the statements of the person that picked her – that she is not the best choice.
            She is at best his best female Black choice.

            And remarkably the woman who was chosen because she is a black woman does not know what a women is.

            Regardless the public debate will be about issues of identity in one form or another – so long as one ideology is wedded to the notion that identity is all that matters.

            I would note that modern leftism – progressivism, post modernism will be always at war over identity – even if every single republican vanished from the face of the earth. We have already seen massive red pilling of the so called “allies”.

            If the oppressed identity of the moment is trans – you can not even ask questions about how that impacts women.

            What we are witnessing in the US is a bizarre synthesis of the Cultural revoltuon where Mao essentially used children to destroy history and culture and to disempower adults, and the soviet union where remarks, or worse still speeches and papers defending the views of stalin became the evidence that sent you to the gulag when Stalin changed his mind.

            This ideology will visciously fight – ALWAYS. It will fight conservative – till one or the other is dead.
            Should it prevail – its adherents will tear each other apart over power using identity as a proxy.

            Which I would note is all that modern progressivism is – the goal is POWER over others. Identity and other “issues” are merely the means to that end.

            This is why there is such tremendous hypocrisy on the left – the foot soldiers may be true beleivers but their leaders are not, They are not seeking to improve the lot of backs or women or trans or the baskin robins of LGBTQ gender identities. They are seeking to use conlficts over identity to gain power. So there will always be conflicts until the biggest meanest dogs – the up and coming stalins and mao’s gain absolute power – and even then they will pit groups against each other to keep the focus away from them and to prove their power.

            Or you could read 1984.

        2. Oh, please. What a stupid waste of your time and mine. I didn’t say the judge was unqualified as far as education goes. Unlike your cohort in describing the FL judge who just found the mask mandate on planes to have exceeded the CDS’s authority as granted by Congress. I’m sure you defended her as well, right?
          My point regarding Tottenberg is that she is prone to ignoring the Constitution and federal statutes of it accomplishes her lefty ideals and goals. Witness the three other judges who have dealt with the very same issue and thrown all three cases out. In one case, laughing at the plaintiffs for, essentially, being morons.

          1. I defer to your expertise on Judge Totenberg’s judicial philosophy as “prone to ignoring the Constitution and federal statutes if it accomplishes her lefty ideals and goals.”

            I’m sure you speak with authority having read many of her decisions to form the basis of your accusation as opposed to pulling this smear out of your a$$.

            1. Judge Totenbuurg Sealed a report on the security vulnerabilities of voting machines – because she was concerned it could fuel conspiracy theories.

              That is pretty much the definition of a left wing nut.

              The government is NOT permitted to decide what we are allowed to say or hear, or know.
              A left wingnuts fears that the great unwashed might be less able to understand that completely insecure systems are not really vulnerable to significant error or fraud – because – well she says so.

              Our voting systems have been POOR since before Bush V. Gore. The only small steps that have been taken to improve things was Voter ID – and that has required bloodshed to get passed.

              We are headed the wrong way. Even if you are so stupid as to fail to grasp the problems with 2020 – let me assure you – absent serious fixes to the way we run elections – take everything the democrats wanted to do in HB 1 and do the opposite – and you MIGHT be half way to trust worthy elections.

              This should not be a right left issue. While the left’s collusion delusion was complete BS – we still experienced the consequences of an election with a poor degree of trust.

              J6 was not an insurection but absent either radical changes in the security of our elections or one party pretty much taking over the country with the support of the majority of the people – regardless of elections, we are likely to have a real insurrection – and the only question is from which side and will it prevail.

              We can not continue with razor thin elections – that are well inside the margin of error and could easily be the result of fraud.

              The closer the election the more important it is to get it PERFECT.
              And perfect means results that the losers will trust based on THEIR criteria.

          2. Any judge who is driven by ideology rather than the constitution and law is unfit.

            Any judge who does not read laws narrowly and right broadly – is unfit.

            Government exists to secure the rights of the people – that is all.

            The constitution – imperfectly, yet still the best we have ever done coalesces thousands of years of though and experience to accomplish what is necescary for the sustainable improvement of its citizens.

            The best defense of limited government – 250 years ago

            “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

            ― Adam Smith

        3. The issue regarding the Judge was that he was affliated with a radical group. Razza.

          Arguably Trump’s words were less than perfect.

          But your argument has a HUGE gapping hole – you can not espouse an ideology where identity is everything – and then criticise others for failing to be identity blind.

          When you start by announcing you are going to select a black woman – for the supreme court, for vice president, for …

          You have assured that people are going to be talking about sex and race.
          YOU made it about sex and Race.

          You can not argue that the lived experience of Women, hispanics, homosexuals affects their judicial choices without expecting that others like Trump will not argue that the lived experience of a hispanic judge affects their judical choices.

          I keep telling you that leftism is self contradictory at its CORE.

          The only difference between Trump’s remarks about Curiel and Biden’s remarks about Jackson is that trump identified as a liability what Biden claimed was an asset.

          Either BOTH were being racist, or neither were.

        4. Just to be clear – Trump should not have attacked Curiel for being Mexican,
          Biden should not have said he was picking a black woman for anything.

          I would note that Biden’s remarks are ALSO demeaning.

          Clarence Thomas, Thurgood Marshall were inarguably incredibly well qualified – without consideration of Race.

          Thomas – despite some fairly regular idiotic decisions is still by far the most libertarian justice that has ever sat on the court.
          His dissents will be cited forever. And SOME of them are forming to core of new Supreme Court Jurisprudence decades after they were made. Marshall inarguably was one of the giants of the court.

          Ruth Bader Ginsburg is also among the giants of the court.

          So far Kagan and Sotomayor are just affirmative action appointments. They have no consequential voice.
          They are not consequential legal voices or thinkers – and this is especially disappointing regarding Kagan.

          So is Justice Jackson a mediocre judge who got to the pinnacle of US law because of affirmative action ?
          Or is she someone who truly belongs there reagardless of her sex or race ?

          Citing identity as a negative is fair game so long as YOU are citing identity as a positive.

      2. “Democrats know the voters are going to massacre them come November hence the desperate efforts to “win” an election before anyone gets to vote.”

        No one knows what will happen in November. People may have beliefs about what will happen, but those beliefs aren’t knowledge.

        Personally, I’m wondering whether there will be any significant impact from the upcoming public hearings by the Jan. 6 Select Committee (currently planned to start in June).

        1. You are correct we do not KNOW.

          There are lots of things we do not KNOW.

          As an example you clearly do not KNOW whether there was fraud in the 2020 election.

          Regardless, we are able to estimate the probability of many things.

          There is very little time left for Democrats to change the dynamic.
          I beleive Gallup found a 11pt swing in party identification in 2021.
          That does not tell us anything with certainty.
          But it strongly constrains what is probable.

          Anything short of a shellacking in 2022 starting from where we are now would be highly unlikely.
          Current betting odds are that the GOP takes the senate 3:1 and that they take the house 9:1

          The odds of the GOP taking 53 senate seats – are 23%
          54 19%
          51 16%
          52 16%
          50 9%
          55 8%
          56+ 8%

          No one at all outside the left is paying any attention to the J6 committee.
          The majority of voters beleive that the J6 committee is about scoring political points, not a legitimate inquiry.

          a super majority of people want an actual inquiry – but they do not beleive that is what the house is doing, and they are not paying attention.

          Regardless. there is nothing of consequence likely from the committee.
          If they had anything we would have known long ago.

    5. Jeff – why do you still believe all of the lies you were told for 4 years? Don’t you read the news, think critically? The DNC and HRC concocted an absurd Steele document – all lies. The DNC and the lying press said the Laptop was Russian disinformation – it wasn’t. Voters like you said Biden was competent – that was absurd evidenced by dramatic inflation, declining net wages, 3MM illegal aliens, $7 gas prices, 13 dead in Afghanistan, Russia killing thousands in Ukraine, and China laughing at the US. Vote in Hate, repent in Biden crises.

      1. Suburbanwoman,

        It’s astounding that two people can live in the same country and yet maintain beliefs which are polar opposites. We are irreconcilably opposed to each other. We will never have a meeting of the minds. No leader can bring us together. What will become of a nation so irreparably divided?

        1. To have a meeting of the minds, Jeff has to develop one. Right now, he is nothing more than a bundle of complaints, absent details and reality.

        2. LOL! So it’s Silberman and Adam Schiff against the world. When’s Adam gonna release all those amazing facts he said he had on Trump and Russian collusion? Any day now, right?

          1. Matt,

            We shall see who gets the last laugh about Trump. I know you Trumpists, however, will go to your graves believing Trump implicitly. Good luck.

            1. You prefer illegal alien crossings at the southern border along with terrorists, human traffickers, drug runners, etc., all those things that kill good people. We just heard of a mother of 2 that was murdered, and in investigating, the police found the murderer was an illegal alien. You are a hateful person. I am sure her children want to ask you why you support those things that killed their mother.

            2. I doubt we shall see.

              You are like Rachel Maddow – still waiting for that manna from heaven that will prove Trump colluded with Russia – which is about as close to impossible as we can have at this point.

              I honestly do not expect Trump to run in 2024, but I do not expect we will know that for some time.

              I do not expect Biden to be competent to run in 2024. I do not expect he will still be president in 2024.

              Regardless, though 2024 is a long way away and betting that far out is hard,
              Right now it would take miracles for democrats to survive.

              The democratic party – without any help from Republicans is in danger of fracturing.
              The far left – despite having gotten what they wanted from Biden is disillusioned and will likely run Sanders like candidates who if they get to the general election will be obliterated.
              While more moderate democrats are in danger of fleeing the party.

              Manchin increasingly looks like a Republican. Surprisingly so does Sienama. On myriads of issues democratic house and senate members facing election are distancing themselves from Biden and their party.

        3. We do not disagree even slightly here.

          It is self evident given that this country is so bitterly polarized and share so little common ground on so many issues that one side MUST be out of touch with reality.

          For most of my lifetime the ideological differences between most americans – outside of DC were small – and even in DC where the differences were larger the disagreement was more respectful and both sides were fearful of being hit over the head by reality.

          Today that is not true. This blog accurately relfects much of the country – and there is little common ground.

          I have offered repeatedly that I have a variety of issues with Trump, but you are not satisifed with anything short of a false confession that he is an evil lying authoritarian wrong about everything.

          That is just blatantly obviously false. Trump is inarguably the best president of the 21st century, and probably the best president in foreign affairs since Nixon or Reagan.

          Even people who think Nixon was an absolutely horrible person and president – a view that I mostly share, though likely for different reasons, acknowledge that Nixon’s foreign policy accomplishments were incredible.
          No one things that Nixon was personable, or “respected” by foreign leaders. His accomplishments were not driven by personal charm but by a clear and correct vision. Trump is far more personable that Nixon, though less that Reagan of Clinton. Still he reflects a deliberate and important inflection point in US foreign policy,

          Put simply – your impressions of his personality – even if correct DO NOT MATTER. The president of the United states is the “leader of the Free world” – he is not the schmoozer in chief, or the glad hander in chief.

          Domestically on the major issues – Trump was right – or atleast far better than his 21st century peers.

          Trump’s energy policies benefited the country both domestically and the world in influencing foreign relations.
          Trump’s economy was worse than most presidents in the 20th century but it was the best in the 21st.

          Trump did not solve US border problems, he did not bring the country together on immigration.
          But he mostly successfully enforced the laws that we have and he made the situation better and less lawless than it was.
          Obama was poor and Biden is a disaster.

          Everything that I think was wrong with Trumps trade policies is unchanged – or WORSE under Biden.

          Either you beleive in free trade – or you do not. IF you beleive that Trade is a lever for foriegn policy – you are with Trump.

          If you are using trade as a carrot – with Iran or a stick with Russian – you are doing exactly what Trump was.

          Trump said lots of stupid things. Biden once in a while says something that is NOT stupid.

          I tend to agree with the left that Trump failed regarding Covid. BUT for completely the opposite reasons.

          There was NEVER anything consequential government could do RIGHT about Covid.
          But it was certainly capable of doing a great deal Wrong. Trump ruined his own good economy and
          planted the seeds for the massive inflation we see now.

          I am perfectly happy to hold him to account for all of his Covid failures and their consequences.

          But I can not drum Trump as the worst president ever regarding his handling of Covid – because Biden took every mistake Trump made – plus many new ones of his own and doubled and trippled down.

          Even on Covid Trump remains the best president of the 21st century – despite the fact that on Covid he was a failure.

          All of these are REALITY.

          And you do not live in reality.

          1. John,

            I’m not interested in defending Biden vs. Trump. I didn’t vote for either. I’m not interested in debating public policy or ideology with you. My sole purpose is to resist the Trumpist Big Lie that the election was stolen.

            Bill Maher, who of late has been cited by Hannity as a truth teller, expresses my principal concern in his most recent New Rules:

            https://youtu.be/GDkjjGZ92NQ

            I’m sure you disagree, but there is no point arguing because we are implacably opposed.

    6. Bahahahhahahha….I can make a list of all the nasty things people on the left called President Trump when he was in office…so sit down, this is what the left started…and it isn’t going to end well at all.

      1. Wen Bars warns:

        “and it isn’t going to end well at all.”

        For once, I agree with you.

  13. She is apparently one of those democratic judges that Chief Justice John Roberts says we don’t have.

  14. When Trump won after getting less votes, we were told that “Yes it is undemocratic but that is how the constitution is written.” Same thing with the US Senate and other aspects of the constitution. Well tables are turned. Section 3 of Article 14 is there and these traitors are thus ineligible to hold office. Suck it up buttercup.

    1. So what part of “Congress later passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which overrode the Disqualification Clause except for ‘Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses’” fails to penetrate that concrete you call a brain? Buttercup.

      1. Uhh It makes not sense that a Congress can override disqualifications that would not occur for 150 years. That bill only affected those who were disqualified at the time. A president can not pardon someone for a crime that has not happened yet.

        1. Uhh It makes not sense that a Congress can override disqualifications
          Until you cite a law or Constitutional passage, it makes eminate “sense”

          Unless you want President Trump governing in exactly the same manner.

  15. In their rage, lefties are attacking the pillars of our country.

    They forget that by opening these doors, they have created a path for other barbarians.

    And some of those barbarians will be from the right.

    Incumbent on us, the moral center to stop these barbarians who would destroy our country for partisan gain.

  16. To the extent that a person can be disqualified under the 14th Amendment, it requires action from Congress

    All those that care to wade into the debate, please join in. Understand you first have to clear this hurdle.

    The Question becomes. Why is a judge inserting themselves into an area they have zero jurisdiction?

    1. Iowan2,

      Congress already acted. Isn’t it obvious? Congress enacted the 14th amendment which sets the parameters for disqualification. Those who claim an office holder is no longer qualified can take their claim to court and determine the validity of the challenge to disqualify by using the 14th amendment.

      Greene’s public testimony was telling and it was obvious that suddenly and couldn’t bring herself to agree what she said despite being very proud of saying it before she was forced answer questions about her tweets and Facebook messages under oath.

      Turley leaves out the fact that Greene was much more forceful and said more damaging things than Cawthorn or other Republicans who are being challenged.

      1. “Greene’s public testimony was telling and it was obvious that suddenly and couldn’t bring herself to agree what she said despite being very proud of saying it before she was forced answer questions about her tweets and Facebook messages under oath.”

        What are you babbling about? Joe, is that you?

      2. Svelaz – Greene still has Congressional immunity for her statements. That is how Liz Warren kept herself from being sued by Rittenhouse.

        1. “Greene still has Congressional immunity for her statements.”

          Which statements are you referring to?

          Congressional immunity only extends to statements made in the regular course of the legislative process: in congressional debates, committee proceedings, etc. It does not extend to statements made outside of Congress. For example, Greene does not have Congressional immunity for the statements she made under oath yesterday.

          1. Anonymous – according to two Circuits, Greene does have immunity for what she said on the stand, both in her individual capacity and as a Congressperson.

            1. Paul, what two Circuit rulings are you referring to? Name them, and we can see what they actually said.

            2. That is likely true.
              But it does not change the fact that her remarks are legitimate protected free speech.

              They are actually the MOST protected form of free speech – political speech.

    2. Agree, good question. Section 5, the last sentence of the 14th Amendment says unambiguously, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” This Judge has clearly overstepped her jurisdiction. Unelected lawyers in black robes are supposed rule on existing laws, not legislate from the bench to create new laws or outcomes that match their political ideology.

Leave a Reply