New Financial Controversies Rock BLM as Marc Elias Reportedly Ends “Key Role” With the Group

New financial controversies have arisen about the use of donations by Black Lives Matter (BLM), including additional allegations that co-founder Patrisse Cullors used BLM funds and resources to benefit herself and friends. I previously wrote a column asking why Democratic prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James shown comparably little interest in these allegations even as James sought to disband the National Rifle Association (NRA) over similar allegations. In the meantime, the Washington Examiner is reporting that former Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has left a “key role” after his firm, the Elias Law Group, had “taken control of its books and finances.”

Black Lives Matter reportedly raised $90 million after the death of George Floyd and still has $60 million in cash.

Even with the rising scandals over the use of donations, many Democratic politicians (who called for the prosecution of the NRA) remain conspicuously silent on the BLM scandals.

Cullors was always a curious choice of corporate donors given her intensely anti-corporate stances. She insisted that she and her BLM co-founder “are trained Marxists. We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories.” She has denounced capitalism as worse than COVID-19. Nevertheless, corporations poured money into BLM and some, like Warner Bros. hired Cullors to guide their programming.

Cullors recently said that BLM was flooded with “white guilt money.”

However, BLM failed to file required tax reports and some of that money appears to have gone to buying expensive properties and supporting personal friends of Cullors.

Cullors stepped down last year as executive director of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, and there have been other resignations that left the group effectively headless. Those resignations followed the New York Post’s revelation that BLM Global Network transferred $6.3 million to Cullors’ spouse, Janaya Khan, and other Canadian activists to purchase a mansion in Toronto in 2021.

Then reports surfaced of the purchase of expensive homes and other allegations of using BLM resources or funds for personal benefits.

A $6 million Los Angeles mansion has been the most recent focus of these allegations of personal use of BLM assets.

There are also allegations that Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation paid out $4 million in consulting payments to its board secretary, co-founder Patrisse Cullors’ brother, and the father of Cullors’ child. That includes $970,000 to Trap Heals LLC, a company established by Damon Turner, the father of Cullors’ child. It also includes $840,000 to Cullors Protection LLC, a security firm owned by her brother, Paul Cullors.

Some $2.1 million also allegedly went to Bowers Consulting, a firm run by Shalomyah Bowers, the foundation’s board secretary.

Cullors once declared that “while the COVID-19 illness is tragic, what’s more tragic is capitalism.” She is fast making that tragedy a reality.

 

NB: The original column referred to Elias reportedly leaving the “board” of the group. The article reports that Elias left a “key role” and a “top spot” with BLM. The person who left the board was Clinton associate Minyon Moore, according to the article.

286 thoughts on “New Financial Controversies Rock BLM as Marc Elias Reportedly Ends “Key Role” With the Group”

  1. Lighten up Professor Turley. A good portion of the 30 million dollars spent by BLM was spent on bricks in Seattle. They have expenses to deal with such as sledge hammers used to break widows in Portland. Professor, you just don’t understand that Molotov cocktails just don’t come cheap. It takes a lot of money to secure the boarders of the Chop Zone in Seattle. C,mon Professor they got expenses man. Lighten up.

  2. Professor Turley previously wrote a column “asking why Democratic prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James shown comparably little interest in these allegations….” of BLM use of funds.
    +++

    You know why.

      1. Svelaz,

        Please explain why NYAG James had jurisdiction over Bannon and others involved with the ‘Build the Wall’ charity but does not have jurisdiction over the BLM charity. What is the difference?

        1. She didn’t prosecute the build the wall members. Bannon was being investigated because he was part of the Trump organization which IS based in NY.

          She was investigating the trunp organization charity operation which was based in NY.

          The build the wall foundation was being investigated by FEDERAL authorities. Not NY.

          1. Svelaz is correct, the build the wall foundations was investigated by the SDNY, not the NYAG. Same corrupt state, different corrupt court.

              1. Anomaly,

                My updated quote is “Same corrupt state, different corrupt prosecutor”.

      2. Svelaz–

        Turley said “Democratic prosecutors LIKE New York Attorney General Letitia James” .

        It’s a large cohort. Undoubtedly there are some who have jurisdiction–plenty in California for example–but who will not act.

        But, if BLM solicited funds in NY and wrongfully diverted those funds to personal use I am not sure I agree with your contention that NY prosecutors have no jurisdiction.

        1. Young, your argument is dependent on a lot of “ifs”, “could’ve”, and “maybe’s”. None of which change the fact that the NY AG does does not have jurisdiction to prosecute BLM.

          Nothing that BLM has done is illegal. Insinuating something is not proof and certainly not probable cause to investigate.

          1. Svelaz,

            The basis for the SDNY claiming jurisdiction in the case against “We Build the Wall” was the claim that donors from the SDNY had allegedly been defrauded by the Florida based organization.

            It is certain that there are donors to BLM from the SDNY. Why is there no interest from the SDNY in investigating the collapse of BLM and the question of where the money went? Or, on a broader basis, why is there no interest from ANY prosecutor having jurisdiction in investigation these allegations?

            There are numerous parallels between the allegations charged in the “We Build the Wall” case and the allegations raised in the BLM controversy. The only apparent difference between the circumstances of the two cases seems to be the political leaning of the participants.

          2. Svelaz: “Nothing that BLM has done is illegal.”

            +++

            It used to be that sacking and burning cities was thought to be criminal by those in refined and knowing legal circles.

            Ask Jim and Tammy Baker what is wrong with diverting donated funds to personal pleasures like going on a mansion buying spree.

            Another thing you missed, the word ‘like’. I put it all in capitals so you would see the point.

            LIKE: “having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to.”

            Turley’s statement was not limited to only the NY AG. It included those like or similar to her, of whom there are many.

            1. Last night we watched the movie, Northman. Brutal, savage, primal, but a window into Viking life before Christianity tamed Scandinavian Norse pagan civilization. With the collapse of present day Christianity, BLM ANTIFA Left wing violence are a natural outgrowth. Expect more Norse-like tribal violence in America, e.g. 8 feet fence erected outside SCOTUS.

  3. Turley is just pushing the smear campaign against BLM by right wing media. Which is the latest evidence that Turley is more of a partisan hack than the respected scholar he once was back in the 90’s.

    When you dig into the details of the allegations it’s easy to see that the claims are being portray as massive mismanagement of funds when in fact it’s no different than any other non-profit.
    The $6.3 million mansion in Toronto? It’s just the headquarters of a BLM branch in Canada. There’s nothing illegal about it.

    The home in California? $1.4 million. Keep in mind it’s CALIFORNIA million dollar homes are average there. It’s not outlandish. Their ranch in Georgia $400,000? Turley and the right wing media smearing BLM leave out the fact that Cullors is also successful author. And she does make money from book deals. Notice Turley sticks to “allegations” and not actual proven abuses. This is what smearing is about. Insinuating wrongdoing or corruption by spreading allegations that make normal operations look bad.

    Turley is a lawyer and he stupidly asks why the NY AG Isn’t investigating BLM. It’s not in her jurisdiction. The NRA is.

    1. Sevvy:

      “Turley is just pushing the smear campaign against BLM by right wing media.”
      ******************************
      Nothing to see here. Who cares if the BLM leadership has the ethics of Jim and Tammy Bakker and sponsors the burnings of a black-owned business or seven. They’re good! That’s what they said about JIm and Tammy, too! Look how well that turned out!

      https://currentpub.com/2019/07/08/the-real-reason-televangelist-jim-bakker-went-to-jail/

      1. Mespo, your post is exactly what a smear is. The comparison to Jim Bakker Is nothing close to what BLM is doing.

        Bakker was a prime example of Christian hypocrisy during the height of the “moral majority” movement. He went to prison for sexual assault and financial fraud.

        Turley deliberately leaves out any insinuations of outright fraud. But leaves the idea that it “might be”. That’s what a smear is.

          1. Mespo,

            “ You say smear. I say bird of a feather. The readers can decide.”

            Well that’s the whole point of a smear. It’s falsely insinuating things by portraying events with a deliberately skewed context with facts. It’s about deliberately GIVING readers the wrong so idea so they can “decide”.

            1. I’m not insinuating. I’m calling it flat out. BLM is as much of a scam as PTL Club ever was. Same sanctimony, same tactics without the fires, same abuse of donations. Now if we could just find a gigolo for Patrisse!

    2. Svelaz tells us 6.3 million dollar mansion in Toronto is no big deal. I looked up a 1.4 million dollar home in Las Angeles. For 1.4 million you get a four bedroom home on 3.74 acres. The property includes horse stables, a riding rink and a recording studio. The home has 3,169 square feet of living space. Svalaz says no big deal. Not only does Svelaz paint a false picture of reality but he insults your intelligence by doing so. You have to hand it to them. The BLM leaders know a grifters paradise when they see one. I remember a cartoon where a man is walking down the street and the grifters see him morphed into a sucker as they ring there hands in anticipation. I think that I recall that the man who morphed into a sucker looked just like Svelaz.

      1. TiT,

        The price of a home is entirely dependent on the location and features.

        “ California’s median home price is forecasted to rise 5.2 percent to $834,400 in 2022, following a projected 20.3 percent increase to $793,100 in 2021. Housing affordability is expected to drop to 23 percent next year from a projected 26 percent in 2021.”

        Cullors and her wife also have good income from their book deals. If is “alleged” they used BLM money, but nobody has shown proof that they have. Just an insinuation is enough to breed the idea that they did which is what a smear campaign is about.

        The mansion is being used as a headquarters in Canada. The purchasing of the property is not illegal or even their choice. What many are insinuating is that somehow because they are a non-profit they aren’t allowed to make such purchases. It’s not a crime. But those who are intent on smearing BLM WANT it to look like it.

        The heritage foundation has a multimillion dollar headquarters too. Should they be investigated because they spent too much?

        1. Svelaz, please tell us why BLM and Al Sharpton will never be prosecuted? Sharpton owes or owed millions in taxes and yet the DOJ and the IRS never seemed to care. It is people like Svelaz that are the true racists, they treat blacks as if they are too weak to be held to the same standards as everyone else. This is the soft racism of low expectations and it does nothing but harm the innocent and hard working blacks of this country.

          1. Hullbobby,

            “ Sharpton owes or owed millions in taxes and yet the DOJ and the IRS never seemed to care.”

            Well which is it. Does he owe or owed millions in taxes?

            If he OWED millions. Means he already took care of it or reached a deal with the IRS. If he still owes millions wheres the link showing he does?

            “ It is people like Svelaz that are the true racists, they treat blacks as if they are too weak to be held to the same standards as everyone else.”

            That’s funny. Calling me racist because I point out that these black individuals are not doing anything illegal, but those who are alleging they are are without proof are not.

            I don’t see you bashing the NRA or the Trump organization for their own alleged illegal activity. Are you being racist too because they are not being held to the same standards? By your own logic you are.

        2. Svelaz, you said that 1.4 million dollars doesn’t buy much of a home in California. I responded with a home that cost 1.4 million dollars in Las Angeles has 3,169 square feet and includes a horse stable, a riding rink and a recording studio. You responded with a median home price of $834,400 dollars in California. Did you ever stop to think that the median home price is effected by the ownership of of homes in the multimillion dollar range. There are a lot of very rich people in silicone valley and Hollywood who own very expensive homes. I illustrated that 1.4 million dollars buys a lot of house in California and you said it didn’t. You should understand that defending BLM at this juncture in time is a losing proposition. I understand that you are just defending your Marxist ideology. You can run from your very misleading statement but you can’t hide. We gotcha figured out.

          1. TiT,

            “ Svelaz, you said that 1.4 million dollars doesn’t buy much of a home in California.”.

            I didn’t say that. Don’t start a discussion with lying. What I did say was,

            “ The home in California? $1.4 million. Keep in mind it’s CALIFORNIA million dollar homes are average there. It’s not outlandish.”

            Keep your facts straight TiT.

            “ I responded with a home that cost 1.4 million dollars in Las Angeles has 3,169 square feet and includes a horse stable, a riding rink and a recording studio.”

            But you weren’t describing THEIR home. Just a random example that had nothing to do with their actual home. Was it in their neighborhood? City, county?

            $1.4 million can be a two bedroom bungalow on half acre of land in Beverly Hills or Malibu. But you don’t know what kind of home they actually have or where it is so you claim they have one like the one you used as an example. That’s a misleading statement.

            “ I illustrated that 1.4 million dollars buys a lot of house in California and you said it didn’t. ”

            Here you’re lying again. I didn’t say that either.

            “ I understand that you are just defending your Marxist ideology. You can run from your very misleading statement but you can’t hide.”

            LOL! I’m not a Marxist. You don’t even know what a Marxist is. Heck the majority of those using that label have no clue. I’m fact they are often interchanged with socialism and communism as if all were the same thing.

            Why wouldn’t be able to buy a $1.4 million home? Are you suggesting that because they are black that they shouldn’t be able to afford one? Do you have their financial records ? How wealthy are they? They shouldn’t be that wealthy because they are black?

            What are you insinuating TiT?

      1. Twisted facts ARE smears. Turley repeating smears against BLM is no different enabling the smearing.

      2. Iowan says:

        “Facts are now smears.”

        For Trumpists, investigations are now witch-hunts.

  4. “Black Lives Matter is a gang of street criminals who think nothing of stealing money donated to help “marginalized and under-served” communities, and pocketing it for themselves.”

    Enigma fought and drew all sorts of conclusions despite the evidence that was mounting at the time. That is what happens when one concludes and then data mines facts to fit one’s desired findings.

    The following is one of the best recent articles on BLM. One of the writers, David Horowitz, was an avowed Marxist and one of the intellectual leaders of the New Left. He came from a Stalinist family who remained Stalinist supporters even after the Stalin papers were released. Horowitz was a writer, editor and then owner of Ramparts Magazine. He also was the intellectual advisor to the Black Panthers in Oakland, but when his friend and the accountant for the Black Panthers was killed without anyone being concerned, he stepped back. Horowitz recognized the lies and heinous actions of the left and turned in a rightward direction where he became an intellectual leader. Horowitz is the fly on the wall where the left is concerned. His knowledge is extensive and very accurate. Though he is mild-mannered and willing to answer all questions, he is one of those threatened by the left when he speaks on college campuses. Reading Horowitz is a pleasure.

    How Black Lives Matter Criminals Were Enabled by the I.R.S. and the Democrat Party
    And taxpayers were left with the bill.

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/05/how-black-lives-matter-criminals-were-enabled-irs-david-horowitz-and-john-perazzo/

    1. I’d wager anybody and everybody who is a regular reader of this blog is very well informed. At least they are very well informed relative to the “average” voter.

      The left wingers who comment here all know, for example, that the Steele dossier was a fraud; that the Alfa bank allegations were a fraud; and that both were manufactured by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and others high up in her campaign. Democrats set out to destroy the President of the United States based on frauds they created. The Left wingers who comment here don’t care. Just as they don’t care about BLM’s shenanigans.

      I believe Norm Podhoretz is right when he describes them as evil.

      You’ve probably already read the interview Podhoretz gave to the Claremont Review of Books that was linked to at Powerline yesterday. He’s another former leader of the “New Left” who came to realize early on he was on the wrong side. He correctly believes most of what the New Left has done to the country over the past 60 years has been catastrophic. In case you missed it:
      https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/05/crb-present-at-the-creation.php

    2. S. Meyer,

      “ Enigma fought and drew all sorts of conclusions despite the evidence that was mounting at the time. That is what happens when one concludes and then data mines facts to fit one’s desired findings.”

      That’s what you’re doing right now. Sheesh. You’re nuts.

      1. Svelaz, state the circumstances or is this another one of your Stupid comments indirectly telling us that an excellent textbook need not be accurate?

        You are a fool and proven so by almost everyone who responds to you. Your facts are wrong, you are not credible, and you are not consistent. Worst of all, you can correct none of your failures because you can’t think.

        1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

          “ Svelaz, state the circumstances or is this another one of your Stupid comments indirectly telling us that an excellent textbook need not be accurate?”

          What circumstances? Your failure at speaking English is not helpful. What are you asking S. Meyer?

          1. Svelaz, you were a fool when thinking an excellent textbook didn’t have to be accurate.

            You still are. Do you wish to correct the record?

  5. n the meantime, the Washington Examiner is reporting that former Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has left the BLM board after his firm. the Elias Law Group, had “taken control of its books and finances.”
    ********************************
    What’s that about rats and sinking ships? Bon voyage!

  6. Clue: BLM failed to file required tax reports and some of that money appears to have gone to buying expensive properties and supporting personal friends of Cullors.

    Don’t need NY AG on this case. Enter the IRS CID.

    IRS CID – IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) serves the American public by investigating potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code and related financial crimes in a manner that fosters confidence in the tax system and compliance with the law.

    Remember how the Untouchables nailed crime boss Al Capone.

    The key to Capone’s conviction on tax charges was not his spending, but proving his income, and the most valuable evidence in that regard originated in his offer to pay tax. Ralph, his brother and a gangster in his own right, was tried for tax evasion in 1930.

    Al Capone ordered his lawyer to regularize his tax position, and although it was not done, his lawyer made crucial admissions when stating the income that Capone was willing to pay tax on for various years, admitting income of $100,000 for 1928 and 1929, for instance. Hence, without any investigation, the government had been given a letter from a lawyer acting for Capone conceding his large taxable income for certain years he had paid no tax on.

  7. All you white race peddlers should be ashamed of yourselves. All BLM is trying to do is even the playing field. Let’s see now, one for you, three for me, one for you, three for me.

  8. Those of us who are enlightened, decent, upstanding CWG’s (Caucasians Wiithout Guilt), in other words “normal”, predicted that this would happen.

  9. “I previously wrote a column asking why Democratic prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James shown comparably little interest in these allegations even as James sought to disband the National Rifle Association (NRA) over similar allegations.”

    How typical of Turley to go after the New York Attorney General for not going after a California-based not-for-profit. Maybe there’s such a thing as jurisdiction? He points out Elias removed himself from the Board after his law firm took over the books, could it be avoiding a conflict of interest?

    There may be some mismanagement of funds there, I don’t claim to know and it should be investigated. I do know that the attacks and smears on them are similar to those that came against every Black organization and leader ever. The same kinds of attacks came against the NAACP, MLK, the sorority Kamala Harris belongs to. McCarthy would be proud.

    1. NRA is headquartered in VA (it did start in NY). How typical of a progressive to be ignorant.

      1. The NRA is incorporated in NY which is why the were sued there by the NY Attorney General. They were founded there as well. Which of us is ignorant?
        After declaring bankruptcy they were trying to run to Texas where they thought there were no rules but a judge there is considering whether their bankruptcy filing was in good faith, based on their own communications to their members. I haven’t kept up with the progress of that filing because unlike Republican (and some Democratic) politicians, I’m not owned by them and it isn’t my top priority.

        I do know that the NY Attorney General had jurisdiction over the NRA, Trump University (which they shut down and got a $25 million settlement) the Trump Foundation (which they shut down because of Fraud) and the Trump Corporation that is in court at this time fighting fraud allegations. You need people to be ignorant enough to believe your versions of events but you got the wrong one here.

        1. “(which they shut down and got a $25 million settlement)”

          No. Ambulance chasing. The suit was initially dropped for lack of proof. The claim was made based on Trump running for President. That is why there was a settlement. Otherwise, the claim would have lay dead and buried as it had been years before.

          Politics are involved in the AG’s claims where truth is not the object.

            1. Enigma, Trump also gave money to Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. What does that mean? Trump spread money all over the place, but there was no quid pro quo like seen in the Biden tape. You don’t bother to ask yourself why the suit was dropped earlier. Insufficient grounds. The lawyers recognized there was nothing there. Trump University wasn’t owned by Trump. Trump reimbursed the foundation for whatever clerical errors were made.

              The new lawyers were ambulance chasing recognizing that the facts wouldn’t win, but the timing would lead to a settlement.

              I don’t see any evidence in the Hill citation that Trump illegally acted concerning Trump University or your responses. The only things I see are conjecture and innuendo, which is what seems to line the clothing you wear.

                1. Enigma, your problem is that you cannot pick out the facts from the slurs in the articles you post. You can’t handle the rebuttals. You don’t recognize a smear from a reality. I always respond to singular points that I have to squeeze from you. Doing so is like squeezing a constipated toothpaste tube. You can’t separate claims from facts.

                  Show me the facts. That is the problem. You do not come prepared with dependable facts and are unwilling to deal in depth. Why? Because to date, you have failed every time.

                  I will quote facts from the article:

                  “The controversial Donald J. Trump Foundation was established by Donald Trump in 1998 in New York as a private foundation” True.

                  “Alan Futerfas, a lawyer for the Trumps, responded in a statement that the lawsuit had delayed the foundation’s plan to dissolve after Trump won the U.S. presidential election in November 2016.

                  He added that over the past decade, the foundation had distributed about $19 million, including $8.25 million of Trump’s personal money, to over 700 charitable organizations.” True.

                  I am waiting for you to provide the facts that prove your case. You never will, but you will repeat your claims elsewhere. That is a sign of a rigid and shallow person.

                  1. S. Meyer, you’re such a lousy liar.

                    “ “(which they shut down and got a $25 million settlement)”

                    No. Ambulance chasing. The suit was initially dropped for lack of proof. The claim was made based on Trump running for President.”

                    Enigma showed you why your claim was wrong. You didn’t prove your claim was right. Instead you went off on a rant about other contributions that have no relevance to your claim.

                    You’re an idiot. It’s as simple as that. You can’t even produce coherent paragraphs. It’s embarrassing just reading them. Are you sure you’re not 5yrs old? That would make more sense.

                    “ I am waiting for you to provide the facts that prove your case.”

                    He did. You just went ahead and ignored it because it showed how wrong you are. There were too many words for your brain to compute. Isn’t that your excuse when it comes to reasoning?

                    1. Svelaz, you are a stupid fellow and can’t defend what you say. Enigma was wrong on almost every item.

                      I am waiting for you to provide the true and correct facts that you believe Enigma mentioned. You can’t because you are a liar.

              1. “ The new lawyers were ambulance chasing recognizing that the facts wouldn’t win, but the timing would lead to a settlement.”

                No dumba$$, Trump settled because he knew he wouldn’t win the case. Instead of going to trial and air out the fraud he chose to settle. He didn’t want his losing case to be a distraction in his bid to run for office.

                There was already ample evidence of the fraud. He just chose to settle and pay those defrauded students instead of going to trial.

                1. “No dumba$$, Trump settled because he knew he wouldn’t win the case”

                  Prove it. The facts of the case didn’t change, yet the former attorneys abandoned the case.

                  You are a liar and lack critical thinking skills.

                  1. Anonymous (. S. Meyer),

                    “ Prove it. The facts of the case didn’t change, yet the former attorneys abandoned the case.”

                    You moron, enigma already gave you the proof. They didn’t abandon the case. The case was SETTLED. Do you understand what that means? Do you know what a settlement is? Geez S. Meyer.

                    1. Enigma provided no proof. I stated what happened.

                      All one has to do is ask themselves the question, why did the former attorneys abandon the case if it was a good case? There is a reason. The case stunk, and there is nothing you can show otherwise.

                      The last attorneys were ambulance chasers. Maybe you don’t know what ambulance chasers are. Use Google, and perhaps you will become less ignorant.

                1. enigma: “Finding evidence of Trump crimes is easy, ”

                  Hey Sherlock. …….and parroting the Democrat party line is easier than thinking.

                  1. It may well be that the entire Democratic Party knows Trump is a criminal, the question is, “Why do so few Republicans acknowledge it in public,” though privately many have acknowledged it?

                    1. “Why do so few Republicans acknowledge it in public,” though privately many have acknowledged it?

                      Your logic is an enigma. How could you possibly know many have “acknowledged it” privately if it wasn’t public knowledge? Regardless, no amount of wishcasting by the Democrats will erase from the American people’s memory just how great a president Donald Trump was, especially compared to the disaster of a president we have today. It’s buyer’s remorse on steroids and they know who to blame for selling this country out…the Democratic party.

                    2. “Your logic is an enigma. How could you possibly know many have “acknowledged it” privately if it wasn’t public knowledge?”
                      Because they0’ve acknowledged it to their colleagues, reporters off the record, and in recorded conversations that have been released if you’re paying any attention. Where they won’t say it is in public and on the record.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, nothing in your citation proves Enigma correct in his dispute with me. That lack of evidence on that site proves him wrong.

    2. But there is the problem of those ultra expensive homes. Let’s not get sanctimonious about a group of home-grown terrorist thugs protected by every Soros planted LEO. The world has been free to watch what this nasty horde of violent fanatics have been doing, it’s all on video should the left-controlled media care to show it to the average American.

      1. BLM isn’t paranoid, people really are out to get them and they say they needed a compound for safety. Unlike the NRA, they don’t have friends luxury yachts to run to so they bought some houses. In California, what they paid isn’t “ultra-expensive.”
        As far as what you watched on TV, almost all violence was perpetrasted by white people with their own motives. As many times as people use BLM and Antifa in the same sentence they aren’t tied together and some of that violence was the Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, and others.

        https://nypost.com/2021/04/05/nra-ceo-used-friends-yacht-amid-threats-after-mass-shootings/

          1. I don’t claim to know about BLM’s finances (though there is much public information about the NRA and every Trump business/charity to know they are crooks). I do know the history of how every Black organization and leader ever has been persecuted and don’t see any difference here.

            1. Well I have to assume you want the crooks (black or white) punished who steal from and defraud black people. Or does that offend your racial sensibilities, too?

              1. If you read what I’ve written, twice I said there should be an investigation so don’t assume anything. Know that every Black civil rights organization and leader has been attacked and often lied about. You accept no actual evidence about Trump (or don’t care) and believe everything you hear from sources that know no more than you and I do.

                1. enigma:

                  You said investigate. Like all Dims say. Investigate and then do nothing. I say punish civilly, criminally, equitably … any which way you can!

                    1. enigma:

                      We had a running bet at the office about whether you’d criticize the process or the substance in your reply. The process guy gets lunch tomorrow. Well any fair reading is that my complaint was not with the investigation but with the fact that you omit the best part – the punishment thereafter. If you want it explicitly about investigating, fair review of the facts, indictment, fair trial and then punishment upon conviction after exhaustion of appeals you can have it, but most folks don’t want a civics lesson from me with every opinion. If you do, DM me. Oh and I don’t know about you but a prima facie showing of secretly purchasing a 6 mil mansion with donor funds would certainly get me going with a year a million sentence and double restitution without a whole lot more.

                    2. I’m amused at the thought of being the subject of conversation in your office. I do consider the process which includes attacking every Black organization and leader ever, bringing me to ask the question why?
                      My opinion is that it was necessary to discredit the organization/leader because otherwise one might have to consider the merits of what they do. After the nationwide protests after the release of the George Floyd video, the usual suspects had to regroup because millions of people (mostly white) were out in the street condemning systemic violence and demanding change. Of course change was unacceptable so one of the tactics was to smear everyone involved including and especially BLM. They were linked to Antifa who themselves get a bad name when compared to their right-wing counterparts who are generally supported while they attempt to overthrow the government but that’s a different rabbit-hole.
                      I have no problem with following up an investigation that shows probable cause leading to prosecution and even persecution in some cases. I have a problem with a Black woman being sentenced to 5-years for voting illegally (though she asked and got permission from local authorities) while white voters who knowingly voted for their dad relatives get probation.
                      The purchase of a $6 mansion (have you seen what real estate goes for in California? $6 million doesn’t get you a mansion in Florida and gets you less in California. Even calling it a mansion is an attempt to smear BLM. Usage of the estate matters, I see all the criticism but have seen no evidence it wasn’t used as it was reported? Again, I don’t know but neither do those of you calling them frauds and grifters while ignoring admitted frauds whose views you like.
                      I won’t associate your views (or those in your office) with Allan or anyone else who can’t see fraud that already has been investigated, reviewed, and adjucated in the courts, so I’ll ask. Has the Trump Foundation committed fraudulent activity including self-dealing that resulted in its disbanding and paying a $2 million fine. A yes or no would work but feel free to explain to your satisfaction.

                    3. “The purchase of a $6 mansion (have you seen what real estate goes for in California? $6 million doesn’t get you a mansion in Florida and gets you less in California. Even calling it a mansion is an attempt to smear BLM.”
                      ************************************
                      Yeah it’s a hovel. Wonder what she uses the sound stage and six bedrooms for? Choir music and pajama parties, I bet.

                      https://nypost.com/2022/05/09/blms-patrisse-cullors-admits-using-6m-mansion-for-parties/

                    4. The sound stage lends itself more to the explanation the compound also served as a place to produce videos for YouTube and elsewhere. Far more businesses/organizations have a use for a sound stage than an individual. How would that “mansion” compare to any of the Trump homes? Of course Trump (maybe) didn’t use donor money. He used Russian money in some cases, got the Secret Service to pony up and the Air Force had to go out of their way in Scotland to stay at a Trump property. I’ll look up the documentation for you if you like. Allan wouldn’t believe any of it so no soup for him.

                    5. “Allan wouldn’t believe any of it”

                      Enigma, Allan believes in fact. You believe whatever makes the crazy things you say look good. That is why you are wrong without facts, and I am right with facts.

                      You hated Trump 20 years before he was born. That is correct, you blamed Trump for something that occurred 20 years before he was born. You ruined your credibility then, and you continue to do so now.

                      SM

              2. Speaking of stealing:

                “$15 trillion”

                “According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, since the Johnson Administration, almost $15 trillion has been spent on welfare, with poverty rates being about the same as during the Johnson Administration.”

                – War on Poverty, Wikipedia
                ______________________

                That’s just for openers, just the ante.

                Congress has no constitutional authority to tax for individual, specific or particular welfare, or charity, etc.

                I want my money back.

                1. I want my money, which was stolen for affirmative action, back.

                  “…a road construction project costs the government 5.6 percent less to complete after the ELIMINATION of the affirmative action…”

                  “The savings to California from ELIMINATING affirmative action were significant.”
                  _______________________________________________________________

                  “How Costly Is Affirmative Action? Government Contracting and California’s Proposition 209”

                  Justin Marion
                  Department of Economics
                  University of California, Santa Cruz

                  5 Conclusion

                  This paper considers an open question, how affirmative action affects the cost of government con-
                  tracting. This question is made significant by the widespread use of affirmative action in contracting.
                  The preferred specification employed in this study implies that a road construction project costs
                  the government 5.6 percent less to complete after the elimination of the affirmative action program
                  in California. This is significant given that the variation induced by Proposition 209 reduced par-
                  participation goals by 9.0 percent on state-funded contracts relative to federally funded contracts. The
                  savings to California from eliminating affirmative action were significant. After Proposition 209 was
                  implemented in early March 1998, California awarded $1.14 billion of state funded contracts in the
                  remainder of 1998 and 1999. This suggests that eliminating affirmative action saved an estimated
                  $64 million in these two years.

            2. “Trump business/charity to know they are crooks)”

              You don’t know about BLM’s business, but you comment approvingly.

              You don’t know much about Trump’s business, but you choose to comment negatively even though what you say has been proven wrong.

              Based on facts, I am interested in knowing what Trump did that was wrong with his Charitable Foundation. So far, you have been unable to defend any of your arguments over a long time period. You have made arguments that are bizarre and contain incorrect details. I am not saying Trump is perfect. No one is, and he was a developer in NYC, meaning he dealt with some bad people, including bad politicians, union officials and members of the black community. I point that last item out for you to recognize that there were bad people in the black community that Trump had to deal with despite race, sex, and religion being not primary drivers in his business affairs.

                1. “You defend him by attacking Black people.”

                  I do not attack black people. You are demonstrating your victimhood mantra again. Why would I want to attack black people? I am the one that wants to provide black people with an equitable education in the inner city of NY. You don’t care about those people. I am the one that wants to stop the bloodletting of black people in Chicago and other major cities of the country. You are the one that doesn’t care about those people.

                  If you are racist, that doesn’t mean everyone else is racist, and I am not. I believe in MLK’s essential assumption of character before color. You don’t.

                  1. “No one is, and he was a developer in NYC, meaning he dealt with some bad people, including bad politicians, union officials and members of the black community. I point that last item out for you to recognize that there were bad people in the black community that Trump had to deal with ”

                    Have you acknowledged yet the Trump Foundation acted illegally?

                    1. Enigma, you don’t know what a private foundation is that operates under a 501 C 3. I will bet it is likely he violated some rules. Everyone does because the rules are complex and not clearly defined. Dealing with the IRS is not easy for people with different legitimate interpretations of the rules. When that happens, sometimes people or organizations have to pay fines.

                      I took a questionable tax deduction for several years because the specific question was in the court system. I placed the money into a separate bank account, waiting for the courts to figure things out. The courts finally did. My deduction was found legal. That saved me money that others told me I would get into trouble for. They lost money. Had the court found the opposite, you would be calling me a criminal, which would be wrong. I would have turned over the entire account to the IRS, including interest, and hoped I wouldn’t be fined. [Take note: A fine would have been a one-way action because the IRS wouldn’t return the money to those that didn’t take the deduction.]

                      “Have you acknowledged yet the Trump Foundation acted illegally?”

                      Could you show me the claim and the details? Likely what you will provide will be similar to what I did or a difference in interpretation of the law. If one commits fraud, one is prosecuted criminally and goes to jail. That hasn’t happened to Trump, so the term illegal is wrongly used on your part due to lack of knowledge.

                      Provide the data. To date, everything you have claimed against Trump was legal. You are wrong despite differences of opinion regarding the specific rules.

                    2. “The fact is they were involuntarily shut down and paid out millions in fines for their illegal activity. Spin it however you like.”

                      That is not the fact. They were not involuntarily shut down. They shut down a charity rather than waste time and money. They will still help charities.

                      No. They didn’t pay out millions in fines for illegal activity. So far, no proven illegal activity exists. (Illegal is different from disagreements regarding rules). Also, they didn’t pay out millions in fines. Show us where your numbers come from.

                      Are you unaware of the truth, or are you lying? I note how you didn’t respond to my explanations of how private trusts (501 C 3 ) operate. That is a sign of a person who lacks critical thinking skills.

                    3. “I note how you didn’t respond to my explanations of how private trusts (501 C 3 ) operate.”

                      Responding to your explanations of how things work is the worst use of time I can imagine.
                      The Trump foundation was shut down under court supervision, sound voluntary to you? Part of the fine arrangement was Trump admitting wrongdoing. You keep explaining and I’ll go back to ignoring.

                      https://news.yahoo.com/trump-pays-2-million-fine-185800375.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

                    4. “Responding to your explanations of how things work is the worst use of time I can imagine.”

                      True, Enigma. It would take time away from proclaiming victimhood. Additionally, you might learn something about the law, which would upset your apple cart.

                      “The Trump foundation was shut down under court supervision, sound voluntary to you? ”

                      Yes, Trump could have fought them in court, but the state has 330 million people to tax and pay for their claims. Trump has to pay out of pocket.

                      I provided you with an example of how I legally saved money by not paying certain taxes. I didn’t have to go to court. Even though it turned out I was right, I wouldn’t want to spend the hundreds of thousands in legal fees. However, you would have then said I admitted guilt.

                      I hate to accuse you of a total lack of critical thinking skills, but the way you are pursuing this, it seems to be coming to that point.

                      ” Part of the fine arrangement was Trump admitting wrongdoing.”

                      Tell us what his words were, not the words of one writing a hit piece.

                      Dealing with the government is not pleasant. I have seen payments of $10 for people to get their lawful money back. The government always wants to show on the books they won even if they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and receive $10 in payment. That is what government does. It is self-serving for those that are in power. You should know that because that is what the Jim Crow era was all about. But you don’t know that, which demonstrates you haven’t learned anything.

                    5. I don’t see any quote from Trump saying what you think he said.

                      You know nothing about dealing with the government. I had two major cases with the feds and two with different states. I won all. The government doesn’t have to be fair or legal. One case with the feds lasted five years, and the government broke the law in the end. That case was “adjudicated” twice, and after the second time, the government had to return almost every penny. Had the second portion of the case come later, they would have had to shell out money for the government was sued in a similar case and lost..

                      Let’s see your quote, not your link. You are lying if you continue to state things that aren’t true.

                    6. I think you’d agree that your experience is totally irrelevant to the Trump Foundation self-dealing. You can set the bar of proof you require wherever you like. I’m good with what I’ve seen. The Foundation was forced to breakup, they paid millions in fines, and admitted self-dealing. I’m good and you will never believe.

                    7. You are correct. None of my problems with the feds were as trivial as Trump’s, so they have little direct bearing. However, that experience made me familiar with how the government manages these problems.

                      I also have considerable experience with foundations.

                      Knowing what I know, I would not permit a charity to be tax deductible for any organization. At best, I would only provide a tax deduction for the percentage of money going directly to the needy person.

                2. “The Trump Foundation stole money from kids with cancer to divert into his own businesses.”

                  It’s not decent to libel unless you have proof. But as usual, you don’t. Instead, you purvey mistruths. Should we call you a liar?

                  Your Forbes piece was a hit piece, and like you, the author doesn’t know or want to know how charities are run or what their needs are. If you look at most charities, there are fund-raising expenses, which can take a large chunk of the money received.

                  “We get to use our assets 100% free of charge,” Eric Trump tells Forbes. That fact, however, doesn’t include the food and service for the individual needs of the players. The Trumps covered the golf fees. I’ve played golf where the fees were paid in advance, but I had to pay a high bill afterward. That is normal except for folk who like innuendo.

                  As the article says, Eric Trump, ” He’s done a ton of good: To date, he’s directed more than $11 million there” (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis).

                  Instead of innuendo, Enigma, tell me the facts behind your claims.

                  1. Check his blog and Twitter twats….he is a hustler for race baiting lies, the next Al Sharpton

                  2. S. Meyer, he HAS been telling you the facts to your face. It’s you that is the problem. You’re just unwilling or unable to read what is being put in front of you.

                    You’re a shining example of what ignorance looks like.

                    1. Svelaz, I am waiting for you to prove your case. You won’t because you are dumb and a liar.

            1. That is an even larger sign of your unfortunate brainwashing, I bet you studied at a liberal college within the last decade – that’s the worst. I received my degrees prior o 1978 when education had not been highjacked by socialist progs. How unfortunate for all who payed for bogus “education/propaganda being sold as education since then. Most recent generations are ignorant of their own ignorance and while it was humorous at first, it is now becoming lethal to our nation and our civic society.

  10. Well, even “trained Marxists” have to have a place to live and party. After all did not Stalin, Krustchev and the various heads of the Soviet Union government have their dacha’s on the the Black Sea and the Crimea. I mean birds of a feather and all that. Should make for some interesting questions at shareholder meetings of some of those corporate sponsors and their due diligence. As far as prosecution of criminals on the left and the right, I have no problem with that either way. Should not matter what your party stripe is, ever.

  11. I want to hear blacks lecture whites on “white privilege”. Where’s Lois Lerner? Ooops, that’s right, the IRS only goes after conservatives.

  12. Not surprised. No one is immune from the lure of power and money. It has taken many victims over the ages.

    I spoke recently with a newly retired law enforcement officer. He expressed how difficult it is to recruit and how shorthanded they are. He was relieved to turn in his badge. .

    Law enforcement was thrown under the bus and insulted and denigrated by politicians, activists such as BLM and the mobs they incited. Is it any wonder that crime and murder has risen sharply? Has BLM helped their fellow brothers and sisters who cannot afford to move uptown?

    I wonder how many elites and personalities really understand how dangerous this world has become, especially to those who BLM claims to help? There has always been and always will be danger and evil.

    But, the chants to defund the police have been answered and the results are discouraging unless you are flush with cash, know the right people and are watching from inside your walled mansion.

  13. (OT)

    Madison Cawthorn lost his primary last night and will be out of Congress come January. Good riddance.

    1. BLM is caught grifting millions out of gullible whites -Anonymous, “Cawthorn lost” and Jeff, “good”. In other words, “look, a squirrel”.

      1. Hullbobby,

        You are a goddamn liar. I was the first to agree with Turley that BLM should be investigated.

  14. BLM, it’s officers, property and money should be made to pay for the damage and injuries sustained by individual police officers and businesses. BLM incited riot, theft and arson for months through out the nation.

      1. If they’re dangerous or a flight risk, they shouldn’t be eligible for bail.

        If they’re not dangerous and not a flight risk, they shouldn’t be in jail pending trial.

        1. As it turns out, many released from jail without bail were violent, killed people and committed many other crimes. The VP had no concern for the lives of others and pushed for such releases.

          Of course, you might conclude that she wasn’t aware of how things were being done. But then you would have to call her stupid.

  15. Unlike Trumpists, Turley has never denigrated the Jan. 6 investigation as a “witch-hunt.” In fact, he has said very little at all. He has not stated any objection to the recent subpoenas of the Trumpist congressman, the holding of Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress of the indictment of Steve Bannon. Neither has he come to the aid of Trumpist lawyer John Eastman nor disputed Bill Barr’s assertion that the election fraud claims were all “bullsh*t.”

    No doubt his silence in all these respects is very disappointing to Trumpists, but it was to be expected given that he is committed to the rule of law. He believes in full and thorough investigations- be they Mueller’s, Durham’s, BLM’s or 1/6. You may recall that he opposed Trump’s first Impeachment NOT because it was illegitimate as claimed by Trumpists, but ONLY because the House Democrats did not do a thorough enough investigation of the facts.

      1. I was complimenting Turley’s adherence to the rule of law- without fear or favor- whether against BLM thugs or Trumpist insurrectionists.

        1. Jeff, go away and take Anonymous with you.

          Jeff and Anonymous have such empty lives that they need to comment 100 times a day. Jeff isn’t as ugly as Anonymous, but his obsession with Trump is a sure sign of a man in need of help.

          1. You apparently can’t tell the multiple anonymous commenters apart even when they have different political views. You’re the one in need.

            1. ATS is worried. More people are getting to know who and what he is, even though one might be wrong about the identity on occasion. However, if another acts the same as ATS, it is acceptable for him to carry the same name.

              Labelling ATS is important so others can recognize his travels on the blog and recognize how spiteful and heinous he is.

            2. No, I can tell the many Anonymous commenters apart, but there is one particular “Anonymous” that comments 100 times a day, is nasty, is wrong and will never shut the heck up.

              As for all the other people calling themselves Anonymous, folks, get a clue, create a user name so that we can limit Anonymous to the one creep that infests this site.

              1. That’s S. Meyer, who posts half his comments anonymously, and is the nastiest of all the anonymous commenters.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, Most of my anonymous postings are to you. You don’t like it.

                  You are the troll who tried to convince everyone that you didn’t post day and night. You failed.

                  At least you stopped your spiteful posting that caused others to have their posts deleted.

          2. Hullbobby,

            When are you Trumpists going to get it?

            I’m staying right here to shame your lying and bear witness to your lack of humanity.

            I will continue to commend Turley for being a NeverTrumper as all of you grow increasingly disenchanted and disillusioned with his unwillingness to defend Trump and his cronies being prosecuted and held accountable for their actions.

            I ain’t leavin’

    1. With respect to subpoenaing ANY congressmen.

      Be careful what you wish for.

      Overall I support the norms of conduct that congress has operated under for hundreds of years.
      I support the fillibuster,
      I support a very narrow view of what is impeachable.
      I support constraining congressional “investigation” to government oversight.

      But those are all norms (except the last).
      And Norms can be changed.

      Democrats changed the norms for approving court and other nominess – and ended up with a 6-3 supreme court.

      Democrats have made impeachment standards political. Do you understand that means Republicans con not merely impeach Biden over politics – but every appointed member of the Biden administration as well as every sitting judge ?

      I hope the fillibuster survives to inevitable republican control of the senate, and I expect Republicans to preserve it if it does.
      But if it does not – the loss of the fillibuster serves republicans as well as democrats.

      I have no hope that democrats will be sane about the investigative role of congress.
      Regardless, A republican house and senate will be most fundimentally constrained by FAR TOO MANY TARGETS.

      Subpeona congressmen now – you will see congressmen subpeoned later.

      As is typical of those on the left – you do not look beyond the hoped for immediate benefits of your actions.

      I am not interested in a debate with you over supeonaing members of congress.
      It is obviously a bad idea that will lead to more bitter partisanship

      But go ahead.

      I read former DNC head Brazille claiming that the J6 committee had proven that Trump beleived the election was fraudulent and wanted Congress to overturn the results.

      WOW!!! Those of you on the left think THAT is a huge outcome ?

      Everyone knows that. You are still ducking TWO elephants in the room.
      The first is was Trump’s beleif reasonable. It obviously was at the time, and the increasingly available evidence demonstrates that view is MORE credible now.

      It is NOT necessary to prove something is true to prove that it is plausible. It has ALWAYS been plausible that 2020 results were fraudulanet. There were undeniably acheived outside of election laws.

      The 2nd problem is constitutionally congress HAS the power to overturn the election results.
      It was highly unlikely to do so. But it was constitutionally free to do so.

      There is no crime in advocating for something that is constitutional.

      And all this is again – a stupid framing on the part of democrats.

      If advocating for constitutionally legitimate positions is criminal if the facts do not support them,
      Then PROOF the election was stolen would make most of congress criminals.

      If it is proven that the election was stolen. By YOUR logic – the J6 protestors become heros, and the Capital Police become criminals.
      The congressmen who voted to certify are then “insurectionists” and the courts that refused to inquire into the election “seditious”.

      I have no doubt plenty of republicans will argue precisely that – I know many and oppose them. Just as I oppose democrats trying to criminalize political differences now.

      Remember “what goes arround comes arround” – and the mood of much of the country right now is vindictive as hell.

      Before you wheel out the Guillotines you should ponder what keeps your head out of them.

      That is SUPPOSED to be “the rule of law” – undermine it at your peril.

        1. It looks like JS has run out of words or brain cells. That is what happens to dummies.

        2. Do you know what hoist by your own petard means ?

          Familiarize yourself as you will be hearing it repeatedly.

            1. Very weird response ?

              How would suggesting that YOU getting what you want might not prove to be such a good thing for YOU when subsequently YOU are hoist on your own petard ?

              There is not the least self flattery in my post.

              If you are going to argue by insult – can we atleast hope for insults that obviously do not apply ?

    2. Barr is now persuaded that there was alot of election hanky panky.

      Eastman may not be popular on the left, but he is correct. Congress has the power to do whatever they want regarding a presidential election. They are answerable ONLY to voters on that.

      Congress chose to certify the election – what you keep ignoring is that if you have the choice to certify, you have the choice to NOT certify.

      Asking, begging, demanding, pleading, protesting. speaking, petitioning congress to say no rather than yes is perfectly constitutional.

      1. John B Say says:

        “Eastman may not be popular on the left, but he is correct.”

        Turley says Eastman was wrong:

        “That is not because I agree with Eastman’s claims; to the contrary, I criticized Trump’s speech as he gave it and later called for Congress to censure him. I also supported Vice President Pence’s interpretation of federal law and disagreed with Eastman’s interpretation.”

        “In the end, wiser minds prevailed and the theory was not used by Pence.”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/02/the-illegality-was-obvious-an-analysis-of-the-carter-opinion-on-jan-6th/

        1. “Turley says eastmen is wrong”

          The constitution and actual history says he is right.

          But even that does not matter.

          YOUR argument is that error on the part of a lawyer, and ensuing discussions are inherently criminally seditious.

          That is a stupid claim you should hope is not true or lots of democrats are headed to jail.

            1. What am I betting on ?

              Eastman’s argument is OBVIOUSLY correct. If the constitution gives congress a choice – a vote, then they can vote Yeah or Nay.

              And they have done exactly that in past elections. The 1876 Tilden/Harris election dramatically parallels 2020.

              Massive ballot fraud, a close election, and Congress VOTED to accept the alternate slates of electors flipping the result.

              Your trying to argue that you are entitled to the outcome you want and that any effort to deny you of that is criminal.

              That is self evidently false.

              1. John Say proclaims:

                “Eastman’s argument is OBVIOUSLY correct.”

                Turley disagrees:

                “That is not because I agree with Eastman’s claims; to the contrary, I criticized Trump’s speech as he gave it and later called for Congress to censure him. I also supported Vice President Pence’s interpretation of federal law and disagreed with Eastman’s interpretation.”

                https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/02/the-illegality-was-obvious-an-analysis-of-the-carter-opinion-on-jan-6th/

                Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, who are you going to believe a distinguished law professor or some John Say?

                1. Turley’s critique of Trump’s speech is tangential. It has nothing to do with Eastman’s legal position.

                  Pence did not interpret the law, he chose a specific course of action – which he was constitutionally free to do.
                  Choice LITERALLY means you may do A or B (or possibly even C, D, E,…).
                  Pence made a choice that some people prefer and one that others did not.
                  But the constitution left him free to make a choice.

                  I would further Note that Pence’s choice was merely ONE choice of many that could lead to a multiplicity of different outcomes.
                  The more fundimental question is whether congress is free to disregard the electorate. The constitution is CLEAR the answer is YES.

                  This is little different from Trumps faux impeechments – CAN house democrats impeech over political differences ? That is not what our founders wanted, They explicitly said that was not enough, but they provided no oversight, no check on that choice. Therefore the choice is valid. The house can impeech for any reason it wants. It SHOULDN’T – but there is no judicial check on impeachment.

                  The same is true regarding the election – except that the founders did not voice their disapproval of congress acting as it pleased regarding elections. Congress is free to accept the results of the electoral college or NOT. It can reject it even if there is no credible claim of fraud or malfeasance. It can do so just because it wants a different outcome. That does not mean is SHOULD do that.
                  Regardless congress is answerable to the people in this NOT to the executive or the courts.

                  Proof of this is the several times in the 19th century elections were decided by congress, and most specifically the Tilden/Harris election which was very close to identical to 2020.

                  I think Trump expecting Congress to override was a huge hail mary on the part of Trump.
                  Even had they done what they should have – and appointed an election commission as they did in 1876 to look into the election, it is highly unlikely Trump would have prevailed.
                  While there has ALWAYS been more than enough evidence to warrant the election inquiry that the people deserved but never got,
                  The indisputeable evidence of actual organized large scale fraud was not found until recently.

                  Just as Hunter Biden’s laptop ultimately proved real – so has allegations of large scale election fraud.

                  1. John B. Say says:

                    “The indisputeable evidence of actual organized large scale fraud was not found until recently.”

                    So says Turley?

                    1. many of us understood from the facts that the Collusion delusion was a fraud long before he did .
                      Or that the Hunter Biden laptop was real or ….

                      Turley usually gets there eventually.

                      And when he does not, you leftists red pill him and that gets him accross the line.

                      I thank you for making libertarians and classical liberals of large parts of the democratic party.

                    2. You say:

                      “Turley usually gets there eventually.”

                      I’m sure Turley appreciates being schooled by you.

    3. I would hope we ALL support full and thorough investigations – WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

      Congress is not a law enforcement body. it is not a prosecutorial body. Its powers are law making and oversight.

      It has no power to investigate private citizens – beyond their actions as public officers. Candidate Trump is not president Trump.
      Just as Candidate Biden is not President Biden.

      DOJ is the federal power authorized to investigate private actors – but only for violations of federal crimes, and only while complying with the constraints of the constitution and bill of rights.

      What should have been self evident 6 years ago, and should be clearly self evident to all NOW, is that the FBI may not investigate private people based on fraudulent allegations.

      Durham is trying Sussman as we speak. But the outcome does not matter.
      The one major factor that Durham has in his favor is that convicting Sussman saves face for the FBI and DOJ.

      The explanation for the FBI investigating a HOAX becomes “we did not know, we were lied to” – should Sussman be acquitted,
      The story is the FBI Knew it was investigating a HOAX.

      You do not seem to grasp that you are NOT free to investigate anyone for anything you wish anytime.

      I am not all that worried about the J6 investigations.

      I do not know if all the people they have abnormally subpeoned will ever testify – increasingly congress will focus on the upcoming election and have no time for business. and with near certainty after the election the business will be quite different.

      But should everyone testify the most you get is Trump wanted something that offends you, but was constitutional.

      You pretty litterally need to find Trump and accomplices plotting to bring guns to J6 to get anywhere.
      And we know that did not occur – because there were not 15,000 Trump supporters with AR15’s holding congress at gunpoint.

      1. John B Say says:

        “I would hope we ALL support full and thorough investigations – WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.”

        Trumpists have insisted and continue to smear the Mueller investigation as a “witch-hunt.”

        1. Of course people have deservedly smeared the Mueller investigation.

          It should be self evident – no matter what the outcome of the Sussman trial that the FBI NEVER had a basis to conduct an investigation, Mueller could not lawfully be appointed, and should have close house 2 days after being appointed.

          As FBI agents who examined the information Sussman provided noted in Sussman’s trial – it too them less than 2 days to confirm it was bunk. Yet, 5 months later it took mueller 22 months ?

          It is important to remember that what we are just now hearing in the Sussman trial – was known by the FBI in Jan 2017 – BEFORE mueller.

          Ypu are ignoring the part about investigations must be within the constraints of the constitution.

          Absent a credible allegation and some evidence – law enforcement is NOT permitted to investigate whether you are a pedophile.

          Even if there is a credible allegation and evidence – when those are falsified – the investigation is DONE.

          This is not the USSR – “show me the man and I will find you the crime”

              1. I would suggest that rather than speculate about things your have no knowledge at all about and are completely irrelevant that you work to improve your actual arguments.

                I am really impressed at how badly you have managed to defend the warmist position.
                You do not seem to have actually grasped any of the arguments in the various tomes you keep demanding I read.

                It you who has read them does such a poor job of defending them – why should anyone else read them ?

                And that is all the argument you have.

                You are failing at basic math and very basic physics.

  16. Marc Elias has become the poster child for corruption that disguises itself as Attorney Client privilege!!! Clinton, Biden, BLM all lead back to Marc Elias.

  17. Absolutely investigate BLM. No one is above the law.

    In other news, Turley’s “the Hill” reported:

    “DOJ asks Jan. 6 committee for its transcripts”

    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3491932-doj-asks-jan-6-committee-for-its-transcripts-report/

    “According to the Times, Kenneth Polite Jr., the assistant attorney general for the criminal division, and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, wrote to the panel’s investigative lead on April 20, saying the committee has conducted interviews that “may contain information relevant to a criminal investigation we are conducting.”

    1. Marcy Wheeler (https://twitter.com/emptywheel):
      “Folks: When all is said and done we’re likely to learn that DOJ has been planning SINCE JULY to do what several outlets are saying was a great expansion of DOJ’s work. There are several reasons, the most important of which is executive privilege. https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/12/03/the-executive-privilege-puzzle-the-co-equal-branch-of-government/
      “Outsourcing to Jan 6 allowed the following:
      “1) Biden to waive privilege w/o learning anything about the DOJ Jan 6 investigation
      “2) A co-equal branch of govt to beat back the privilege fight
      “And YES, it allowed Jan 6 to interview people against whom DOJ did not and/or would never get probable cause a crime had committed to share evidence.
      “Mueller proved that Congressional investigations can be REALLY useful for an investigation. SSCI gave him Patten (whose value most people don’t understand) and Cohen, and HPSCI gave him a way to prosecute Stone while hiding all his investigation. But where Mueller failed and DOJ has improved on is to use CONGRESS to win the Executive Privilege battle, and even some (especially with Eastman) privilege battles — tho for all we know DOJ already got a warrant for Eastman’s emails and did a filter review.”

      1. “And YES, it allowed Jan 6 to interview people against whom DOJ did not and/or would never get probable cause a crime had committed to share evidence.

        Yes that is exactly why you don’t obey a fraudulent Partisan, Democrat populated, Jan 6 subpoena. Congress is illegally conducting criminal investigations. I might testify. But for ever question I would require s specific cite, as to how my answer would inform congress, drafting legislation. Since there is none, I would refuse to answer.

        1. True — and I think many have forgotten that the Jan. 6 committee of congress cannot conduct criminal investigations — only get testimony to serve congress to draft better future legislation —- great point. Thank you for the reminder.

        2. Congress is not conducting a criminal investigation.

          “there is none” is false, and you know it’s false: legislative topics that are relevant to the Committee’s work have previously been provided to you.

Leave a Reply to Young Cancel reply