Destroying Democracy to Save It: Democrats Lose Another Effort to Disqualify a GOP Member

For two years, Democrats have been trying to disqualify dozens of Republicans from appearing on ballots for supporting the challenge to the certification of the 2020 election or declaring the election to be stolen. It is premised on a deeply flawed historical and legal view of a provision under the Fourteenth Amendment. In the name of democracy, these Democrats have demanded that courts prevent voters from being able to vote for incumbent members. Yet, scholars like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe have endorsed this sweeping interpretation. It has been rejected repeatedly in the courts. The latest such ruling comes from the Arizona Supreme Court which ruled that Democrats could not prevent Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) from appearing on the ballot in 2022.

In the age of rage, nothing says democracy like preventing people from running for office.

Last year, Democratic members called for the disqualification of dozens of Republicans. One, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) demanded the disqualification of 120 House Republicans — including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy(R-Calif.) — for simply signing a “Friend of the Court brief” (or amicus brief) in support of an election challenge from Texas.

These members and activists have latched upon the long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — which was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865 and many members were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.

Justice Edwin Reade of the North Carolina Supreme Court later explained, “[t]he idea [was] that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again.” So, members drafted a provision that declared that “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.”

By declaring the Jan. 6th riot an “insurrection,” some Democratic members of Congress and liberal activists hope to bar incumbent Republicans from running. Even support for court filings is now being declared an act of rebellion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) helped fuel this movement — before Jan. 6 even occurred — by declaring that the Republicans supporting election challenges were “subverting the Constitution by their reckless and fruitless assault on our democracy which threatens to seriously erode public trust in our most sacred democratic institutions, and to set back our progress on the urgent challenges ahead.”

This effort failed on legal grounds in seeking to bar Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) from running for office due to his actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021. It failed on factual grounds in seeking to bar Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.), even after a federal district court wrongly allowed a hearing to be held.

Now the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that not only did the challengers lack the standing to bring the case but Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Brutinel reaffirmed that this is a power left to Congress:

“Qualifications of its own Members,” appears to vest Congress with exclusive authority to determine whether to enforce the Disqualification Clause against its prospective members. However, we need not decide these issues because we hold that A.R.S. § 16-351(B), which authorizes an elector to challenge a candidate “for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency, professional requirements or failure to fully pay fines . . . ,” is not the proper proceeding to initiate a Disqualification Clause challenge. By its terms, the statute’s scope is limited to challenges based upon “qualifications . . . as prescribed by law,” and does not include the Disqualification Clause, a legal proscription from holding office. 

The court case is Thomas Hansen v. Mark Finchem, No. cv-22-0099.

245 thoughts on “Destroying Democracy to Save It: Democrats Lose Another Effort to Disqualify a GOP Member”

  1. If you were to protest outside the homes of these protestors, they would probably cry foul, because most people don’t like to take what they dish out. You will never hear someone say: “Thank you for doing to me what I did to you. I deserved it.”

  2. For those of you who are pro-choice, there will be a large rally/march on Saturday, with satellite events around the country.
    More info: plannedparenthoodaction.org/rightfully-ours/bans-off-our-bodies

  3. Based on their military’s performance in Ukraine, I wouldn’t be so afraid of Russia’s nuclear forces, either. Their ICBMs would probably explode inside their silos.

    1. If 10% of Russian nukes work we are in a $hitload of trouble.

      You are not free to bet my life and that of my family and children on your hope that Russias nukes will all fail.

  4. Panel rules Soros-backed prosecutor violated multiple ethics rule in pursuit of ex-Gov. Greitens

    Missouri panel rules Kimberly Gardner should receive public reprimand for withholding exculpatory evidence, failing to correct false filing.

  5. Republicans Scheme To Take Down Cawthorn

    Last November, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) texted his state’s junior senator, Thom Tillis, about a tweet from the senator’s wife. Cawthorn had just announced that he was planning to switch districts, and Susan Tillis took to Twitter to criticize the move.

    “Why is your wife attacking me on Twitter?” the House freshman demanded in his text exchange obtained by The Washington Post.

    “Just spit ballin here,” Tillis replied, “but maybe because you’ve attacked her husband?”

    In fact, Tillis isn’t the only powerful enemy Cawthorn has made in his own party. The 26-year-old congressman has, in his few years in politics, sparked public outrage with his support for former president Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, inflammatory speeches, repeated driving and gun infractions, and even a nude video. But his falling-out with top Republicans in North Carolina and Washington also arose from more humdrum blunders such as neglecting constituent services and insulting party elders, according to GOP officials and operatives in the state.

    Now, those Republican enemies are openly lining up to take him down.

    Tillis and many of North Carolina’s top Republicans, including the state’s House speaker and Senate leader, are backing a challenger, state Sen. Chuck Edwards, in next Tuesday’s primary. Tillis has personally raised money for the effort. An allied super PAC is bombarding the district with TV ads and mail pieces highlighting Cawthorn’s string of scandals and indiscretions — a list that gets longer with almost each passing day.

    Even Donald Trump, who endorsed Cawthorn during a visit to Mar-a-Lago in March 2021, may be distancing himself from the embattled freshman. At an April rally in Selma, N.C., Trump touted his endorsement of Ted Budd for Senate and Bo Hines in another House race, but of Cawthorn said only, “He’s a great guy.”

    Edited From:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/10/thom-tillis-madison-cawthorn-primary/

    1. Cawthorn is a horrendous Rep., and I hope he loses his primary. That said, I agree with Chris Hayes: “What’s interesting about this is the reminder that, yes, there actually are red lines [for Republicans], they’re just not inciting and supporting insurrection. It’s talking about coke orgies.”

  6. This comment did not post on account of my use of a dirty word. I will repost it without that word:

    Svelaz says:

    “Turley likes to claim democrats undermined confidence in the election, but it was republicans and right-wing media that engaged in such undermining of the election integrity by deliberately making false voter fraud claims. OAN is the first to admit it. The others are not far behind.”

    While Turley does NOT believe that the election was stolen, he NEVER mentioned in any of his articles that his good friend Bill Barr had stated adamantly and repeatedly that such claims were “Bullsh*t.” Turley will only say that a lot of Republicans nonetheless believed it- as if to suggest they did so in good faith. But the claim that the election was rigged was made in BAD FAITH- a fact which Turley has never acknowledged.

    Why?

    Because his employer Fox is being sued for defamation for broadcasting the Big Lie. An admission that the Fox talk show hosts who pushed it did so knowingly or indifferently is actual MALICE. Turley is too good a lawyer to make an admission against the financial interest of his company.

    Turley’s compromised position explains why he is largely silent about the 1/6 commission because it is uncovering evidence that Trump and his cronies had EVERY reason to believe their election claims were fraudulent.

    1. what utter rubbish you spew. there were 2000 mules stuffing ballot boxes all over the swing states. As dementia Joe himself said. who COUNTS the votes is important. Stalin said exactly the same thing. And there are increasing numbers of voter fraud indictments being handed down across these defrauded States.

      1. Mike,

        Why is Turley silent? Why doesn’t he praise this movie? Could it be that Turley is a closeted NeverTrumper?

        I’ll stick with Turley. I trust him more than Dinesh D’Souza. I was his college classmate; and I know from firsthand experience that Dinesh was a liar then.

          1. How do you know? What’s the point of this Blog Stooge?

            Why doesn’t Turley prevent this sort of abuse? Could he?

        1. How can anyone trust a person Jeff) who libels another without any proof and then comments about a documentary he hasn’t seen.

          Turley might very well end up mentioning 2000 Mules. Then Jeff can engage in some other crazy verbal attacks.

          1. Wanna bet Turley doesn’t mention 2000 Mules? Put your money where your mouth is!

            1. Dealing with you , I definitely would be afraid you would welch on the bet. You don’t demonstrate any honesty on the blog.

              1. We can get Paul to hold the bet. I trust him. I’ll PayPal him $100 if you will. If Turley mentions the movie, Paul will send you mine; if he doesn’t, he’ll send me yours.

                Let’s do it or are you chicken?

                1. Paul is a nice guy, but I don’t think he wants to be your intermediary. Why only $100, did your trust fund put you on a short leash?

                  1. What’s your pleasure? You want to make it interesting and raise it to $1000? I’m game if you are.

                    1. Paul is your friend, so let us see if Paul is willing to put himself under scrutiny. Then we can discuss specifics and amounts that have more meaning. Real estate can be a type of gamble if one is dealing in the process of speculation. I guess we are both limited gamblers. Generally, I only deal with credible individuals, which remains to be proven in your case.

                    2. Who is hiding their real name? Don’t flatter yourself that you are more credible than me!

                    3. But I am more credible than you. My words show that and yours don’t.

                    4. I guess that means you want to welch on the bet before it is even finalized.

                    5. There is no need for my name, only my money. You offered Paul (“We can get Paul to hold the bet. I trust him.”). I’m waiting for you to get the man you trust, and I don’t know, to see if he can act as an intermediary.

                      Are you welching this early in the bet?

                    6. Are you welching on the bet? You chose your friend so deal with that problem. Your initial $100 can’t even buy a good dinner out.

                    7. Tell me how much and if you are serious, and I will contact Paul. I’ll send him the money.

                    8. You don’t sound organized. Let me know when you complete the first task.

                    9. Paul would you be willing to hold the money for a wager I have against some anonymous person on this blog? I would send you my wager, and we’ll see if he will do the same. We could do it by PayPal. Probably $100.

                      If Turley approves of the 2000 Mules movie, he wins. If Turley disapproves (or ignores mentioning it), send the money to me.

                      You are the only person we both trust!

                      What do you say?

                    10. Jeff, this is stupid.

                      Again you do not know what words mean.

                      Turley is not going to approve or disapprove.

                      He is going to accept or reject claims – presuming that he ever sees it.

                      There are alot of valid criticisms of the evidence in 2000 mules – but none come close to undermining core claims.

                      True the Vote has PROVEN that large scale organized ballot harvesting occured in the key 6 states.
                      All of those states make ballot harvesting a felony – but some of them allow, family members, or powers of attorney to deliver a ballot.

                      The odds of a tiny fraction of the harvestors meeting the legal exceptions to fellony ballot harvesting are very near zero.

                      While I would be interested to hear what Turley says – the more relevant issue is what prosecutors in these states do.

                      True The vote went about as far as they can go without the ability to subpeona records.

                      That is what comes next.

                      GA has subpeoned TTV’s data and they are fully cooperating.

                      But I would like to see law enforcement use the TTV allegations as the basis to start their own investigation.
                      Rather than using TTV’s data – conduct the investigation into ballot harvesting on their own – but using what TTV found as guidance as to where to look.

                      When ballot harvestors are identified – and that will be pretty easy – their cell phone IMEI’s will get them, interview them, if they do not cooperate charge them.

                      Climb the ladder – the Ballot harvestors will give you the 501C3’s.
                      TTV speculated as to how all these ballots were aquired, but they do not have the ability to get proof of source for the 300-800K fraudulent ballots they found.

                      To be clear – with extremely few exceptions a ballot is fraudulent if it is delivered to a dropbox by someone other than the voter.

                      Start charging or threatening to charge people – use them to climb the ladder.

                      It is likely that many prosecutors are going to run away from this – I doubt that the PA AG will touch this – or the local prosecutors in Philadelphia.

                      But it only takes a few to tear this whole mess apart.

                    11. “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

                      ― Napoleon Bonaparte

                    12. “True the Vote has PROVEN that large scale organized ballot harvesting occured in the key 6 states. All of those states make ballot harvesting a felony – but some of them allow, family members, or powers of attorney to deliver a ballot.”

                      John, the video excluded ballot harvesting from their numbers since, in some cases, it is legal. That is why they focused only on Ballot Trafficking, which is illegal everywhere. They only counted ballot traffickers.

                      Everyone needs to see 2000 mules with traffickers dropping ballots on the sidewalk because they carried too many to fit into the ballot box. Everyone needs to see these criminals suddenly change to wearing gloves in a single day because another was arrested based on fingerprints the day before. It demonstrates coordination and conspiracy.

                    13. I am well aware that TTV used the most narrow criteria.

                      I am also aware THEY distinguish between harvesting and trafficking.

                      I DO NOT.

                      Mailin voting is unconstitutional in 38 states. It is not permitted in most of the world.

                      Any voting system where a ballot leaves the supervision of election officials is NOT a secret ballot,
                      and without secret balloting you WILL get fraud.

                      Any voting system where the voter can prove how they voted – is NOT a secret ballot and you WILL get fraud.

                      I oppose – as a bad idea, making voting too easy – if I could I would require everyone to have to walk half a mile in a huricane to vote.
                      That would ensure that only the most dedicated vote.

                      Whether voting should be easy or hard is not a constitutional issue, and my desire to make it hard is a viewpoint – and means to get better voting quality. It is not required by law or constitution.

                      In most of the country secret ballots ARE required by law and constitution.
                      They are also a requirement for trust and integrity not just quality.

                      The quality of vote is a preference issue.
                      The integrity of the vote is a supra constitutional issue.

                      When elections are not trusted – violent overthrow of government is JUSTIFIED.

                      2000 Mules proves using the narrowest criteria – egregious and organized criminal election fraud.

                      Absolutely we should persue that rigorously.

                      But dumping multiple ballots into mailboxes – rather than ballot boxes is no less criminal. TTV chose to skip mailboxes because someone COULD be putting multiple letters into a mail box.
                      But we all KNOW that if several hundred thousand fraudulently delivered ballots went to ballot drop boxes that plenty also went to mail boxes.

                      And if you continue mailin voting just as fraudsters started wearing gloves after fingerprints caught someone, they will shift to mail boxes next time.

                      Mailin voting MUST go.

                      A ballot should NEVER be in the hands of a voter outside the oversight of election officials and where anyone else can know your vote.

                      The right to ballot secrecy does NOT belong to the voter – it is NOT a choice. It is a right and requirement of ALL voters.

                      I do not want children intimating parents or visa versa, spouses checking each others votes, or relatives, or political operatives.

                      Ultimately I do not care if Biden won because 500 people in some warehouse will filling out millions of forged ballots and feeding them to “mules” or if individual voters changed their vote because a friend, relative, employer, or political operative was looking over their shoulder.

                      Mailin voting MUST got.

                      There are things we can do if we must make voting easy – that preserve the trustworthyness of elections.
                      There is nothing we can do to fix mailin voting.

                    14. “I am also aware THEY distinguish between harvesting and trafficking. I DO NOT.”

                      John, we agree on mail-in voting and voter security. We agree on the meanings of these words. The problem is that when the words “ballot harvesting” are used, people argue that it is legal, and some ballot harvesting is CONSIDERED legal whether we like it or not. To avoid distractions and prolonged arguments, in 2000 Mules they don’t use Ballot Harvesting. Instead, they use the word Ballot Trafficking, which is illegal in all states and demonstrates that their numbers are not open to dispute based on state laws. Ballot Trafficking could be considered a subset of Ballot Harvesting, where all the ballots are illegal based on all state laws. It is a much easier concept for people to understand and use.

                      If you remember Anonymous the Stupid’s argument based on a link, they claimed ballot harvesting wasn’t illegal. That is why 2000 Mules used the terms Ballot Trafficking.

                    15. Ballot harvesting is illegal in nearly all the country. Except California of course.

                      I do not care what you use. I understand the TTV use of trafficking.

                      But I disagree. It is more important to get people to grasp that ballot harvesting is illegal, immoral and criminal. than it is to create a new term and pretend that there are two different things and one is legal.

                    16. John, first convince the people of a crime, don’t confuse them. Then deal with the rest. No one is saying ballot harvesting is legal or good. Quite the contrary was said.

                    17. The process of elections matter greatly.

                      If fraud is possible – especially where it is unlikely to be caught – it WILL occur.

                      Mailin voting is popular – even 50% of republicans support it.

                      It is also WRONG. Every popular idea is not a good one.

                      There is no means to construct a process arround mailin voting that will not have myriads of unchecked means to commit fraud.

                      2000 Mules is excellent.

                      But I would suggest thinking – the mules started wearing gloves when someone was caught using fingerprints.

                      2000 mules exposes the means fraud was performed in 2020.

                      It also exposes the means TTV caught them.

                      The entire fraudulent process of 2020 can be duplicated in 2024 – but such that TTV’s methods of catching people do not work.

                      Have the mules set their phone to airplane mode or require them to NOT carry phones.
                      Have them use mailboxes instead of dropboxes.

                      Rent apartments to run the ballot distribution out of instead of the offices of 501C3’s.

                      Just as these criminals exploited flaws in the election system – TTV exploited flaws in the fraud process to catch them.

                      Just as we can fix the process so that fraud is harder – fraudsters can fix their process so catching them is harder.

                      I am not interested in the distinction between trafficking and harvesting.

                      Following the process as it WAS in 2020 – not what it should have been – it would be my guess that Biden did not win the popular vote.

                      If all ballots that should have been rejected were rejected, if all forms of ballot harvesting that were illegal in most states were prevented or caught far more than enough ballots to tip the popular vote would have been rejected.

                      But in the end I am less concerned about who won, and more concerned about the untrustworthy nature of the election.

                      Every single person who said this election could be trusted – is an idiot or a liar, and regardless should never be trusted again.

                      No matter who wins – elections must be conducted such that nearly all of us trust the result – even if we do not like it.
                      Otherwise the winning is NOT legitimate.

                      And justifiable violence could result.

                    18. “2000 mules exposes the means fraud was performed in 2020.”

                      That is right. Before you can convince people who like mail-in voting to get rid of it, you must first convince them that the 2020 election was fraudulent because of this type of voting. One has to convince in an orderly fashion, step by step and then target future elections. It is one of the reasons to call what was done Ballot Trafficking, which is always illegal in all states. It is not because you don’t understand. It is because others don’t understand.

                      You say you are not concerned about who won the election. I am. Destruction can move much quicker than many expect. My family learned it, and you learned it with your wife. These things happen and turning them around is much more difficult. Your wife and my wife have a lot in common. Mine was subject to an assault of a different kind on the other side of the iron curtain. She was jailed for actions she had no control over. She had to risk her life numerous times over a long period of time, but each deadly episode came quickly. Each of our generations faced severe difficulties involving life and death. The change to the latter came very fast and ended with many dead.

                    19. Your not credible.

                      There are only a few posters on either side who are less credible than you are.

                    20. May the Power of Christ Compel You!

                      May the Power of Christ Compel You!

                      MAY THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPEL YOU!!

  7. No Where in Turley’s essay does he sy who is behind the theme. IT IS WELL-KNOWN DEMOCRAT HACK LAWYER………..MARC ELIAS. ,,, who needs to be taken to the woodshed and neutered

  8. Natacha, you are living in an alternate reality. YOU are a true disciple of the far left, congratulations. As for your remaining comments, unfortunately, you have no idea what you are talking/writing about. Please educate yourself on how the real world works before removing all doubt about you being an idiot. (Hints: 1) printing money as Biden has done, will always result in inflation; 2) energy independence was reached under Trump–certainly not Obama )

    1. Here are the facts from knowledgeable experts, not political hacks that work for alt-right media:

      Washington (CNN)The United States never stopped importing energy from foreign countries under President Donald Trump.

      Both before and after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine contributed to a spike in US gas prices, various Republicans bashed President Joe Biden for supposedly abandoning Trump-era “energy independence.” These Republicans have fostered the impression that the “energy independent” US did not need energy from Russia and elsewhere under Trump, but then, under Biden, has been forced to buy this foreign energy once more.
      The truth is that the US was never close to genuine independence from foreign energy in the Trump era.
      “Energy independence” is a political phrase, not a literal phrase. Despite how Trump and others have made it sound, it does not mean the US was ever going it alone.
      “A ridiculous term,” said Jim Krane, an energy studies fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
      “A horrible term,” said Jeff Colgan, professor and director of the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University and an expert on the geopolitics of oil.
      “This stupid term,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert and a research professor at The Fletcher School at Tufts University.
      The term has various non-literal definitions. And the US did satisfy some of these definitions under Trump in 2020 — as it did again in the 11 months of 2021, mostly under Biden, for which we have complete data.
      For example, in both periods, the US exported more crude oil and petroleum products than it imported. It also produced more primary energy than it consumed.
      But none of that means that the Trump-era US did no energy importing at all. From the beginning of Trump’s term to the end, the US very much relied on oil and gas from abroad.
      In 2020, Trump’s last full year in office, the US imported about 7.9 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products. That was down from prior years — the US imported more than 10 million barrels per day in 2016, President Barack Obama’s last full year — but still a whole lot of foreign energy.
      In fact, contrary to prominent Republicans’ suggestions over the last month that the US had just recently started consuming Russian energy under Biden, US energy imports from Russia spiked during the Trump presidency.
      And that isn’t the only thing Republicans have gotten wrong.
      Contrary to claims from Trump and other Republicans, Biden has not “shut down” American energy: US crude oil production in Biden’s first year was higher than in each of Trump’s first two years and just narrowly shy of production in Trump’s last year, though substantially lower than production in Trump’s record-setting third year. And experts say it is economic factors and cautionary pressures from Wall Street, not anything Biden has done, that has made US oil companies reluctant to dramatically ramp up production from current levels.

      As to inflation, it’s the simple matter of supply and demand. High demand and low supply drive up prices. Because of Trump’s lies about the seriousness of the pandemic and utter failure of leadership, the pandemic went on longer and was worse than it needed to be. The US was mostly closed down for 2 years: factories closed or cut back production, school kids are behind, gasoline production cut back because fewer people were driving to work, for buses to schools and for vacations. Unemployment was above 10%. Then, there’s the trade war with China, resulting in a shortage of computer chips needed for everything from home appliances to automobiles and computers. When Biden turned around the economy and people went back to work and in-person school, gasoline production and factories have lagged behind demand. That’s part of what’s driving inflation: plus, due to Trump’s tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy the national debt rose to historic levels. Paying the interest on this massive debt is also driving inflation. Biden has already decreased the national debt substantially.

      So, Trump indeed bears responsibility for the inflation we are suffering from.

  9. There’s nothing more obtuse and disgusting than a leftist…. Democrats are literally the rot on our Republic

  10. Ashcroft says:

    “Nobody benefits except the “Division Industry”

    This Division Industry (as you call it) initiated 25 years ago with Fox News’ mission to feed a media niche by attacking the bona fides of the MSM. Turley profits from the rage provocateurs at Fox. He cannot criticize the “age of rage” while turning a blind eye to 1/2 the problem. He knows he is a hypocrite which explains why he won’t take questions in public not unlike radio shock jocks who hide behind their microphones. Turley is too much of a coward to bite the hand that feeds him.

    1. You pedocrats like to pretend the one sided media democrat control over media was all integrity and honesty until fox came along. Fox was the answer to the pedophile democrats stranglehold on all media which of course pedocrats used to spread propaganda, just like today, it with no pushback. You and those like you need to be shot in the head at close range with a large caliber revolver.

        1. Darren doesn’t enforce the civility code. He’ll let this violation stand.

          Just watch….

    2. I question the bona fides of the MSM and believe them to be mainly Democrat biased. One of the largest producers of such biasness I saw, begin in 1992 CNN> Never published anything negative on A dem and never a positive on A Repub. You, like a quick draw McGraw; You assiduously rage against FOX and libel The Prof as a hypocrite. But only you elitest pseudo-savants opinions matter, right? The rage will grow much louder and stronger as more of the John Durham report osmoses out with reality. AG MG will contain as long as possible. I would allege that Obama, Biden, on down, attempted a coup d’e’tat against DT. That is the insurrection. You can poo poo and maw maw against such, but BIG DERECHO WILL DISCLOSE SOON. I can understgand the Prof not addressing your inanity, as you simply just drone on.

      1. Why did BR deliver a fraudulent recording and why has he not be charged for doing so?

          1. The recording was as fraudulent as NUTCHACHACHA, that grateful leech and beneficiary of matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

            Hey, NUT, let’s go break through that MAN’S “glass ceiling” today, K? Ya want to? I think it’s constitutional and licit to steal.

            In rational times, the actions of the welfare state would be referenced as criminal theft, but the communists call it paying your “fair share” of taxes, while 57%, the parasites, dependents and hyphenates, pay no federal income tax.

            1. The GA Atty General is convening an grand jury to determine whether Trump’s call to “find” nonexistent votes should be charged as a crime.

      2. Never happened. WAPO and NY Times were forced to retract the story and apologize.

  11. “For two years, Democrats have been trying to disqualify dozens of Republicans from appearing on ballots for supporting the challenge to the certification of the 2020 election or declaring the election to be stolen.”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    That’s peanuts!

    For 162 years since “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror,” the communists have been “disqualifying” and nullifying the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to effect the “reconstruction of a social world” through the gradual, incremental implementation of the principles of the Communist Manifesto – Central Planning, Control of the Means of Production, Redistribution of Wealth and Social Engineering.

    Karl Marx wrote “Crazy Abe” a letter of commendation and congratulation in 1864 for his momentous effort to “win” (i.e. steal) the 1864 election with a gun to America’s head, and to initiate the incremental implementation of communism and the “RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD” – facilitated by Karl Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS.”

    All the while, the Supreme Court sits silently when it should have struck down every irrefutably unconstitutional element of communism passed by Congress and perpetuated by liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats and RINOs.

    The Supreme Court finally, after 50 years, acknowledges that Roe v Wade was and is unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court must strike down the entire communist American welfare state.

Leave a Reply