Goodbye CRT, Hello GRT: Democrats Link Opponents to Terrorists Through the ‘Great Replacement Theory’

Below is my column in the Hill on the new Democratic campaign to link criticism of illegal immigration to domestic terrorism. The effort is to make the Great Replacement Theory (GRT) a new catchphrase against political and media opponents. However, the effort to make GRT the new CRT is not gaining traction. The reason is that GRT sweeps broadly to include commentary on both the left and right.

Here is the column:

For more than a year, liberals have struggled to deal with conservative and parental outrage over critical race theory (CRT) being taught in public schools. This week, a new campaign seemed to emerge: Forget CRT, and fear GRT instead.

The “Great Replacement Theory” was the focus of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, in which Democrats alleged that Republicans — and Fox News in particular — are “radicalizing” domestic terrorists with rhetoric opposing illegal immigration. (I testified at the hearing and, for full disclosure, I’m a Fox News contributor.)

Not only did Democratic senators tie GRT to the shooter in Buffalo, N.Y., but they compared the use of GRT to the rhetoric leading to genocide in other countries. Committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the Buffalo shooting illustrated how “the ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory … has fueled hateful acts of racist violence” and domestic terrorism.

The Buffalo shooter, Payton Gendron, left a rambling manifesto that raved about blacks, Jews, immigrants and the media, including attacks on Fox and other media personalities.

One committee witness, political science professor Robert A. Pape, claimed that Jan. 6 rioters were actually motivated by the replacement theory and that former President Donald Trump not only stressed GRT but that he is “more powerful today as a result of January 6th than he would have been without January 6th.”

There is no question that immigration conspiracy theories are all the rage with the alt right. Moreover, for decades, immigrants have been attacked by racists and extremists as diluting or destroying our country. My Sicilian mother used to describe going to bed as a child, seeing burning crosses near her home as a warning to her family and other immigrants in her small Ohio coal-mining town.

Now, Democrats are seeking, through the Domestic Terrorism Protection Act, to force the government to prioritize the investigation of white supremacists for domestic terrorism. Many of the provisions of the act are constitutional, but that prioritization runs afoul of our constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

The clear effort to link GRT to terrorism and, by extension, anyone who raises replacement objections — in other words, to use ideology as a basis for investigation — risks threatening free-speech rights. We have a long history of such abuses. For example, during the infamous Palmer Raids of 1919 and 1920, socialists, communists and anarchists were arrested due to their ideology alone.

The other problem is how one defines GRT. Immigration, both legal and illegal, has long been discussed in terms of how it changes the country’s demographics. Changing demographics has a political dimension which has been discussed on both the left and the right; last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) celebrated such changes and how “the demographics will weigh in politically.” Sen. Durbin said last year that “The demographics of America are not on the side of the Republican Party. The new voters in this country are moving away from them, and instead they’re moving to be independents or even vote on the other side.”

Liberal media sites like Politico also have discussed how new immigrants “would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects.”

These are obvious, appropriate observations — but they also make it more difficult to declare that any such references are not just racist but are encouraging terrorists.

With CRT, there is a tendency to over-extend the term to cover and delegitimize all race-based lesson plans. The same is true with GRT. Ironically, both terms are denounced as seeking to demonize opposing views, but they often are used for the same purpose in reverse.

Senators have every right to condemn those they believe are vilifying immigrants. The free speech concern occurs when senators call for “disrupting the pathways to radicalization” and for legislative action to deter such “radicalization” in the news or social media. Even a Democratic witness, former FBI agent Michael German, repeatedly cautioned against using ideology as a key element to determine who should be investigated. That decision should be based on risk, not ideology, he said.

Democrats raise legitimate concerns over extreme rhetoric on social media and how it radicalizes individuals. The solution, though, should not be limiting speech or investigating people based on their ideology.

As German explained, when he worked undercover he dealt with many ardent extremists, including white supremacists, who were nonviolent. The same is true for extreme groups on the left. I have been a vocal critic of antifa, one of our most violent anti-free speech movements, yet I opposed Republican moves to treat antifa as a terrorist organization for the same reasons.

The push to rally around opposition to GRT is notably occurring at a time when, according to the New York Times, Democrats seek to “recast the midterm message.” House Democrats, for example, hired a former ABC News executive to help stage this week’s primetime hearings on the Jan. 6 riot. We are now less than five months away from midterm elections that a CNN pollster predicts will be a historic disaster for Democrats. The New York Times reported that “Democrats argue the hearings will give them a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power.” And, on MSNBC recently, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) agreed with John Heilemann that Democrats must “scare the crap out of [voters] and get them to come out.”

That approach would miss an opportunity for real compromise and real progress on violent extremism or gun violence. We do not need to “scare the crap” out of citizens — they are scared enough.

There were moments between the scares in Tuesday’s hearing when common ground seemed possible. In one of those, Garnell Whitfield Jr., whose mother, Ruth Whitfield, was among the 10 people shot and killed in Buffalo, gave a powerful, moving account of the deep loss of so many victims.

Tagging opposing media or opponents as fellow travelers with terrorists will do little to stop such terrible losses, however. It is even unlikely to stop electoral losses.

It may be too much to hope in an election year that we can unite around our constitutional values — but if we cannot build on our shared values, perhaps we can build on our shared suffering to put politics aside.

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

243 thoughts on “Goodbye CRT, Hello GRT: Democrats Link Opponents to Terrorists Through the ‘Great Replacement Theory’”

  1. Mespo says:

    “Like you say, at three weeks he [Barr] couldn’t possibly have known. And given DOJ’s animosity towards Trump, what sane person would have believed them?”

    On the other hand, Trump “knew” and weeks before the election proclaimed that if he didn’t win, it will have been stolen from him!

    If you Trumpists do trust Turley’s judgment, how do you explain:

    1. Turley does not believe the election was stolen.
    2. Turley believes Bill Barr is a man of integrity who should be taken at his word.
    3. Turley believes Congress should have censured Trump for his “reckless” 1/6 speech.
    4. Turley does not believe the 1/6 committee is a sham investigation.

    When others make these statements, Trumpists accuse them of being Trump-haters. Does anyone here suspect that Turley may hate Trump too? After all, he did ridicule Trump as a “carnival snake charmer.”

    1. Jeff, I don’t know if Turley hates Trump. But you 1-4 points are all true. But this ” investigation” will not save the Democrats in November. Neither will the upcoming Roe decision. I am convinced it will go back to the states. Yes, there will be push back. Maybe even a “mini revolution”. And Biden who supposedly doesn’t want to be like Trump, will put forth at least 1 EO to mitigate the Supreme Court ruling. Probably on the advice of Commie Tribe. Who I believe is 0 for 3 in giving advice on Constitutionality.

        1. Jeff, for some reason I cannot access your link. Perhaps you could summarize for me. I am sure you will be truthful.
          The only thing this country needs saving from is Dementia Joe and his far -Left influencers.
          I am not saying that I am in favor of the predicted Roe outcome. I just think that is what will happen. As stated before I am not anti -abortion. I just think that viability needs to be part of the equation.

            1. Jeff, point well taken. If you are referring to ” Dementia Joe” although I am not a doctor, it is more of a diagnosis than a pejorative. I had two aunts with dementia and the similarities are striking. I will refrain in the future.
              As for referencing many liberals, instead of ” moron” or “idiot ” I will use unintelligent. Is that OK?
              And for those dumb enough to hitch their wagon to our current President is Bidenist OK?

              1. “Bidenist” is ok, but supporting the policies of a brain addled Biden is different than a Trumpist who lies on behalf of Trump that an election was stolen.

                1. RE:””“Bidenist” is ok, but……””The way the presence of contraband on board the ‘Lusitania’ was denied for decades, thus will the truth of it be known for certain. But not yet…..not yet! You may continue to play your silly game and have the last word.

                  1. Zzdoc,

                    Just like the Lusitania, Trumpism and her captain are going down. With any luck, it will take all hands.

    2. If you Trumpists do trust Turley’s judgment, how do you explain:

      1. Turley does not believe the election was stolen.

      You are putting words in Turley’s mouth. Turley never said that.

      2. Turley believes Bill Barr is a man of integrity who should be taken at his word.

      Turley and many believe Bill Barr to essentially be a man of integrity, but Turley didn’t say Barr was correct. Today, after the release of so much more information about the election more than likely Turley is having second thoughts. Only an idiot would believe that Barrs words three weeks after the election should be meaningful today. Barr even said, based on what he saw. I’ll bet he later saw 2000 Mules as did a lot of notable people who at present are sitting tight waiting for developments.

      3. Turley believes Congress should have censured Trump for his “reckless” 1/6 speech.

      Turley has a habit of wanting to censure anyone who doesn’t act proper. That is his right, but that totally dilutes your idea that Turley believes Trump should be censored.

      4. Turley does not believe the 1/6 committee is a sham investigation.

      Turley never said that. You lie, but that is typical of you.

    3. Bill Barr was forced on Trump.

      Well, duh!

      William “Mr. Deep Deep State” Barr does the bidding of the “swamp”; his acting is poor, his thespian skills nonexistent.

      The “Deep Deep State” Senate provides “advice and consent” in the form of “Deep Deep State” appointees.

      It is a game designed for Americans to lose and the “Deep Deep State” to win every time.

      Americans have not yet discovered that government really is severely restricted and limited by the Constitution, and Americans were provided maximal, near-absolute freedom.

      Whatever will Americans do when they discover the true breadth and scope of their virtually limitless freedom?

      Eisenhower admonished Americans as to the burgeoning Military/Industrial Complex, aka Deep Deep State.

      The Founders admonished as to submission thereto:

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

      – Declaration of Independence, 1776

    4. Turley does not believe the
      Turley believes Congress
      Turley believes Bill Barr
      Turley does not believe


  2. For what I hope is the last time, Nancy Pelosi was not responsible for Capitol Security. Last night, Hannity tried to blame Pelosi for the riot, claiming that if there had been more police, it wouldn’t have happened–of course, you’d have to be a disciple to overlook the fact that the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and other right-wing radicals chose to do the things they did, believing in Trump and the Big Lie, and planned to invade even before the pig gave his speech (based on the testimony of an embedded journalist who testified) but, Nancy Pelosi was NOT responsible. Hannity is lying every time he tells you she was:

    Facts First: The Speaker of the House is not in charge of Capitol security. That’s the responsibility of the Capitol Police Board, which oversees the US Capitol Police and approves requests for National Guard assistance.
    Jane L. Campbell, president and CEO of the US Capitol Historical Society, told CNN that “the Speaker of the House does not oversee security of the US Capitol, nor does this official oversee the Capitol Police Board.”

    Pelosi also cannot unduly influence who is appointed to the Board, which consists of the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol and the Chief of the Capitol Police. The Sergeants at Arms are elected and must be confirmed by their respective chambers and the Architect must be confirmed by both chambers of Congress.
    And according to testimony from the former Capitol Police chief, Pelosi was not involved in the decisions made ahead of January 6 regarding the National Guard. In his testimony before the Senate in February, former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said that he approached both Sergeants at Arms on the House and Senate side on January 4 to request the National Guard through an Emergency Declaration from the Capitol Police Board.
    His request, according to Sund, was not approved. Instead, the Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael C. Stenger “suggested I ask (the National Guard) how quickly we could get support if needed and to ‘lean forward’ in case we had to request assistance on January 6,” according to Sund’s testimony.
    Following the events of January 6, the US Capitol Police announced it was working “with Congressional oversight and the Capitol Police Board to obtain the authority to immediately request National Guard assistance if needed without having to wait for board approval.”

    1. “Nancy Pelosi was not responsible for Capitol Security.”

      So the Speaker of the House (Pelosi) does *not* have to approve the deployment of the DC National Guard at the Capitol Building?

      Somebody might want to inform the DC National Guard, and update its website.

  3. While it may, fractionally anyway, be true that Great Replacement theory is creeping beyond its definitional boundaries, it can in no way touch what has transpired with CRT. As we know, CRT is grad school level theory. GRT, on the other hand, is something trotted out on fox news for the entire nation to guzzle down like a toxic witches brew of Murdoch level Russian disinformation. In other words, what gets tossed around at the water cooler at the home office for you, Jon….

    Rationalization and justification attempts aside, the stats say this: left wing domestic terrorism accounts for 4% of domestic terrorism. Compare that to 20% for Islamic extremist domestic terrorism. And 75% for right wing domestic terrorism. What should be becoming clear is that, statistically speaking, you’re touting a 4% argument, Jon, while just brushing right past the 75% argument. Why is this? Cool…, glad you put the disclaimer in your post that you’re a fox contributor,.because it does detail a strategy that you play out for your base audience doesn’t it?

    How’s slinging that disinformation feel at the end of the day, Jon. Also curious what your thoughts were when the video of your friend Barr calling trump’s election scam BS was front and center at the 1/6 committee hearing last evening?


    1. Eb rightly asks:

      “Jon. Also curious what your thoughts were when the video of your friend Barr calling trump’s election scam BS was front and center at the 1/6 committee hearing last evening?”

      As that clip of Barr was played, Turley tweeted:

      “It is fascinating to watch Thompson and others repeating citing Bill Barr as the defender of the rule of law. Bill Barr was unfairly and viciously attacked by some of these same Democratic members and most of the media as he fought to maintain the integrity of the Justice Department.”

      It will be fascinating to watch whether Turley will defend Barr now that he is being attacked by Trumpists.

      Turley had not praised Barr for his integrity when Barr in his book called Trump a liar for pushing these false conspiracy theories because Barr undermines Fox’s narrative that Trump is not a liar.

  4. Jonathan: Finally, an opportunity to discuss CRT and GRT. There is so much misinformation out there about the former so let’s start there:

    CRT–You say CRT is “taught in public schools”. Not true. You are simply echoing Fox’s talking point and that of the GOP generally. CRT is not taught in K-12. CRT is an academic legal theory taught at the university level. But the GOP has conflated any discussion of race or sexual identity with an alleged attempt to “indoctrinate” school children with CRT “Marxist” and “Communist” ideology. In 27 states Republicans have introduced or passed legislation to ban the discussion of race as an attempt to make white children feel “guilty” for slavery, Native American genocide or even the Holocaust. I have 3 young teenage granddaughters and, over many dinner table discussions, I can assure you they don’t feel “guilty” about classroom discussion about these subjects. They are eager to learn about the real history of this country. In some GOP controlled states school districts have banned books books dealing with race and sexual identity. Banning books is an Orwellian nightmare but apparently not a “free speech” issue of any concern to you.

    GRT–The “Great Replacement Theory” has been around for a long time. It started with a French white nationalist who falsely claimed liberal politicians were promoting immigration to displace whites. GRT migrated to this country promoted by white nationalist groups. GRT has been promoted by Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson on Fox and many GOP politicians. GRT inspired the white racists who marched in Charlottesville chanting: “The Jews will not replace!”. The shooter in Buffalo cited GRT in his manifesto as the reason he shot and killed 10 Black shoppers. GRT is a white racist and anti-Semitic ideology that sees Black and Brown people and immigrants as a threat to white dominance. That’s why Senator Durbin said: “GRT “has fueled hateful acts of racist violence”. I don’t have any problem with the right of some to hold racist views. The problem is that GRT and similar theories are being used to justify mass killings of Black and Jewish worshippers and Black shoppers. That’s racist violence that cannot be tolerated.

    As we move to the second hearing re Jan. 6 some in the GOP are still pushing the “false flag” theory that the assault on the Capitol was actually carried out by Antifa. You have encouraged this conspiracy theory by claiming in your testimony on Tuesday that Antifa is “one of most violent anti-free speech movements” in the history of the country. There is only one problem. There is no objective evidence Antifa was any where near the Capitol on Jan. 6 nor involved in any of the recent mass shootings. As long as you continue to promote these false theories how do you expect that, in your words “perhaps we can build on our shared suffering to put politics aside”?

    1. Dennis, I promised myself I would never reply to you after your juvenile insult to me on my initial foray into a ” discussion” with you. But I will try one more time. You are correct, there is no grade / high school class from 9 am to 10 am called CRT 101. But the basic tenants are being taught. Some schools have separated children into ” Oppressed” and ‘Oppressors” line ups. My daughter’s high school, which now has a $20,000 a year tuition, passed out a questioner asking the students to rank their ” white privilege.”. They are lucky that I am still not paying tuition. I would have been in the office first thing. They have since stopped that procedure.
      Teaching about slavery, Jim Crow, racism in our society is needed. We must learn from our mistakes. But the idea that racism permeates EVERY American institution ( CRT) is ridiculous.

      1. Paul: I am glad you decided to re-engage in debate. And I agree with you that “Teaching about slavery, Jim Crow and racism in our society is needed. We must learn from our mistakes”. The problem is that in many GOP controlled states (like Florida) teachers can’t engage in such discussions with their students. It doesn’t seem we can learn from our past “mistakes” if we refuse to confront them.

        I don’t recall asserting the racism “permeates EVERY American institution”. When I go into my local DMV I won’t see a sign that reads “Line for Coloreds Only”. Same for bars or restaurants. So some significant progress has been made. When my wife was recently in the hospital for surgery I sat in the recovery room with her. Her nurse was a young black male. It turns out we had a lot in common. He grew up in the same LA neighborhood I grew up in–although 50 years apart. We now live more than 2,000 from LA. We went to the same junior high but he attended a different high school because the LA school district had a new policy of allowing minority students to attend school in more affluent areas. That experience allowed the nurse to pursue educational and career goals that wouldn’t have been available had he lived in my LA. When I grew up the deed to our house had a racial restrictive covenant. The nurse in the recovery room would never have lived in my neighborhood in the 1950s.Progress? Certainly.

        The problem is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and other racial policies and practices still exist–from education, housing, medical care and police practices. It’s a legacy we still have to overcome. The Black male nurse I met in the recovery room told me he has 2 children. He knows when his kids reach the age to drive he will have to tell them how to behave if they are stopped by a white police officer. That’s a conversation I won’t have to have with my granddaughters–and one no Black parent should have to face!

        1. Dennis, thanks for the respectful reply.
          I did not say that YOU said that” racism permeates every American institution”. That is the basic tenant of CRT. And I acknowledge that we all have own prejudices.
          And I thank you for stating that much progress has been made. My grandniece is half Black. As is my son -in- law. My wish is that they never experience any racial blowback. But with my grandniece, she has been taught to never use her heritage as an excuse for failure or disappointment. Life is about overcoming obstacles. Not making excuses for failure.
          As far as reacting to a police officer. I am 64 years old. Probably at least 30 yeas older than the officer who is stopping me. And if I get stopped by the cops, it is still ” yes sir, no sir”. If you follow their instructions, in most cases nothing will happen. When ANY individual tries to litigate on the street, that usually leads to a bad outcome.
          I am not saying racism does not exist. It does. And unfortunately, will exist certainly for my lifetime. But, if EVERYTHING is racist, NOTHING is racist. Just because I disagree with a Black person doesn’t mean I am racist. Just because I disagree with a gay person, that doesn’t mean I am homophobic. Just because I disagree with a trans person, that doesn’t mean I am transphobic. Ther are more examples, but you get the idea.
          Thanks again.

  5. “It’s the economy, stupid!”

    – James Carville

    Dow down 771 today at 31,501.

    Inflation at 9.5%.

    Gasoline at $9.89 in CA.

    Illegal invasion by illegal aliens due to dereliction in securing the border as a crime of high office by Biden.

    Baby formula missing.

  6. One would think Members of Congress, certainly the leadership, and at a minimum the lawyers in Congress, would review case law. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Yet Americans are the ones who are doomed for the mistakes of this present Congress.

    Have you no shame, Madame Pelosi?

    United States Supreme Court

    June 14, 1943

    As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. ….Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings

  7. The MO of the Democratic Party is to avoid debating policy on the merits, through rather Savage ad hominem. Criticize the anti-semitism, violence, pro-criminal, anti-cop aspects of BLM? Racist. Point out the problems with illegal immigration while supporting legal immigration? Xenophobe. Have a problem with encouraging kids to switch gender at an age when they cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality, because it will lead to sterilization, castration, and high suicide risk? Transphobic. Wish to preserve historical statues? Nazi.

    This is why conservatives were quite puzzled at the outrage at Trump’s Tweets. We’ve been falsely accused of being racist, homophobe, transphobic Nazis for decades just for disagreeing with the Democrat policies. Did Biden return is to civility? Why no. We just had the regular programming of calling successful conservative state management Neanderthal Thinking dog faced pony soldiers. Who are also Nazi white supremacists.

    Now that the open borders caused foreseeable disasters, they are trying to cover their incompetence by, once again, calling us Nazis. Replacement Theory was a Nazi propaganda against Jews.

    If you point out that the reason why Democrats want open borders, in spite of the heavy consequences, is because it yields new voters who vote for those who produce open borders. That’s not what Replacement Theory means.

    Legal immigration is mostly comprised by minorities. If you support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration, then your reasons are not based on race. Since Democrats cannot address those reasons, they just call you Nazi.

    Are you tired of this? Democrats, if you actually value civility, then mind your own rhetoric. Start with no longer calling someone who disagrees with you a racist, homophobic, Nazi, white supremacist, neophobia bigot, and listen to what they have to say for a change.

    White conservatives have more in common with black conservatives than we do with some wild-eyed, hateful illiberal white Democrat. We care about values, and whether policies are good or bad for our country, and all who reside in her, not the particular shade of tan of someone’s skin.

    1. Karen: you are NOT a conservative–you are a Trump disciple and, as such, you beleve that someone who was supported by his daddy well into his forties, who bankrupted 6 businesses, who has, for decades, cheated people in business, who cheated his way into office, who brought this country to the brink of the second depression, whose lies and incompetence caused 130K unnecessar deaths, was a successful leader. You claim to “care about values”? How about the values of honesty, integrity, respect for others, respect for the rule of law? None of these are respected by the pig you worship. I know you watched Hannity last night, because your post reeks of the stench of his lies. You didn’t watch the Jan 6th hearing because Hannity told you it would just be an ad hominem (a phrase you picked up on this blog) attack on your hero. The hearing was a powerful recitation of the evidence of your hero’s attempts to thrwart the will of the American people, supported by sworn testimony and video taped testimony and statements from the witnesses themselves. None of this was rhetoric–it was all factual. The hearing proved that the Proud Boys were surveilling the Capitol even before the pig told them to march, planning for how they were going to break in and take over to force Congress to reject the certified votes because Trump couldn’t bully Pence to do it. Photos of their caches of weapons stored at hotels in Virgina were shown. If Trump had appeared and given them the word, they were going in, with weapons. Bill Barr, Ivanka, and most of Trump’s campaign staff told him, repeatedly, that he had lost, so he knows that this is the truth, but he won’t give up. They showed the findings of the NY State Disciplinary Commission that suspended Giuliani’s law license for lying to federal and state courts in an effort to overturn the will of the American people. You were told not to watch, so you didn’t. Instead, you went on one of your usual rants attacking Democrats, BLM and repeating the usual culture wars blather you’ve been indoctrinated to believe. We all know you’re a loyal disciple, that you hate Democrats, that you believe all of the culture wars attacks on LGBTQ people, etc… You don’t speak for “conservatives”. REAL conservatives want nothing to do with wild-eyed disciples of the most-corrupt person ever to occupy the White HOuse.

      1. Natasha, I hate to burst your bubble, but the televised presentation by the committee wasn’t actually a hearing. It was a docu-drama.

        1. You don’t even know what a “hearing” is–everyone was under oath, whether testifying live or via videotaped deposotion. Didn’t Hannity explain that to you?

          1. Actually, I do have an understanding of how hearings are structured because I am an experienced attorney. But see Kim Strassel’s column in today’s edition of the WSJ for a terrific explanation of why the Committee lacks credibility. Last night’s little drama illustrates that.

            1. From the WSJ

              What else is new? The left has been leveling similar claims since before Mr. Trump was elected. When a party spends three years baselessly accusing a president of everything from being a Russian mole to obstructing justice, from profiting off the presidency to abusing security clearances and cheating on his taxes, that party loses the credibility to say: Really, this time, we mean it. Democrats didn’t lose the war for hearts and minds on Wednesday. They lost it three years ago.

              Those hearts and minds are the only prize here. The media will continue to imbue this event with gravity, to report every bit of testimony as more “bombshell” evidence against Mr. Trump. But impeachment is a political process, so the measure of its “success” is whether its supporters can convince a bipartisan majority of the country that Mr. Trump took an action worthy of removal from office. Nothing in Wednesday’s hearing came close, and the Democrats took their best shot.

            2. The purpose of the Jan 6th hearings is NOT to conduct a trial: it is to disclose to the American people the facts that have been gleaned to date on the root causes of the insurrection, to make sure that it never happens again. Liz Cheney did a marvelous job of explaining the importance of investigating Jan 6th and explaining why the oath of members of Congress is taken to defend the Constitution, rather than allegiance to an individual. Some critical history was also provided, including quotes from Lincoln who, when it looked like he would lose re-election, pledgesd to peacefully surrender power. He obtained pledges from every member of his cabinet to do the same. They explained how George Washington passed the mantle of power peacefully when his term was up. There is even a painting in the Captiol rotunda capturing ths moment–the first peaceful transfer of power in American history. In fact, every former POTUS has done so, except the one your worship. If our system of democratic government is to have permanence, what Trump did cannot stand without being challenged. Ms. Cheney explained just how fragile our democratic system is.

              The facts are not spun: the presentation consisted of sworn video deposition or live testimony, and/or videos from the Capitol itself or journalists. The Committee only presented evidence it has gathered. Perhaps one of the most noteworthy things said was that one day Trump will be gone, but the dishonor of those Republicans who tried to help him overturn the 2020 election by pushing the Big Lie and refusing to honor certified vote results will remain forever. Our system of government depends on good faith: not the lies of a narcissist who cannot accept the fact that he lost an election. The county and Constitution come ahead of Donald Trump’s ego, or we really won’t have a country any more.

              To be completely honest, I’m sort of doubting that you are an attorney because one has to possess a certain level of intelligence to get into law school and pass the bar. Anyone who worships that election cheating, insurrection-fomenting losing narcissist is lacking in logic, reasoning skills and especially patriotism or is choosing to be wilfully blind. You are obviously a devotee of alt right media that presented counter programming to offset the facts they knew would be politically damaging to Republicans. So, they spun the committee’s work as partisan politics and just a show to attack Trump. Someone who is reasonable and not deep into the delusions of Trumpism would, at minimum, give a look to the presentation and make up their own mind rather than rely on the spin of proven liars of alt-right media. You call last night’s hearing a “little drama”. Nothing like Jan 6th ever happened before, and to keep it from happening again, it must be thoroughly investigated and understood just like 911 was. Jan 6th was a watershed moment that Trumpsters have tried, but failed to whitewash as a protest that got out of hand. The documented facts prove otherwise.


          “Soviet-Style Show Trial”

          The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) put on a show.

          The want to destroy the American restricted-vote republic and install a one man, one vote democrazy.

          Turnout was 11.6% in 1788, by design.

          The communists know the more voters they “qualify,” the more parasites, dependents, idiots and “crazies” they can propagandize, indoctrinate, influence and buy votes from.

          “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

          – Ben Franklin

          “the people are nothing but a great beast…

          I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

          – Alexander Hamilton

          “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

          “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

          – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

    2. Karen says:

      “Democrats, if you actually value civility, then mind your own rhetoric. Start with no longer calling someone who disagrees with you a racist, homophobic, Nazi, white supremacist, neophobia bigot, and listen to what they have to say for a change.”

      Stop calling Liberals “Socialists,” “Marxists,” “Communists,” “Trump-haters,” and “Baby-killers” for being pro-abortion.

      You insist that Republicans “care about values.”

      Then stop lying to our faces.

  8. CRT is Critical Racists’ Theory, a quasi-academic rationalization of diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, color supremacists) under the nominally secular Pro-Choice “ethical” religion that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. “people of color”), color quotas (e.g. too many People of Yellow), and affirmative discrimination (e.g. “Jew privilege”).

    GRT is Green (as in naive) Replacement Thesis or a proposal to compensate for the Progressive Cult’s wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood: baby and granny.

    Immigration reform is a policy hostile to emigration reform to mitigate progress of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform at both ends of the bridge and collateral damage.

  9. It was the Left that first promoted GRT and touted it as a political strategy, for the D’s to rise from Mondale’s ashes. See the 2002 book: _The Emerging Democratic Majority_.

    But now republicans are the villains for merely naming GRT for what it actually means?!

    1. They’re also villains for opposing chauvinistic ideologies (e.g. feminism/masculinism), diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) including color supremacism, political congruence (“=” or selective exclusion) including trans/homo exclusion of trans/bis, Mengele mandates, progressive prices (e.g. Obamacares), and, of course, the wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood. Also, supporting emigration reform to mitigate the progress of immigration reform and collateral damage, conserve civil rights, etc.

  10. CRT is Critical Racists’ Theory the quasi-academic rationalization of Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism).

    GRT is Green (as in naive) Replacement Theory or a means to compensate for the Progressive Cult’s wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood: baby and granny.

    Obamacares was designed to sustain unaffordable medical care through single/central/monopolistic solutions that are first-order forcings progressive prices, further exacerbated by sanctions to cover-up the Biden/Maidan/Slavic Spring in Obama’s catastrophic World War Spring (WWS) series.

    Pro-Choice illegal migration is an Anticiv movement that is hostile to American civil rights and emigration reform to mitigate the progress of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] imigration reform at both ends of the bridge and throughout and collateral damage.

  11. From the blog I quote: “Not only did Democratic senators tie GRT to the shooter in Buffalo, NY”
    I don’t dispute that this statement is factual.
    I know this may seem nitpicky, but calling them Democratic instead of Democrat bugs me a little bit — and maybe it’s subtle, but there are many Democrat politicians who are not democratic at all —
    We don’t say Republicanic senators when referring to comments by GOP politicians.

  12. When the hearings early on produced video footage of the gathering of the Proud Boys near the Capitol well before President Trump had held his speech at the Ellipse, it became more clear that the person ultimately in charge of security of the Capitol building would have immediately beefed up the security forces surrounding as well as inside the Capitol building and surrounding area. That person is Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California.
    She did not fulfill her sworn responsibility and one might ask why not? Was it willful or was it dereliction of duty, or both?

    In November, when and if the House of Representatives majority reverts to the GOP, Nancy Pelosi could well be facing charges due to her critical role in NOT stopping the riot and subsequent injuries and loss of life that day, January 6, 2021.

    This is the same Nancy Pelosi who right now refuses to allow security to be beefed up for Supreme Court Justices and offers no credible reason for her position.

    1. Excellent points, Richard Lowe. Perhaps Ms. Pelosi’s communications with the House Sergeants at Arms will be “unwrapped” as well. It does not appear that the Committee is focused on the adequacy of security. That would not be consistent with the Democrats’ narrative.

      1. I guess if security is truly the primary interest of the fox news lobby, I suppose they’ll have to answer why there weren’t upwards of 200 dead trump mutants on the steps of the Capitol on 1/6.

  13. I see George Soros is funding a group that is buying Latino radio stations so he can preach his BS over their airways. Latinos seem to be trending republican. Got to stop that. Otherwise they may become Latino supremacist.

  14. “Democrats alleged that Republicans — and Fox News in particular — are “radicalizing” domestic terrorists . . .” (JT)

    The Left is attempting to criminalize dissent — not just political dissent, but dissent as such. Leftist leaders are *not* authoritarians. They are tyrants and demagogues.

  15. How many of you actually watched the first round of hearings last night, the Hannity version of we watched it for you so you don’t have to doesn’t count. If you got nothing else from it you’d have learned that all the people that should have known whether Trump won or not or there was fraud, were telling him he lost and there was nothing there. Bill Barr told him it was Bull****. Stick your hear in the sand if you like.

    1. enigma:
      “Now many of you actually watched the first round of hearings last night, the Hannity version of we watched it for you so you don’t have to doesn’t count.”
      I watched it until boredom drove me away. I saw lots of preening, exaggeration of severity, obviously coached witnesses and a gaggle of members whose judicial temperament would make “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’s” Queen of Hearts blush. That said, the Chairman, the Hon. Bennie Johnson (Dim) from MIssissippi, was a particularly doltish character claiming he’s from an area of the country that “still promotes slavery.” Sure Bennie, who, what and where, oh demagogue? As for the “Republicans” on the panel, I’d put them at a cross between a kangaroo and a jackarse – kangaroo for the court and jackarse for their chances in their next November horse race.

      1. I got a little bored myself when they got to the live witnesses. I saw some preening, not during the presentation but during the 10-minute break where a few of the Democrats seem to be congratulating themselves (Jamie Raskin comes to mind). Most of the witnesses testimony I say came from Republicans on tape (Bill Barr. Ivanka, Jared, and multiple Trump officials) they didn’t appear coached, if Jared was coached that coach should be fired. With all due respect, Bernie didn’t say his part of the country “still promotes slavery,” I challenge you to produce a quote. Based on what Trump’s people said, did you come away believing Trump lost and knew he lost or that the witnesses had been brainwashed?

          1. First I stand corrected, in one part of his statement he said he comes from a part of the country where people “justify” slavery, etc. He later said the current justification of Jan. 6th reminded him of that dark history (past tense). Those things can be true at the same time, people commenting here justify (present tense) slavery and every aspect of it all the time so why wouldn’t it happen in Bolton, MS?
            I’m curious about the content of the hearing which you feel were overstated. Can you provide an example?

      2. Why would any politician that wants to get re-elected say that his constitutents promote slavery ?

    2. “Bill Barr told him it was Bull****.”

      A statement that Barr made some three weeks after the polls closed, and which he qualified by saying: At that time. Amazing, isn’t it, how those in denial always drop those facts about Barr’s statement.

      The only ones sticking their heads in the sand are those unclear on the concepts of context, time, and new evidence.

      1. Like you say, at three weeks he couldn’t possibly have known. And given DOJ’s animosity towards Trump, what sane person would have believed them?

        1. Look at the *date* of Barr’s statement. And read his recent interviews.

          It’s your (bizarre) view that Barr’s statement means: There is no evidence now (c. mid-December 2010) — and there never will be anytime in the future?!

          1. You’ll have to do better than say “read his recent interviews”. Barr has recently voiced his concerns about mail-in voting. I can’t find anything where he says the election was stolen, there was widespread fraud, or that Trump won. Do you have anything like that?

            1. The date of Barr’s statement is important as it relates to what *Barr* knew and when he knew it.

              Those who keep flogging Trump with Barr’s statement, would like the rest of us to forget that fact.

              1. You still haven’t shown me anything Barr said at any time suggesting Trump won the election or there was massive voter fraud. I’m familiar with multiple cases of Republicans voting twice where they got a harsh sentence of probation. Where is your proof. If Barr said what you indicate he said at any time, Google would find it right away. Until you document it, it’s just talk.

                1. Barr didn’t know and didn’t look carefully. 2000 Mules quickly shows you Barr was wrong!

    3. Barr didn’t like evidence provided by the president had at the time, 3 three weeks after the election. That was not enough time to obtain evidence, especially when it destroyed by Democrats.

      Today we have 2000 Mules proving Trump was correct and the Presidential election was lawless. The evidence is the type of evidence used by the CIA, FBI and police departments all over the nation.

      Additionally the courts didn’t have time to find in Trump’s favor, though many decisions did. Today people are being arrested for election fraud, and judges are discovering hundreds of thousands of ballots in question.

      We are listening to fanfare, because the election was lawless, and many of the Democrats in power are part of it. Congress proves this by hiring a TV executive to make Jan6 into an Oliver Stone move that is historically wrong but hopefully attractive to people who aren’t students of history. It is a made for TV production that is near factless and likely will bore most people.

      Summary why the hearing is Bull-$h!te

      It needed a TV producer.
      It highlights statements made 3 weeks after the election
      It is factless.
      It is third party opinion.
      It is not bi-Partisan in the real sense.
      There is nothing new.
      It is political.

      Will Nacy Pelosi reveal all her communications? No.
      Will they include Mules 2000 evidence in the hearings? No.
      Will they highlight court decisions convicting people of voter fraud” No.
      Will the hearing show the hundreds of thousands of votes (potentially millions) in question? No
      Will the “movie” show the videos proving ballots trafficking? No.

      People who are ignorant of what a relavant hearing is might be satisfied, but it won’t meet the needs of most of the population. They can bring in racism and all sorts of things to appeal to those that know very little about the election, but, in the end hopefully the televised hearings will make people look around and see the lies pushed by the leaders of the Democratic party.

      If Enigma wishes to prove something, he desperately needs to bring accurate facts to the table.

      1. The televised production that we saw last evening was not actually a hearing. It was a scripted docu-drama.

        1. You describe it best. Add hyperbole, fiction and one side of the coin. That says it all. I’m waiting for new revelations, but Nancy won’t talk.

    4. Enigman,

      You’re great. So stipulated.

      Do you still need that crutch of unconstitutional generational welfare, unconstitutional affirmative action, unconstitutional quotas, unconstitutional forced busing, unconstitutional “fair housing” laws, unconstitutional “non-discrimination” laws, unconstitutional WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, Obamacare, etc., etc., etc.? May we end the never-ending and unconstitutional War on Poverty, and the entire unconstitutional welfare state? When shall American taxpayers, since 1963, expect financial “reparations?”

      Going back, by 50 years, the Supreme Court recently retroactively corrected applied fundamental law and returned abortion to State legislatures. In the same vein and under the same authority, the SCOTUS must retroactively enforce, by 150 years, contemporary immigration law, in full force and effect, from 1863, that being the Naturalization Act of 1802. Of course, every act stemming from the failure of the executive branch to enforce immigration law at that time, is, similarly, illicit, illegal, unconstitutional and still illegitimate, understanding that no benefit shall be derived from a criminal act.

      The Founders clearly understood that slavery was wrong. George Washington freed his slaves in his will. Slavery must have been ended through advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc., and, ultimately, legislation. Legislation can take considerable time – that is its nature and character. Lincoln’s devotion to Karl Marx and communism, and his neurosis of impatience, drove him to his high-criminal acts such as denial of fully constitutional secession, commencement of a unconstitutional war against a sovereign foreign nation, suspension of habeas corpus, denial of freedom of speech, denial of freedom of the press, false imprisonment, the illegal conscription, subjection to mayhem, and killing of American men, etc., and, ultimately, the improper ratification of unconstitutional amendments by Lincoln’s successors as the completion of Lincoln’s efforts on behalf of Karl Marx toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.” One must conclude that every act of Lincoln was unconstitutional, remains illicit and illegitimate to this day, and that immigration law awaits retroactive enforcement by the Supreme Court, as was the case with abortion.

      “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

      – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

      “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

      – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848

      “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

      – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      “The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

      – Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864

      Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…


      In accordance with state law, George Washington stipulated in his will that elderly slaves or those who were too sick to work were to be supported throughout their lives by his estate. Children without parents, or those whose families were unable to see to their education were to be bound out to masters and mistresses who would teach them reading, writing, and a useful trade, until they were ultimately freed at the age of twenty-five. Washington’s will stated that he took these charges to his executors very seriously: “And I do moreover most pointedly, and most solemnly enjoin it upon my Executors…to see that this clause respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled at the Epoch at which it is directed to take place; without evasion, neglect or delay, after the Crops which may then be on the ground are harvested, particularly as it respects the aged and infirm.”

      Martha Washington chose to free her late husband’s slaves early. She may have feared for her safety in a situation where the freedom of so many depended on her death. In December 1800, Martha Washington signed a deed of manumission for her deceased husband’s slaves, a transaction that is recorded in the abstracts of the Fairfax County, Virginia, Court Records. They would finally become free on January 1, 1801.

      – Mount

  16. Replacement theory belongs in the same box as Q Anon. Something that only leftists promote. I had to get up to speed on ‘replacement’ theory. I had no idea what the moniker was supposed to represent. I think the ambiguity is a feature of leftists propaganda. First, they demonize the term. Second, after properly demonized, they accuse their political foes of pushing the concept. It is like an elaborate straw man fallacy.

    The biggest problem Dems have, Hispanics live a conservative life. Centered on Family, Church. Community. Asians also are family centered and see their future economic success, dependent entirely on education. Education that Democrats are displacing with social re-engineering.

    Democrats work tirelessly to destroy the core values of these groups.

    1. “ First, they demonize the term. Second, after properly demonized, they accuse their political foes of pushing the concept. It is like an elaborate straw man fallacy.”

      Pretty much what the republicans did with CRT. Republicans sure love their gullible base.

      1. Pretty much what the republicans did with CRT
        That’s a plain lie.

        Parents found out the schools were indoctrinated K-12 with the lie that all the white students were guilty of slavery, and active racists. Parents petitioned their government for relief. Specifically, remove CRT from all School curriculum. Something that should have been easy because the schools denied it was ever in the school.

        Going to your elected representative to make changes in government policy, is precisely they way it is designed to work

  17. Turley has neatly framed the Great Replacement Theory to only apply to immigrants which is far from the truth. He also implies it’s on the same level as Critical Race Theory. I’m sure you have all blocked out in your minds the crowd of people in Charlottesville chanting, “Jews Will Not Replace Us!” They weren’t talking about immigrants. Anyone who minimizes the Great Replacement Theory is actually blessing it.

    1. I agree. That’s why the GRT Is big with the right’s white supremacists. They fear their position as the dominant “race” is being diluted by the fast changing demographics. This is one reasoning why there was a push by Trump to change how we count citizens for the census. This is why CRT is being demonized as an attack on “whiteness”. Because to them it’s all about the possibility of being relegated to minority status and being treated as they have been treating minorities for centuries.

      It’s also a big reason why there’s so much focus on the border. They see it as part of the whole GRT rationale.

      1. That’s why the GRT Is big with the right’s white supremacists

        ALL of them? I mean everyone of the 113 that exist?

      2. “I agree. That’s why the GRT Is big with the right’s white supremacists.”

        All 100 of them. Then go after the massive numbers of white supremacists who dominate the Democrat Party and who have little love for this country and its freedoms.

    2. The Charlottesville incident involved a fascist mob that threatened a passenger vehicle and prevented the driver from leaving. This is the same model they followed for several trimesters in their nationwide insurrection. Then there was Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter a la color supremacists that followed the fascists’s model, and repeated history through invasion of neighborhoods in order to intimidate families and residents. Globally, there was Obama/Biden’s World War Spring series that forced [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform, including a failed coup attempt to replace Jewish leaders in Israel. Ukraine was not so fortunate.

    3. EIB,

      Your act of self promotion is pretty pathetic. Of course, considering the quality of your writing, this may be your only way to get any clicks.

Leave a Reply