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. Mr. Turley makes some interesting points, but completely ignores the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment itself. That amendment was jammed through Congress and state legislatures by the Radical Republicans during the period 1866-1868 to prevent Southern states from sending their chosen representatives to Congress. Current efforts to block candidates from elections based on that amendment are simply the latest “fruit” of that “poisonous tree.”

    1. The 14th Amendment was duly and legally passed and ratified, therefore becoming as valid a part of the Constitution as any other original part or ratified amendment. You can’t pick and choose which ratified amendments are “valid” – they all are unless repealed by a subsequent amendment (see 18th and 21st Amendments). I despise the 16th Amendment, but it is constitutional until repealed.

      1. The 14th Amendment was passed and ratified only after the Northern Republicans expelled Southern congressmen and sent the amendment to the state legislatures for ratification. Most Southern state legislatures understandably voted against this amendment’s ratification. The Northern Republicans then disbanded the dissenting Southern state legislatures and replaced their representatives with carpet-baggers, freed slaves, and others who then voted to ratify the 14th Amendment, leading to its passage.

        I don’t think that methodology fits any possible definition of “duly and legally passed and ratified,” but perhaps your definition of that phrase is as misconceived as your understanding of history, specifically the actions taken by Radical Republicans to punish the South in the post-Civil War period.

        If you actually believe all Congressional laws and Supreme Court decisions are “valid,” try revisiting the Dred Scott decision of 1857. Just because a Congressional (or judicial) majority votes for something doesn’t make it ethical, moral, or right. But given your definition, I suppose you could call it “legal.”

        1. Well said. In no way did the passage of the 14th Amendment and its aftermath resemble anything even approaching self-government. It was might makes right, pure and simple.

    2. 750,000 people died in that conflict. I think that justifies blocking certain civil war era politicians from resuming a previous position in congress.

      1. There’s no constitutional basis for that argument, but if that logic had been applied to the northern Radical Republicans who were hell-bent on punishing the Southern states after the War of Northern Aggression, I think I could live with that.

      2. Gen. Patrick Cleburne, a Confederate officer originally from Ireland, said this in a speech in 1864 sometime before his death in battle in Nov. 1864: “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… The conqueror’s policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

        Cleburne was not a slave-owner and actually proposed freeing them in the last years of the war. But his prediction in 1864 has proven to be painfully true.

  2. She wasn’t “assassinated.”

    She was killed as she attempted to climb through the broken glass panel in the top half of a locked and barricaded door into the Speaker’s Lobby, a space that is restricted by law: “An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly—(A) enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble Room of the Senate, unless authorized to do so pursuant to rules adopted, or an authorization given, by that House” (40 U.S. Code § 5104). Zach Alam, who broke the glass panel, is facing multiple criminal charges.

    Babbitt had already broken the law prior to arriving outside the Speaker’s Lobby. She was ordered to stop. She was alerted that an officer had his his gun out. And she proceeded anyway, trying to break the law cited above by climbing into the Speaker’s Lobby while members of Congress and staff were still in the House chamber.

    Her death was investigated. There are hundreds of pages of interview transcripts and other material from the investigation: (click on the “500 pages” link)

    More information here:

    1. Anonymous the Stupid, as you told us, she was a Stupid Woman. She was not a threat to anyone. She was shot at near point-blank range in a room with cops and no congressmen. Your Stupid Woman comment tells us what and who you are.

      “She was alerted that an officer had his his gun out.”

      We will never find out if she was or was not. She was shot dead before she could tell us or do anything else. You are spinning and being deceitful as usual. He who controls what is written holds control over the history, which is why we haven’t gotten the complete details like we would with any other shooting of an unarmed individual. Without the complete release of all data, this must be considered murder. If witnesses were hiding the truth of anyone else being killed, one would suspect murder in that case as well.

      We all wait for Nancy Pelosi to release all her communications and videos at the White House.

      1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

        Unlike you, I’m a truthful person, and I correct my mistakes when I make them. I already said “I shouldn’t have called her a “stupid woman.” I don’t know much about her as a person, and I shouldn’t have made a broad claim.” —
        And you know that, because you responded to it.

        But because you’re Meyer the Troll Liar, you persist in your lies.

        1. ATS: You made the statement and called her a stupid woman. Yes, as I said, you apologized, but it was a hollow one, and your comments about her and everything else tells us how you actually feel. Stupid woman was in your mind in every comment. You were deceitful in describing her murder (until proven otherwise) and her actions.

      2. You say Babbitt wasn’t a threat to anyone? Then WHY was she breaking into the Speaker’s Lobby? Did you hear the chants of “hang Mike Pence”? Before she got shot after choosing to ignore the command to “cease and desist “, how many Capitol Police officers who had been beaten and had bones fractured did she pass and probably participated in injuring? WHY did she choose to do what she did, other than prevent Joe Biden’s win from being certified, by violent force, if necessary?

    2. Perhaps your post is just idle trolling. On the chance it is not, you yourself may one day find yourself the victim of the policies you advocate for. Perhaps the police shooting you dead as you crawl in your bedroom window having forgot your key, or perhaps shooting you dead as you march wearing a pink hat as some of your comrades attempt to burn a federal courthouse down.

      Whatever the circumstance, on that day, those of us who remain will agonize over the difficult choice between nominating you a Darwin Award or simply celebrating the fact there is one fewer person on the planet who would justify the use of lethal force by any government against an unarmed citizen who posed a threat to absolutely nobody.

      In the meantime, the rest of us shall have to take solace in the certitude that your life is so devoid of the most basic human comforts that the only joy you can derive comes from the celebration of the murder of unarmed women and children. Its a miserable existence and to a certain extent, I pity you.

      Pity aside, these are the kinds of views most people with an IQ over 80 find abhorrent, and yet you vote. I hope your neighbors know who you are and what you believe. I hope all of your prospective employers know the same. As @LibsOfTikTok proved, the best cure to a fungal infection is sunlight.

      1. “the only joy you can derive comes from the celebration of the murder of unarmed women and children”

        You’re delusional.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, Johnno is not delusional. He heard what you said about Ashli Babbitt and your words in describing her death. Stupid woman wasn’t the only thing you said. Your entire attitude was abhorrent and sounded like it could have come from any of the mass murderers from the 20th century.

    3. Did you actually bother to read the entire section you cited ?

      Even the bit you noted covered “Clockrooms” – are the capital police entitled to murder anyone who enters a cloakroom ?

      Regardless, violations of the section you cited are NOT recognized by federal law as justifications for the use of deadly force.

      With few exceptions – such as nuclear materials. Federal use of deadly force is restricted to protecting yourself or others from imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

      Alishi Babbit was neither, nor was the older woman beaten to death by a capital police office in the West Tunnel.
      What is interesting is that BOTH of the people murdered at the capital on J6 were white women, and BOTH of the officers who killed them were black, and BOTH were acting outside the constraints of the law.

      Breaking the law – is NOT a justification for murder. You do not seem to get that.

      All the KAvanaugh protestors were breaking exactly the same law you cite here – would it have been OK for the capital police to murder them ?

      I would note they ALL violated the same law and ultimately had the charges Dropped.
      One Kavanaugh protestor who took an AXE to a senators door – had the axe returned.

      If you can not kill a Kavanaugh protestor taking an Axe to a senators door – you can not shoot a women climing through a broken window.

      You ranted endlessly about the “abusive conduct” of police clearing the street infront of the Whitehouse in May 2020.
      Making subsequently refuted claims that Tear Gas was used – it was by the DC police a block away – not by the Park Police.

      Regardless, by YOUR arguments – the park police could have murdered all those protestors.

      I have major problems with the law you cited – the US capital belongs to the people of the united states – not the federal government per se.
      More importantly it is one of the most significant places for political protest in this country.
      It is uniquely covered by freedom of assembly, petitioning the government and free speech in a way that no other location in this country is.

      Congress may not “lock down” the capital while congress is in session.

      The first amendment – free speech, free assembly, petitioning the government are ALL subject to strict scrutiny – even absolutely necescary restrictions on those rights – such as the law you cite MUST be done in the LEAST infringing way possible.

      Congress can NOT order everyone out of the capital while in session.
      It MIGHT be free to place reasonable limits on the numbers allowed in the capital
      It MIGHT be free to prevent protestors from accosting congressmen in their offices or int he cloakrooms or the elevators,
      It might be free to keep them off the floor of the house

      But it can not close the capital, and it can not murder people for trying to get in when it does.

      The law you cited is at the very least unconstitutional AS APPLIED to any protestors that entered the capital without violence.
      That would be nearly all of them.

      1. John B. Say,

        “ Breaking the law – is NOT a justification for murder. You do not seem to get that.”

        She was not obeying the officer’s orders to stop. As we all know from other incidents where people don’t obey officer’s orders to stop and they are ignored they get shot. Isn’t that the same justification others make in defense of officer’s when it involves unarmed black individuals? That you obey orders or get shot?

        Forcing your way into a secure area amid a violent riot any officer charged in protecting congressmen is duty bound to do anything to mitigate that threat. They are trained to shoot anyone who they deem a threat. She ignored warnings and commands to stop. People have been shot in the back for ignoring police commands to stop and have been found to be justified. She wasn’t murdered. She was shot because she ignored commands to stop entering a secure area.

        1. She was not obeying the officer’s orders to stop.


          Blacks are shot by police all the time for “not obeying the officer’s orders to stop”

          Democrats would have no standards if not for their love of double standards.

          Your handlers at Act Blue are not sending us their better trolls

          1. Thorsen – Whites are shot by police all the time for “not obeying the officer’s orders to stop”

        2. “She was not obeying the officer’s orders to stop. As we all know from other incidents where people don’t obey officer’s orders to stop and they are ignored they get shot. Isn’t that the same justification others make in defense of officer’s when it involves unarmed black individuals? That you obey orders or get shot?”

          You either know what you are talking about, or you don’t. If you know, you can name the recent shootings that fit your criteria where the officer’s life was not in danger, or there was an error. We have all read the papers about many of these incidents and saw rioting, have you?

          Will you provide the needed data?

      2. “Did you actually bother to read the entire section you cited ?”

        Yes. Did you?

        And did you read the materials that I linked to?

        “Even the bit you noted covered “Clockrooms” – are the capital police entitled to murder anyone who enters a cloakroom ?”

        First, read more carefully. It covers “any cloakroom … adjacent to that floor [of either House of Congress],” not other cloakrooms in the congressional buildings. Do you understand what the phrase “adjacent to” means? Do you understand what the “the floor of either House of Congress” is? There are exactly two such floors: the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate. This is why the Speaker’s Lobby is a highly restricted space: it opens directly onto the House floor.

        Second, no one is entitled to murder anyone. Babbitt’s killing was determined not to be a murder. No matter how many times you call it murder, your personal opinion does not make it murder.

        “Alishi Babbit”

        You are so consistently sloppy with details that you misspell her name over and over and over.

        “All the KAvanaugh protestors were breaking exactly the same law you cite here”

        No, they were not. None of them were “on the floor of either House of Congress or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble Room of the Senate.” In fact, they weren’t even in the same building as the Senate floor and the Senate Marble Room. This is just another example of your sloppiness with relevant details.

        “they … ultimately had the charges Dropped.”

        No, they didn’t. Some were fined and others were jailed.

        “One Kavanaugh protestor who took an AXE to a senators door – had the axe returned.”

        I doubt it. I suspect that you’re confusing two very different events that took place years apart (2020 rather than 2018) and over 1000 miles apart (Fargo, ND, not DC):
        But if you name the Kavanaugh protester you allege “took an AXE to a senators door – had the axe returned,” we can look up the details.

        “by YOUR arguments – the park police could have murdered all those protestors. ”

        BS. Don’t project all of YOUR errors onto me.

    4. With respect to Babbit – we all have access to the video of her shooting.

      The FACTS are clear. The officer was NOT in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury – no members of congress were in the lobby at the time the shot was fired – so there was no “defense of others”.

      Further the officer firing at Babbit did so at serious risk – not just to babbit but to others behind her – including 4 capital police officers who had just backed away from the door.

      Police have been prosecuted successfully for recklessly firing even where otherwise justified where there is a very serious risk to others.

      What you are noting is hundreds of pages of efforts to cover up.

      Separately – this same officer has prior incidents involving reckless conduct with his firearm.

      1. “no members of congress were in the lobby at the time the shot was fired”

        Some members and staff were still in the House chamber, and the Speaker’s Lobby that she was climbing into opens directly onto the floor of the House. Lt. Byrd was responsible for protecting the members and staff who were in the House chamber.

        “What you are noting is hundreds of pages of efforts to cover up. ”

        No, it was hundreds of pages of evidence that was gathered in the course of investigating whether or not the shooting was justified.

        1. ” Lt. Byrd was responsible for protecting the members and staff who were in the House chamber.”

          Gosh, what a bloody person you are. No members were in the room, yet there were several officers in the room. To you that means the woman gets shot? I wouldn’t want to be near you if you had possession of any deadly weapon.

          1. You are a deeply sick man who posts vile comments day in and day out. It’s clear that you’re mentally ill, so mostly I feel sorry for you and for your family, and I hope that you can get the psychological help you so badly need. That said, if you acted towards me in real life as you act towards me in these comments, I’d get a restraining order. Thankfully, I do not have to interact with you in person.

            1. Ad hominem is not argument.
              Speech you do not like is generally NOT an Act.

              You are free to get a restraining order against people who ACT against you.

              You are not free to do so with respect to those who disagree with you on a public blog.

              YOU choose to post here – that comes with the expectations that your public remarks will be subject to public criticism.

              No one is chasing you down on the streets.
              No one is stalking you.
              No one is doxing you.

              Further you keep posting as anonymous – which is your RIGHT, but that comes with consequences.
              It means you HAVE NO IDENTITY.
              You can not be persecuted, or defamed – there is no identity to persecute or defame.

            2. “Thankfully, I do not have to interact with you in person.”

              Yes, you should be. However, you would be more afraid of facing that 105-pound “stupid woman” (your words) alive. She had to be killed because that is your answer to unarmed people should they step forward to act in their own interests. You hide behind the idea that “Babbitt’s killing was determined not to be a murder,” but at the same time, you hide the details.

              Everything from you is a lie, and you believe everyone is as stupid as that “stupid woman” (your words). I find you abhorrent. The only thing that surprises me is the toleration good conservatives on this blog have for you. Conservatives are too tolerant of liars and cowards. That is what gets the conservative/ libertarian movement into trouble.

      2. “Further the officer firing at Babbitt did so at serious risk – not just to Babbitt but to others behind her – including 4 capital police officers who had just backed away from the door. ”

        These officers are trained marksmen. If he decided to shoot her he knew he had a clear shot without risking anyone else. Babbitt was the only one crawling thru the window exposing only herself. He was at a fairly close range. According to the reports from those near the shooter, they all had heard of shots being fired near their position and they all had their guns drawn for that reason. They didn’t know who was shooting or who may be armed. They also noted that the chamber was blockaded and they were defending an enclosed room meaning they deemed any breach into it a serious threat to lawmakers inside.

        1. “These officers are trained marksmen. If he decided to shoot her he knew he had a clear shot without risking anyone else. Babbitt was the only one crawling thru the window exposing only herself.”

          If he were such a trained marksman, why couldn’t he wait until she was through the window and ordered to cease her advance?

          1. Anonymous,

            He had to make a split second decision just like any other cop. Allowing one to get thru would have encouraged others to push thru as well. It was an enclosed secure area where legislators were still present.

            Every officer in that room had their guns drawn meaning they were the last line of defense between legislators and the rioters. Once Babbitt was shot other rioters got the message that they SHOULD have not tried to enter that secure area. It doesn’t matter whether she was armed or not. There were reports of shots fired and police were stressed enough with the violent rioters around them. A split second decision had to be made just like any other incidents involving police shooting unarmed individuals.

            1. Shall we laugh now or later?

              She was going through a broken glass window in danger of cutting herself to shreds. Shouldn’t you argue that the shooter was a lousy marksman, so he shot her when she was barely moving? But if he was a terrible marksman, he might have shot other people. Isn’t that why you foolishly claimed police marksmanship? Since he was not the only cop in the room and no lawmakers were there, couldn’t all the Capitol Police in that room wrestle that 105-pound woman down?

              Do you have a screw loose?

              1. Anonymous, it doesn’t matter whether there was glass laying around. What matters is she was forcing her way into a secure area where officers had their weapons drawn and pointed at the door.

                Shouldn’t you question why she was forcing herself into a secure area when guns were drawn at the entrance?

                1. “it doesn’t matter whether there was glass laying around. What matters is she was forcing her way”

                  It took time for me to answer this, for I had to stop laughing. Glass, didn’t matter? Of course, it did. It slowed her entry down to a crawl so that if there was any threat, there was none, a couple of police officers could have restrained her while the third held his revolver to shoot if the other police officers couldn’t subdue the unarmed 105-pound woman.

                  Don’t you think she could have been subdued without murdering her?

    5. With respect to charging of others:

      First, I have seen NOTHING that justifies holding a single person associated with J6 without bail.

      Next – of those being held – only a tiny fraction engaged in actual violence.
      A slightly larger number stole things.

      No one who did not initiate violence against another should face felony charges.
      It is unclear who that might be – because we have not seen all the capital video released.
      Several defendants who were engaged in violence with police have claimed defense of others as a justification.
      There is farily good video evidence that the black female police officer who was beating on the other women who died when she was on the ground in a fetal position was way out of line – and that is regardless of what may have happened before – which we do not know.

      Anyone who came to the aid of the murdered woman did NOT commit a crime.
      Self defense and defense of others is always a justification for violence.

      There is no crime of defending yourself against a violent lefty.

      We will need all the video from the west tunnel to evaluate what the actual truth is.

      Regardless ALL the video of J6 should be made public ALL of it.

      If lefties want to crowd source identifying and providing information to the police for the prosecution of thus far unidentified violent protestors – so be it. Just as the right can crowdsource identifying police violence and exculpatory information for current defendants.

      But more importantly the amercian people deserve the FULL story of what went on at the capital on J6.

      Not the narratives ot the left or the right or the media – but the WHOLE truth – and let the chips fall where they lay.

      I have no idea what the outcome of that will be – nor do you. But we have seen again and again when government hides information – it is because it STINKS to high heaven.

      We can not trust the judiciary, DOJ, or Congress – this must be made public for all.
      There is NOTHING classified about anything that occured int he capital on J6.

      As with the collusion delusion,
      the russian bounties,
      the Hunter Biden laptop
      The whitmer kidnapping plot
      The ritenhouse prosecution
      and so much more.

      It smells like the truth is being hidden from us.

      We all need to know the WHOLE TRUTH, and let the chips fall where they may.

      1. John B Say, excellent posts. One further point that I have made before. For reasons that have never been explained the DOJ assessed criminality for the death of Babbitt only under a civil rights statute that requires proving intent to violate civil rights. They appear not to have assessed criminality under the homicide statutes, some of which require a lesser state of mind.

        1. Daniel,

          Babbitt was already committing a crime. She was forcing herself into a secure area in a federal building and being ordered to stop.

          Officers charged with protecting lawmakers have wide discretion in determining threats and using deadly force. There was a violent riot in progress. Rioters were chanting death threats, threatening holding lawmakers hostage. Reports of police being beaten. All those variables taken into consideration an officer defending a secure area having a rioter force her way into the room and ignoring commands to stop leaves the officer no choice but to use deadly forces. The rules are different in those kinds of situations. They are trained to stop any threat. The officer followed procedure. Babbitt ignored commands to stop.

          Don’t those who defend cops who shoot unarmed black folks always say if they just obeyed police orders they wouldn’t have gotten shot? Babbitt didn’t obey orders to stop. So she got shot.

          1. You ignored my point, which was that DOJ assessed a civil rights crime, not homicide.

          2. “Officers charged with protecting lawmakers have wide discretion in determining threats and using deadly force.”

            Where does it say that officers can shoot to kill an unarmed woman entering a room with police and no lawmakers in the room?

        2. Babbitt’s family claimed that they were going to file a $10 million wrongful death suit against Byrd and the USCP, but AFAIK, they haven’t. I wonder why.

      2. John B. Say,

        “ First, I have seen NOTHING that justifies holding a single person associated with J6 without bail.”

        The law does give a judge discretion on whether to grant bail based on the law.

        “ Detention.—
        (1) If, after a hearing pursuant to the provisions of subsection (f) of this section, the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial.”

        There have been instances of rioters flaunting conditions set on their bail and re-arrested for the violations. Too many were doing that and judges based on those incidents choose to not grant bail. Others who were violent also have been denied bail. Because it was a federal building and federal charged are involved the law gives judges more discretion on denying bail.

        “ Self defense and defense of others is always a justification for violence.

        There is no crime of defending yourself against a violent lefty.”

        Not when your committing a crime and ignoring law enforcement orders.

        Being beaten up by a cop because one entered illegally into a building and ignoring orders justifies a law enforcement officer to defend itself. There was a riot in progress and law enforcement is everyone in the building as violent aggressors. You had law enforcement do the same thing during the George Floyd protests. Law enforcement beating up people and shooting them with rubber bullets. Right? I didn’t see you complain about police brutally beating people in those instances despite the fact that both had rioters.

        “ But more importantly the amercian people deserve the FULL story of what went on at the capital on J6.”

        Yes they do. But, republicans are stymieing the truth for fear of being implicated in it and many have. As witnessed during rep. Greene on the stand. She wouldn’t stand by her own words under oath when asked if she believed the election was stolen or that those wanting to stop the electoral vote count thru violence are enemies of the constitution. That was pretty revealing in itself.

      1. Your response is obvious ad hom.

        If you have evidence that there’s a factual error in their reporting, present it.

    6. @Anon you wrote:
      “She wasn’t “assassinated.””

      Actually she was.
      Watch the videos.
      Yes she was crawling thru broken glass window… which btw was broken by an Antifa member masquerading as a Trump supporter. (I kid you not)

      The reason we can say that she was murdered because she was defenseless and did not represent a threat to the officers on the other side of the window. She could have been arrested without harm.

      The officer clearly used excessive force.
      More so than what you saw w George Floyd.

      If she were black and the officer white… BLM would have been all over this and the officer would be in jail.


      1. I **have** watched the videos. In fact, the Bellingcat link I gave time-syncs multiple videos taken by different people with different views of what occurred, where it says “The shooting was captured in at least four different videos, compiled and synchronised in the video below.”

        No, she was not “assassinated.”

        “Yes she was crawling thru broken glass window”

        Glad we can agree on something.

        “which btw was broken by an Antifa member masquerading as a Trump supporter. (I kid you not) ”

        You’re wrong. The glass was broken by Zach Alam, who is not an “Antifa member.” He’s in jail pending trial, and here’s the indictment against him: and the affidavit with additional facts:

        Now your turn: present evidence that he’s “an Antifa member masquerading as a Trump supporter,” and let’s see if we can resolve this factual matter.

        “If she were black and the officer white… BLM would have been all over this and the officer would be in jail.”

        Your conjecture is not a fact.

        1. “I **have** watched the videos. In fact, the Bellingcat link I gave time-syncs multiple videos taken by different people with different views of what occurred”

          Anonymous the Stupid, I am sure you thoroughly enjoyed those videos, each and every viewing. Do you have them filed with your pornographic videos?

    7. So the only response from an officer to an unarmed person entering without authorization is death? There were several officers there that could and should have apprehended her after she entered. Lot’s of pages but where’s the official statement from the officer who shot her?

      1. “So the only response from an officer to an unarmed person entering without authorization is death?”

        No, that’s not the only possible response. Clearly it depends on all of the specifics of a given situation. In this case, the relevant facts include that law enforcement had attempted to evacuate members of Congress and staff from the House Chamber, but they’d been unable to evacuate some of them, and Byrd was responsible for the protection of the remaining Representatives and staff, and there was already quite a lot of violence directed at law enforcement, already destruction of the building, already illegal force used to interrupt an official proceeding, …

        “where’s the official statement from the officer who shot her?”

        I don’t know. Perhaps it was redacted. Or perhaps he declined to make an official statement on advice of his lawyer. If Babbitt’s family ever file the wrongful death suit they claimed they were going to file, they can try to depose him.

        1. She was unarmed. She was not assaulting anyone. Her crime was trespassing. It does not matter if “they’d been unable to evacuate some of them” or any of them. None of the officers shot anyone outside where there was “quite a lot of violence directed at law enforcement”. If anyone should have been shot as a last resort it would be one of those who were physically assaulting officers but fortunately that wasn’t the case. The officer who killed Babbitt clearly did not apply a use of force continuum. There were several officers present that could have assisted him with the apprehension of Babbitt. For all the recent screaming about officers killing unarmed people it’s amazing how many are dismissive of this incident.

          1. Sergeant Major,

            You say “Her crime was trespassing,” but that’s clearly not the only crime that she would have been charged with had she lived.

            For example, take a look at the list of crimes that Zach Alam — the guy who broke the window glass — was charged with for his his actions that day:
            Then take a look at the list of crimes that John Sullivan, who was one of the people who videotaped the shooting, was charged with:
            Then take a look at the list of crimes that Thomas Baranyi, who was also there (see the video of his description to a reporter shortly after the shooting, at the bottom of this comment), was charged with:

            Can you agree that she would have been charged with multiple crimes — not just trespassing — had she lived?

            “It does not matter if “they’d been unable to evacuate some of them” or any of them.”

            I disagree. Just like it would matter if Pence had still been in that room and she’d been shot by the Secret Service instead of being shot by a USCP officer. Babbitt was attempting to break through a locked and barricaded door into the Speaker’s Lobby, which opens directly onto the floor of the House, when members of Congress and staff were still in the House Chamber, and Byrd’s job was to protect them. Babbitt was alerted that there was an officer with a gun, and she was ordered to stop, and she didn’t stop (for example, see the eyewitness statement in the video below).

            And it’s not as though these few paragraphs are a complete description of everything that’s relevant to assessing whether Byrd should have been charged for killing her. In my 8:18 PM comment last night, I linked to a Fox News article that in turn links to hundreds of pages of investigatory evidence that’s relevant. (I tried linking directly to the FOIA documents, but the commenting system kept rejecting it, so you’ll have to go to Fox and click through.)

            I’m not “dismissive” of the incident. It’s a serious incident. It deserved a serious investigation, and as far as I can tell, it got a serious investigation.

            1. “ A number of police and secret service,” but not enough to grab her? The left wants blood, and that is why over 100 million people died outside of war in the 20th century, killed by the leftist governments. You follow in their footsteps.

              Not only that but you seem to have an affinity for trumping up charges.

            2. Federal law requires an immeidate threat to life or serious bodily harm of yourself or another to use deadly force.

              Tresspassing is not sufficient.
              Breaking glass is not sufficient.

              With respect to your argument about charges against others.

              Overcharging is the NORM – not just in J6 but accross the country.

              In this case it is being used to send a message – though the message being received is NOT the one intended.

              Most often it is used to gain leverage to reach a plea deal.

              Regardless, overcharging is IMMORAL – whether done by the left, the right or just dome prosecutor in podunk.

            3. Sullivan is a left wing – likely antifa activist.

              Citing him at all raises very serious questions.
              Carping that a left wing agitator was at a 2020 election protest and was arrested and charges with serious crimes – kind of destroys the argument that this was some example of right wing violence.
              How many more Sullivans were there ? To what extent did they trigger the violence.

              I would note if you listen to the Sullivan video – Sullivan – a left wing activist was at a right wing protest exhorting those present to commit violence.

              This is really the kind of ends justifies the means conduct you wish to justify ?

              With respect to Babbit – there is nothing she could have been charged with that changes the fact that the use of deadly force was NOT justified.

              Beyond that charges are not evidence. Even convictions in DC by left wing judges and juries are not evidence.

              Try these people in their own communities with REAL evidence and see how far you get.

            4. Even the Secret Service may not SHOOT an unarmed person merely because the attempt to get near the Vice President without permission.

              Regardless, you keep trying to introduce false or irrelevant facts.

              The use of deadly force REQUIRES:

              And IMMEDIATE threat – not something three rooms back. Immediate as in right NOW.
              The reasons for this should be obvious – in the heat of the moment people assess situations inaccurately – Byrd may well have done just that. Requiring threats to be immediate recognizes that threats that are NOT immediate do NOT require snap judgements.
              The officer OBVIOUSLY had time to consider alternative actions.

              A credible threat to life or serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury is an injury that COULD result in death. It is the difference between assualt and agrevated assault. a Threat of of death or risk of death usually requires a WEAPON – especially from a not especially large Woman.

              These requirements were CLEARLY not met.
              That an investigation cleared the officer is damning of the investigation.

              Again the message you are sending the working class is they will not get justice.
              You are begging for more violence.

    8. “She was alerted that an officer had his his gun out.”

      It’s funny how pro-police and pro-law-and-order the Left is — when it’s convenient.

      1. It’s funny how anti-police and anti-law-and-order the Right is — when it’s convenient.

        1. The left undemocratically taking over the institutions of power and abusing them is converting conservatives to libertarians.

          That is a good thing.

  3. Anonymous says:

    “Conservatives don’t sneer at the school. They sneer at law school students and professors who do not understand freedom of speech.”

    Correct. Trumpists do sneer at the very law students that Turley takes pride in teaching. To my knowledge, not a single student of his has ever acknowledged here of being a member of his blog family. I wonder why.

    You say, “Take note, of how it is the conservatives that support Trump while you and your ilk try to tear him down.”

    If Trump suffers any discredit, he brings it upon himself with his lying blabber mouth.

    1. The statement should read: You say, “Take note, of how it is the conservatives that support Turley while you and your ilk try to tear him down.”

      Turley is doing his best to teach those students, and hopefully, his love of the First Amendment will seep through to the students so that none of them turn out like you.

      1. If only you and I could meet with Turley to discuss Trump! I will ask him why he called Trump a “carnival snake charmer” and whether he still holds to his low opinion. You can bear witness to his answer. You can ask him whether he believes that the election was stolen as do 99% of his blog family. Wanna bet what his answer would be to both questions?

        Face it, Turley has more in common with my liberal values than your Trumpist ones.

        1. “Face it, Turley has more in common with my liberal values than your Trumpist ones.”

          That is why the conservatives support Turley, and you try to tear him down. It’s disgusting.
          I hope you understand the distinction between doctors practicing medicine and plumbers, plumbing. You think those are interchangeable jobs.

          1. I support Turley because he is a NeverTrumper. I share his views by and large. I criticize only his hypocrisy for joining the ranks of Fox News and COMPLETELY ignoring its “advocacy journalism” while CORRECTLY pointing it out at the MSM.

            Once Turley flees Fox as several others have done recently, you Trumpists will turn on him. I will continue to stand by him. If Trump is ever found guilty of civil or criminal conduct, Trumpists will attack Turley when he refuses to condemn the jury’s verdict as “rigged.” Unlike you, I will applaud him.

            1. “I support Turley because he is a NeverTrumper.”

              You are daft. Turley cannot be a Never Trumper by definition. But you are accustomed to making up things, so we all live with those idioTsyncrasies.

              “Once Turley flees Fox as several others have done recently, you Trumpists will turn on him.”

              We judge Turley based on what he says, not the soapbox he is on. By the way, your pal Chris Wallace who left Fox, is out of a job.

            2. You support Turley – by cherry picking a few of his remarks and pretending they are the whole.

              Turley is slowly being red pilled by the left.
              He is not the first real liberal that has happened to.
              Another 2 1/2 years of Biden and he may well vote for Trump – 3/4 of the country might.
              Trump would win the popular vote by as large a margin as Biden purportedly did, if the election were held today
              based on the RCP average.

              Regardless Turley is an old school liberal slowly headed towards libertarian.

              There are ALOT of them.

              Over the course of about 6 years Dave Rubin has gone from the far left to fairly conservative. I think he calls himself libertarian, but he has gone past libertarian.

              Look to Hether Haying, Bret Weinsteain, Matt Taibi, Glenn Greenwald, Even Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

              These and many others are the cream of the left intellectual crop and they are slowly moving right.

          2. Please stop entertaining “trolls and juvenile posters” with a reply. Ignore them. The only reason they come back is because they know someone will engage them.

        2. It is interesting that you want to meet with Turley and you have no interest in discussion the legal and constitutional issues which he is an acknowledged expert.

          You want to discuss his opinions regarding insults that have been made or his opinions on issues that are fundamentally matters of fact that we resolve by thorough investigation.

          Should we ask Turley his opinion regarding the standard model of subatomic particles ?

          I am using that because:
          Ultimately the question is one of FACT, not opinion. But it is a question we do not currently have an answer to.

          Whatever Turley’s opinion – it will not change the fact.

          1. John, just ignore Silberman. For some reason he is filled with hate, and those folks never think clearly.

      2. What’s the point? We already have it embedded in the Constitution. Just
        ditch useless and get to it. Why waste what is known failure. Like party systems. Use coalition’s

    2. “Trumpists do sneer at the very law students that Turley takes pride in teaching. To my knowledge, not a single student of his has ever acknowledged here of being a member of his blog family. I wonder why.”

      I am not aware of anyone on this blog insulting Turley’s law students.

      This is one of the most bizzare arguments I have heard.

      It does not mean anything – and it is obviously on its surface false.

      My wife was a law student – she graduated Suma from UofP law school. She was taught by lots of noteworthy law professors – including Elizabeth Warren – as well as many other “liberals” like Turley.

      Many of her peers are prominent legal minds – at-least one is currently in jail.

      There is no way to reason from Turley being proud of teaching law students – to wherever it is that you think you are going.

      The conservative Judges throughout this country that YOU scorn – all graduated from the top law schools in this country. Place like Yale and Harvard and UofP. As did most of the left judges.

      There is not an actual argument in your remarks – just lies.

  4. Natasha: Yes, Lawrence Tribe has published multiple Constitutional Law texts.” As someone who studied many law textbooks, including some of Tribe’s, I can tell you that basing your opinion on published works, is not a guarantee of anything, other than Tribe has made lots of money and many students have been taught what he wants them to be taught.

    As far as the “lies” being spread about the 2016 election being rigged, what makes you an “expert” on the truth or falsity of that statement? It seems clear that you are so far in the far left lane of this argument, that you should actually recuse yourself from commenting.

    1. I highly doubt that Natacha has met Tribe much less read his work.

      I have done both.

      The modern public Tribe is radically different from the younger professor of constitutional law.

      Tribes constitutional analysis of abortion – while not friendly to NARAL would be a nightmare for PPP.
      And most interestingly it is consistent with centuries of western common law.

      I am sure that Tribe the leftist politician would disown his past works.
      But they are available to read if you wish.

      Lawrence Tribe of 20-30 years ago would have made an excellent supreme court justice.
      Certainly better than anyone else nominated by democrats.

      That does not mean I would agree with him on all things. but it does mean that the positions of the left would have been presented in their most eloguent and logical form. Of course those would be the positions of the liberalism of Tribe, Turley, Derschowitz, not the woke nonsense of the left including Tribe today.


    The judicial branch was created to correct the overreach of the legislative and executive branches – the judicial branch failed.

    “It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”

    – James Carville

    That treasonous insurrectionist, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, was allowed by the pointless, futile, ineffectual and corrupted judicial branch to establish the protocols of governmental functionality in America; the sole exception being Chief Justice Taney’s striking down of one of Lincoln’s many multiple acts of treason:

    “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,” Taney argued. “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,” Taney concluded.

    (Imagine, Justices swear an oath to “support” the literal, verbatim, “manifest tenor” of the Constitution – not to make it up as their personal passions, biases, and ideologies encourage and compel).

    Governance, according to “Crazy Abe,” requires merely that one assembles an armory (electoral thieves), takes control of the government by brute military force, rules as a despotic, butcherly dictator, takes a leisurely “March to the Sea,” and makes whatever statutory and fundamental law one chooses (i.e. including the still illegitimate “Reconstruction Amendments,” and the failure to compassionately repatriate millions of illegal aliens).

    “Crazy Abe” Lincoln introduced America to self-governance by effective monarchy and vicious tyranny.

    The current anti- and unconstitutional rendition of “self-governance” (i.e. military force of arms/corrupted votes and elections) in America will persist until the next batch of anti- and unconstitutional, malevolent barbarians knocks down the gates.

    Alternatively, America implements the dominion of the clear meaning of the English words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as did the American Framers and Founders, killing off the American welfare state and repulsing the centuries-long illegal invasion, and dilution of the vote and population by illegal immigration (Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802).

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  6. Natacha writes: “No, we also have the fact that Greene called the storming of the Capitol “our 1776 moment”.

    Our 1776 moment is when the allies landed at the fascist gate of the House of the Mouse and took over the kingdom placing it under state control.

  7. There were riots on January 6, 2017 –
    “At least two DC police officers and one other person were taken to the hospital after run-ins with protesters, DC Fire Spokesman Vito Maggiolo told CNN. Acting DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said the officers’ injuries were considered minor and not life threatening.
    Bursts of chaos erupted on 12th and K streets as black-clad “antifascist” protesters smashed storefronts and bus stops, hammered out the windows of a limousine and eventually launched rocks at a phalanx of police lined up in an eastbound crosswalk.”

    1. “There were riots on January 6, 2017”

      There weren’t.

      Your article refers to events that occurred two weeks later.

    2. Let’s not forget Ashli Babbitt. A US veteran assassinated by a Capital Hill Police Lt. Who got away with it. The only shooting that day and the only person killed by violence that day.

          1. “coroner’s report eventually concluded that she died of an amphetamine overdose.”

            “Finally, claims that Boyland died at the hands of the police are also false, as the coroner’s report stated a drug overdose was the cause of death.”

            A lot of distracting discussion of surrounding violence is interjected into the article, but in the end, we can all note the laughable statement: “FACT CHECK BY NEWSWEEK”

            I note how quickly an amphetamine overdose is accepted as the cause of death without describing the bodily wounds. However, when we look at the Gorge Floyd case, we find a completely different approach to his death.

            I don’t have the answer, but I don’t think we have looked at the data of this death as we did with the death of Floyd or anyone dying under such circumstances.

            However, our resident liar and spinner of news, Anonymous the Stupid, has staked his reputation on this article because it agrees with his version.

            In the end, ATS wants us to know that Ashli Babbit was a stupid woman. He feels she didn’t deserve to live because she entered a room unarmed where police were. She was murdered climbing through shattered glass with her arms and feet in plain view spread apart.

  8. Were those who objected the counting of the electoral votes in 2017, “insurrectionist” ?
    Absolutely Not – they like Representative Green exercised the first amendment right of free speech.

    January 6, 2017 Counting Electoral Votes –

    1: Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. President, I object to the certificate from the State of Alabama on the grounds that the electoral votes were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given and that the electors were not lawfully certified, especially given the confirmed and illegal activities engaged in by the Government of Russia that were designed to interfere with our election and the widespread violations of the Voting Rights Act that unlawfully suppressed thousands of votes in the State of Alabama.
    2: Mr. RASKIN. Mr. President, I have an objection because 10 of the 29 electoral votes cast by Florida were cast by electors not lawfully certified because they violated Florida’s prohibition against dual office holding.
    3: Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. President, I object to the certificate from the State of Georgia on the grounds that the electoral votes were not—
    4: California rise? Ms. LEE. Mr. President, I object because people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.
    5: Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I object on the massive voter suppression that is provisional that denied individual ballots—
    6: Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. President, I object to the certificate from the State of North Carolina based on violations of the Voting Rights Act and confirmed hacking by the—
    7: Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I object to the 15 votes from the State of North Carolina because of the massive voter suppression and the closing of voting massive suppression that occurred from African American—
    8: Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I object to the votes from South Carolina because—
    9: Ms. LEE. Mr. President, I object on behalf of the million of Americans, including members of the intelligence community.
    10: Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I object to the votes from the State of Wisconsin which should not be legally certified.
    11: Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. President, I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask: Is there one United States Senator who will join me in this letter of objection?

  9. The supposed man or woman or mix thereof has once again defined the validity and danger of those who hide and sneak. never exposing who what it’s true animal, vegetable, or mineral nature pretends to be human(s.) Even the name rings false.

    Why bother? The intent is apparant.

  10. Let’s just compare the so called insurrection on January 6 to other famous insurrections in history. Does Jan 6 seem like an insurrection that occurred in France in 1789? Does Jan 6 compare to the storming of the reichstag in Germany in 1920? Was Jan 6 the same as the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1923? Was Jan 6 equal to the Cuban revolution of 1953. We should also ask the question wether the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela is even remotely similar to January 6. For that matter was Jan 6 anywhere near comparable to the American Revolution? The answer to these questions is a resounding NO. So is it about a real danger of an insurrection or is it an inflammation and exaggeration by the left to somehow stir up more votes? A simple viewing of the latest poles should tell the Democrats that their plan is not working. Oh it is working to fool the leftist on this blog and in the rest of the national but the majority of Americans are not falling for their little game. See you in November.

    1. The Demagogue / fascist party constantly project their own thoughts and actions onto their political opponents.

  11. Iran’s – and America’s – Plans to Fund Russia’s War In Ukraine

    Iran’s efforts to conclude a revised nuclear deal with the Biden administration could result in the Kremlin receiving a windfall of half-a-billion dollars to fund its war effort against Ukraine.

    To boost its economy, Russia is now demanding that Iran pay in cash for the deals currently under discussion, as well as repaying outstanding debts believed to be worth more than half a billion dollars in cash owed for Russia’s work on the Bushehr facility.

    “Iran has promised Russia that it will pay its debt once Iranian funds held in the US are no longer under sanctions and become available for use,” a senior Western security official told me this week. “Furthermore, Iran has made transferring down payments to Russia for the purpose of implementing the military agreements between the parties conditional on reaching an agreement in Vienna.”

    Full article at

  12. When an opinion’s last paragraph changes the whole tenor of the opinion, it is a sure sign the law clerks wrote the entire opinion, the judge disagreed with their conclusion, and changed the last paragraph to reach the result the judge wanted. See in many times.

  13. As of October 2021, the district, state and supreme courts have ruled on several election fraud issues, while numerous other cases are still open. Some cases were dismissed on legal technicalities, preventing evidence from being presented and considered; but a detailed list of cases and outcomes available at shows that at a national level, Trump/Republicans have so far prevailed in 18 out of 25 cases that were decided on merits of the evidence.

    1. Your website doesn’t say anything about who runs it (there is no “About Us” page) and nothing about how they identified the suits they’re counting as “2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits,” only that “a team of independent volunteer (unpaid) scientists and engineers recently put together a List of Lawsuits involving the 2020 Presidential election.” For example, if you compare the list on your page with this ABA list — — you’ll find that each page lists some cases that are omitted from the other’s list, so however your unnamed people are compiling their list, it’s incomplete.

      Your pages says “Trump and/or the GOP plaintiff prevailed in 22 out of 30 cases decided on the merits,” not 18 out of 25. Your page tracked 92 cases total, so where you say “Some cases were dismissed on legal technicalities,” that “some” refers to ~2/3s of the cases, and what you’re calling “technicalities” are key aspects such as standing.

      1. Your criticism would be relevant if the topic was the process of conducting an election – where being correct 2/3 of the time or even 90% of the time is NOT good enough.

        But if you are seeking to prove that government failed – you only need to be right once.

    2. Thank you for the resource.

      Most are completely unaware – not only of the cases, but of the significant evidence of serious problems that have been and are continuing to be uncovered.

      I am not mostly interested in the courts at this point – it is far to late to accomplish much there.

      I would like to see some states revoke their certification – but even that is inherently symbolic at this point.

      The most important matter – from the start, is this should never happen again.

      I am from PA. PA’s act 77 is unconstitutional – that actually was passed in 2019 before Covid as a compromise measure between republicans and democrats to end litigation in PA over PA’s voter ID law.
      ACT 77 permitted LIMITED mailin voting – but implimented a broad range of election security measures, including particularly guaranteeing that Voter ID would be completely govern PA.

      As noted PA Act 77 was unconstitutional – Aside from the Secret Ballot requirement of the PA constitution – which mailin voting can never meet, there is also a provision that only permits absetee voting for specific reasons with a provision for the LEGISLATURE to add specific reasons to the list.

      In 2020 Gov. Wolf and his SoS ignored nearly al the election integrity provisions of the law – including Voter ID, and then left groups Sued PA and the PA SCOTUS not merely gave the SoS everything she asked, and the challengers, but PA SCOTUS judicially modified the law to destroy all the election integrity provisions.

      The PA SCOTUS decsions was one of the most blatantly politically corrupt decisions from a court I have ever seen.

      PA’s 2020 election was so lawless and so corrupt that The PA legislature should have impeached Gov. Wolf and 5 of the PA SumpreCourt Justices.

      Frankly I am surprised that Wolf was able to pass a buget or ANYTHING after the Election Fiasco.

      While I oppose Act 77 – because it is unconstitutional.
      The fundimental problem in PA was Not Act 77, it was PA democrats – in thee xecturtive, in the courts complete lawlessness and worse their willness to live up to the committments they made to pass ACT 77 in the first place.

      If you want to polarize government further – if you want it to seize completely – there is little that could be more effective than to strike a compromise, and then through purely legislative and judicial action completely gut the compromise to get everything you wanted – including things that were never even discussed.

      Act 77 makes no provisions for ballot drop boxes at all. We have enough problems with the ballot boxes that are completely in control of election officials much less unattended boxes on the street.
      Act 77 required mailin Ballots to be delivered to a SINGLE specific location in each county by the post office – or by hand by the voter during ordinary business hours.
      The SoS expanded that to Any election office within the county – not the law, but still not totally insecure. The Courts expanded this to dozens of unattended ballot boxes throughout the country

      Much of the country does not know this – but a couple of PA counties have a reputation for election fraud that compares to that of Cook County Illinois.
      Many people have been convicted of Election fraud in PA – several were convicted in 2020 of feeding the same ballot over and over through a scanner in a prior election.

      Even today – nearly 2 years after the election – PA has not been able to reconcile the number of people who voted with the number of votes cast – we have more ballots than voters by over 1/4 million – and 99% of the error is in TWO large urban democratic counties. These are the same places that received millions of Zuckerbucks and massive amounts of shiny new election equipment.

      These are places that have been historically slow reporting and always claimed poverty as the reason they can not count votes on time. Yet in 2020 after
      receiving massive amounts of Zuckerbucks and lots o election equipment – they were SLOWER and LESS accurate than ever before.
      This is also where we have the allegation by a truck driver that he drove a truck with over 200,000 filled in ballots from NYC to PA a few weeks before the election.

      This was forwarded to DOJ, the US Attorney wanted to investigate. Barr ordered him to forward the case to the PA democrat AG where it died. This was an INTERSTATE Election fraud case – it was OBVIOUSLY the DOJ’s business.

      While we are seeing Republican states fixing problems in their voting laws accross the country – that is clearly not enough – I PA efforts to fix election problems were veto’d by the govenor.

      PA voters are “mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore” – in March 2021, Voters Overwhelmingly passed TWO separate constitutional amendments stripping the Governor of Covid emergency authority.
      And this despite the Governor deliberately wording the referendum ballot language to be indecipherable.

      PA has been a purple state most of my life. I am expecting it will be RED come November.

      Further, this anger is NOT about Biden, or the federal Mess. Pennsylvanians are very angry at PA democrats.

      With Toomey retiring Democrats should have had a shot at a Senate Seat Pickup – that is not likely.

      They are also near certain to lose the governorship.

      Finally, as with other stupid tactics that democrats have tried – the disasterous 2020 election was a ONE TIME THING.

      I expect in 2023 PA laws to be fixed,
      But we must get through 2022 with the democratic fraud machine fully operational

      But people are prepared. When you know how the game is played – throwing sand in the gears, catching them in the act, or matching Democrats bogus vote for bogus vote are all options.

      1. John B. Say,

        “ Act 77 required mailin Ballots to be delivered to a SINGLE specific location in each county by the post office – or by hand by the voter during ordinary business hours.
        The SoS expanded that to Any election office within the county – not the law, but still not totally insecure. The Courts expanded this to dozens of unattended ballot boxes throughout the country”

        Act 77 was deemed unconstitutional by a state court but that is ultimately left for the Pennsylvania Supreme court to decide.

        As for the ballot box issue. The PA SCOTUS was correct in interpreting the law. The wording in the statute only mentions the elections office and it doesn’t specifically state ballot boxes are limited to the physical building where the election office is located. Just as one says “the office of the President” doesn’t always mean the physical structure.

        The ballot box locations were not specified in the law. Only the elections office, as in the local institution responsible for elections in the county, can decide where to put drop boxes.

        The argument relied on the extreme, literal wording of the statute and the PA SCOTUS correctly noted that interpreting it that way would make other parts of the statute illogical.

        No fraud occurred in Pennsylvania. Even those alleged at drop boxes.

        1. After all of your deception exposed in my last response, why should anyone believe anything you say?

        2. You are correct that a State court deemed Act 77 Unconstitutional .

          Courts are NOT the legislature – PA SCOTUS had only two choices –
          Determine that Act 77 is unconstitutional – in which case the prior law governs the election.

          Or determine that Act 77 is constititonal – in which case the Text of the law is binding.

          As I noted before Act 77 was a carefully worked out compromise by republicans and democrats in PA – including Gov. Wolf and his offices.

          Specifically because of that and because of the lack of Trust between republicans and democrats ACT 77 had an EXPLICIT poison pill.

          By default if one provision of a law is unconstitutional – the whole law is unconstitutional. to deal with this MANY laws have severability provisions written in – asserting that if one of several parts of the law are found unconstitutional the rest of the law should be examined without those provisions. As I said this is common, but NOT the default – legislatures must add severabilty provisions.

          ACT 777 had a NON-Severability provision – it explictly found that if any part of the law was found unconstitutional – or modified by the courts the entire law was self revoked.

          PA SCOTUS radically modified ACT 77 – esssentially rewriting it – which is NOT a power that the state constitution delegates to the courts.

          And you wonder why the courts are not trusted ?

        3. You really are clueless – there is no provision for mailin ballot boxes in ACT 77 AT ALL.

          The law was Clear – Mail the ballot to THE county election office OR hand deliver it there.

          Ballot boxes are NOT part of the law.

          The court made them up out of whole cloth.

          Even you note that the law only mentions SPECIFIC elections offices as legitimate places to deliver ballots.

          Your – and the courts argument is stupid –

          If the law says you must provide voter ID to vote – that does not mean killing someone else and taking their ID is allowed.

          It is not a requirement of the PA legislature to imagine every single possible other means that some idiot could conceive of to collect ballots and explictly ban those.

          The PA SCOTUS law is egregiously bad – because it represents a judicial philosophy that is unlimited in power.
          It effectively renders the existance of a legislature meaningless.

          I have constantly told you that it is a requirement that the law must be read narrowly.
          This is more than ideolgy – it is a logical requirement.
          Once you allow laws to be read beyond the narrowest interpretation of what is written – they become a play ground fo the executive and judicial to do whatever they please. And we are lawless.

        4. You are correct – the office of the president does NOT refer to a physical structure – and the county office of elections does not refer to a specific structure.

          This is NOT about buildings.

          It is however about singular vs. plural.

          There is only ONE county office of elections. There is only own President.
          The president can move – but he is always in ONE place at a time.

          A county is free to move its office of elections. But there is still only ONE.

          Nor are dozens of unattended ballot boxes each mini “county offices of elections”.

          I would further note that the restrictions within ACT 77 that were placed there were done so EXPLICITLY as antifraud measures.

          You do not seem to grasp that legislatures write the laws – courts determine whether those laws are constitutional and if they are apply them in the NARROWEST reading ALWAYS – because broad readings are ALWAYS lawless.

          One of the problems with your argument – and that of the PA SCOTUS is that SCOTUS made it perfectly clear they did not care what the law said – so there was absolutely no way for the legislature to write the law that SCotus was not going to do whatever it pleased.
          That is what lawlessness means.

        5. The law did not authorize ballot boxes AT ALL.

          You do not seem to understand – even in the most left wing nut version of the law – legislatures write laws.
          They can if they so choose delegate some details to the executive,
          but they are REQUIRED to do so, because the power to make law is SOLELY vested in the ELECTED legislature.
          ACT 77 could have said – county election offices will determine where ballot boxes can go.

          The law did not. The law did NOT permit ballot boxes at all.
          The law could have said the county election office can specify alternate locations to return ballots.
          The law did not.

          I would refer you to the the long discourse on ballot harvesting and 2000 mules.

          Voters are required by law to vote at the polls. They are not free to vote anywhere they want. They are not free to vote in whatever precinct suites them. They are required to vote at the ONE precinct that they reside in. This is a centuries old form of Voter ID – for MOST of US history precincts were small enough that the election officials KNEW you and KNEW you were eleigable to vote and they would not allow you to vote if they did not.

          Regardless in person voting is limited to ONE place.
          Likewise absentee voting is limited to ONE place. In PA an absentee vote must be cast at the county courthouse.
          The same “county elections office”.

          You come to the office – they check your voter registration, they check your voter ID and they give you a ballot,
          and send you to a booth. You may not leave the office, you may not talk to anyone, you may not show anyone your ballot, you may not take a picture of your ballot. You may not leave the office with your ballot. It is very much like inperson voting – except that it occurs BEFORE election day.

          Regardless, AGIAN ONE PLACE. The legislature could have allowed absentee voting at every JP’s office, or at every notary republic.
          And I am not opposed to its doing so. But it did not. And neither the Secretary of State nor the court are free to say – no, people can absentee vote at a long list of places not identified in the law.
          The legislatoure makes the law.

          Even what you call “interpretting” the law – explicitly means determining what the legislature intended. NOT what the judges prefer.

          reading a law narrowly means if the legislature did not say something they did not intend it.

          These requirements are not optional. They are underpinnings of the rule of law.

          You presume that they are inherently political – as in conservative. That is actually false. The requirements to narrow reading of the law are apolitical. The left’s living constitutionalism and legislation by judicial fiat could be just as easily adopted by the right as the left.

          The courts ultimately found Trump’s use of emergency funds to build the wall to be constitutional.
          Congress had granted the president to power to re-arrange funds in the event of an emergency. There was an emergency by congresses definition in the law, and even worse – construction of the law had already been authorized since the 80’s.

          But the courts could have just as easily said – the wall has already been authorized – we do not care that Congress refuses to allocate funds – they authorized the wall you can build it. But that is a violation of the rules of statutory interpretation – and the rule of law – requiring NARROW reading of the law. If congress wanted to fund the wall they could have.

          Further – following leftist activism the court could have said – it does not matter if a wall is authorized or congress allocated money – obviously it is necescary according to our ideology – so the president can build it.

          Put simply – the purported conservative means of reading the law and constitution is NOT conservative. It is logical, ethical and the requirement of the rule of law.

          While the means the left seeks – is not progressive – it is immoral and dangerous and can be employed by any ideology.

        6. You really know nothing about PA.

          Election fraud ALWAYS occurs in PA – including 2020.

          The only question is how large a scale was it in 2020.

          I would note that without mailin voting – 200K of fraudulent votes in PA – is not unusual.

          Todate as in every election – PA still has 274K more ballots than people who voted.

  14. Those that don’t see that there is a serious issue with the election system in the United States have been refusing to look.
    Was the 2020 election fair and legitimate ?
    Is mainstream media objective, are they presenting information without bias ?
    This site – – presents evidence of a coordinated, funded, illegal(?) ballot trafficking network.

    1. “Compiled by Si Williams, non-US resident, and other contributors”

      Another questionable site.

      1. That has the name of the court cases and hyperlinks to prove validity. ATS, you quote hoaxes from the Washington Post. You have no credibility.

      2. Truth is not determined by the citizenship of the speaker.
        Or even the speaker themselves.

        Do not watch listen to those you do not like – but watch the videos.
        election fraud has been proven to all but the physically or mentally blind.

  15. Without a doubt, this nation has two sets of law and two sets of morality.
    Facts speak louder than words.
    Nothing is more powerful than the truth.
    We all can voice our opinion, but everyone is Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

  16. Dumb smokers got no reason.
    Dumb smokers got no reason!
    Dumb Repubs got no reason to live!

    1. Liberty2nd: Your handle describes your agenda Liberty 2nd, one can only surmise that for you, authoritarianism is 1st.

  17. Amy Tottenberg is a far-left activist, not a judge. She’s leftwinger Nina Tottenberg’s sister. Laurance Tribe isn’t even American – he’s an Eastern European Jew who came to America by way of China. He has no allegiance to the United States as his rantings prove. As for the Fourteenth Amendment, large numbers of former Confederate officers and officials later served the United States both in government and the military, including some who rose to star rank. It was an amendment for the times and no longer applies. By the way, the 750,000 figure is for total Civil War deaths, not combat deaths, which were about a third of the total. Far more men died of sickness and disease than died in battle, which is true of most wars. The 750,000 revision is not new. It’s been around for at least a decade. By the way, the vast majority of Civil War deaths were on the Union side.

    1. “Amy Tottenberg is a far-left activist, not a judge.”

      She’s a judge, whether you can admit it or not.

      “Laurance Tribe isn’t even American – he’s an Eastern European Jew who came to America by way of China.”

      Oh look, an anti-Semite is trying to pretend that a Jewish American is not an American.

      Tribe is an American, whether you can admit it or not.

      “It was an amendment for the times and no longer applies.”

      Greene’s lawyers can argue that in their appeal. 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.

    2. semi, what do you have against Jews? Dershowitz is a Jew. What did he do to you? Not all Jews are liberals. Do you dislike conservative Jews as well or was your comment just in frustration of Tribe who was a brilliant man that is no longer brilliant?

    3. Semc…I have little regard for Tribe’s legal views, however, your Anti-Semitic rant about him is despicable, and it makes your comments that much less worhwhile or appreciated. You owe Mr. Tribe and those of the Jewish faith, an apology.

Comments are closed.