Fast and Curious: Kinzinger Holds Up Eric Holder As Paragon of Integrity and Independence in an Attorney General

The hearings on January 6th have had many riveting moments where former Trump officials detailed their efforts to convince former president Donald Trump that legal and factual claims of a stolen election were unfounded and unsupportable. From Vice President Michael Pence to Attorney General Bill Barr to an array of Justice and White House lawyers, there were many profiles of courage that emerged from the testimony. There have also been glaring disconnects like Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) chastising those who refused to accept the results of the 2020 elections and sought to challenge the certification in Congress. Thompson challenged the election of George W. Bush. (His fellow Committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016),  However, one of the most glaring disconnects came yesterday when Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) cited former Attorney General Eric Holder as an example of the ideal of an apolitical and independent Attorney General. Holder was one of the most political attorneys general in history and Kinzinger previously denounced him for his abuse of office as a partisan. He was held in contempt over his obstruction of the Fast and Furious investigation.

Kinzinger featured Holder as an example of integrity and independence, showing a clip from his confirmation hearing in 2009, telling Congress:

“I will be an independent attorney general. I will be the people’s lawyer. If, however, there were an issue that I thought were that significant that it would compromise my ability to serve as Attorney General in the way that I have described it, as the people’s lawyer, I would not hesitate to resign.”

Many of us are familiar with the clip because it was often played to highlight the hypocrisy in how Holder actually carried out his office. Holder would later described himself as President Barack Obama’s “wingman” and was later held in contempt by Congress.

Holder has demanded that Attorney General William Barr release the report despite the contrary precedent of Holder himself in refusing to disclose critical information in the “Fast and Furious” scandal. Holder previously declared that Mueller was certain to find criminal obstruction by Trump.

I have been a long critic of Holder whose tenure at the Justice Department was marred by political influence from his role in the Clinton pardon scandals to his defiance of Congress (leading to his being held in contempt). Whether it is his call to “kick” critics or his political actions, Holder’s record is at best checkered.

Fast and Furious was a legitimate matter for congressional oversight after the ATF arranged for illegal gun sales to Mexican drug cartels for the moronic purpose of tracking weapons. Instead, it simply gave criminals low-price, high-powered weaponry– over 2000 in number including the one used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. There should have been no question about the obligation to share information with Congress, but Holder was defiant and encouraged Obama to assert sweeping executive privilege claims. It was an abusive use of privilege, precisely what the Democrats are accusing former Trump and others of doing in these hearings.

Moreover, the current Democratic leadership supported Holder after his defiance of congressional oversight authority.

Citing “substantial separation of powers concerns,” Holder insisted “I am very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant, damaging consequences.” Imagine if Bill Barr were to quote the same language to the Congress on the current report.

Notably, Kinzinger called out Holder for his obstruction. He signed a “no confidence” motion in 2011. The motion included the charge that Holder “has been intransigent, obstructionist, and obdurate” in fighting disclosure of the evidence in the scandal.


314 thoughts on “Fast and Curious: Kinzinger Holds Up Eric Holder As Paragon of Integrity and Independence in an Attorney General”

  1. Voluntary military service is a virtue but not all who have served in the military are virtuous. McCarthy, Benedict Arnold come to mind but there are others throughout our history. Some of the worst traitors since WW 2 were in the military. Your life determines if you are a virtuous person not just one component of it. Thats why the military has it’s MP’s, SP’s, Stockades, Brigs, and JAG officers.

  2. The January 6th Commission hearings won’t change hearts and minds. What they are doing is distracting attention away from Biden’s EO directing all of his agencies to use their federal power to takeover the administration of elections.

    The Democrats will have the last laugh as they work to steal another election by holding hearings pretending to be outraged that Trump caught them stealing the last one.

    President Biden really does not want the public to know about his federal takeover of election administration. Dozens of members of Congress have repeatedly asked for details, to no avail. Good government groups, members of the media, and private citizens have filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Not a single one has been responded to. All signs indicate a concerted effort to keep the public in the dark until at least after the November midterm elections. The lack of transparency and responsiveness is so bad that the Department of Justice and some of its agencies have been repeatedly sued for the information.

    1. Olly, you’re an idiot. This is not an attempt to rig the 2022 election. The author of the article clearly is being either disingenuous or just plain stupid about what that EO does.

      She’s engaging in the wild notion that expanding access to vote AND information to anyone, anyone including republicans. That’s not “rigging” an election. Did you read the actual EO?

      “ Sec. 3. Expanding Access to Voter Registration and Election Information. Agencies shall consider ways to expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process.
      (a) The head of each agency shall evaluate ways in which the agency can, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, promote voter registration and voter participation. This effort shall include consideration of:
      (i) ways to provide relevant information in the course of activities or services that directly engage with the public — including through agency materials, websites, online forms, social media platforms, and other points of public access — about how to register to vote, how to request a vote-by-mail ballot, and how to cast a ballot in upcoming elections;”

      It’s about government agencies giving people information about how to register to vote in their particular state and how to obtain information on the various rules for doing so. That’s it. It’s not “rigging” the election. The federalist is more interested in spewing conspiracy theories to gullible idiots and the easily manipulated because it’s about politics rather than honest reporting.

      “ This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

      It’s about giving everyone the information about registering to vote. For those in the military to the disabled.

      The author is essentially spouting BS.

      1. The author is essentially spouting BS.

        You couldn’t possibly know that because the administration has not responded to FOIA requests. It’s the Democratic party playbook; workaround the constitution, block legitimate oversight, force the opposition to go to court and then drag the court process out long enough to achieve the ends.

        Mollie Hemingway has proven she does her homework as evidenced by her reporting on the Trump/Russia hoax. You calling her reporting as BS is laughable given the fact it has proven you and your Leftist cohorts wrong on everything.

    2. Olly,

      “ They had good reason. The 2020 election had suffered from widespread and coordinated efforts by Democrat activists and donors to run “Get Out The Vote” operations from inside state and local government election offices, predominantly in the Democrat-leaning areas of swing states. Independent researchers have shown the effect of this takeover of government election offices was extremely partisan and favored Democrats overwhelmingly.”

      The federalist article is such a joke.

      The election “suffered” from widespread coordination from democrats to “get out the vote”? It’s nothing illegal or even a “secret”. It’s just encouraging people to register to vote. That’s it. That’s not a secret. It’s pretty common, even in the Republican Party. It’s not a “takeover”. It’s just grassroots advocacy. It’s the most American thing to do, encouraging others who are eligible to vote.

      Republicans don’t want more people to vote. It’s not in their best interest. Keep in mind that Trump lost the popular vote by quite a bit.

    3. The hearings “won’t change hearts and minds” of people whose hearts and minds are closed to evidence. They won’t change your heart and mind. They may well change some people’s hearts and minds. Time will tell.

  3. I would not use the lack of being elected Mayor of New York as some sort of key or measurement of a politicians future. T.R. Roosevelt was never elected mayor of New York City but ended up Governor of New York and one of the greatest President’s of all time. Who was the last Mayor of New York City to get eventually elected President of the United States. New York City has had plenty of jerks, not just Trump. Sometimes Presidents and heads of state have to be jerks. FDR was a great president but he used and tossed aside people right and left to achieve specific purposes as do most presidents. It goes with the job. They are not elected God’s representative on Earth or defender of the faith. Defender of the constitution but not of the faith.

  4. The Jan 6 committee’s job is to provide evidence and enough testimony for the DOJ to decide about charging Trump or his lawyers or congressmen with a crime. So far it looks like Eastman and a few congressmen are in jeopardy. Ron Johnson is already panicking and is throwing other congressional members under the bus. The DOJ raided the homes of some of his staffers and issued warrants for phones and other materials.

    Let’s not forget that Trump still has to contend with the investigation in Georgia over his phone call and it looks like he’s in bigger trouble there than in DC.

    Turley likes to pretend there is not much against Trump because he is using such a high bar for conviction. He’s setting it so high because it helps him excuse Trump’s obvious attempts at subverting the election with lies. Giuliani already admitted that have no proof of fraud. Barr emphatically stated Trump is lying. Turley avoids discussion on those issues by deflecting to Holder’s irrelevant past.

      1. I never claimed politicians don’t lie. What matters is what they lie about. Obviously many conservatives attack Biden as a liar, but obviously Trump is too the difference of course Trump’s lying is far more harmful than just your average politician. He tried to falsely claim election fraud in order to stay on n office after being defeated in the election.

    1. “The Jan 6 committee’s job is to provide evidence and enough testimony for the DOJ to decide about charging Trump or his lawyers or congressmen with a crime. ”

      No, it’s their job to understand what happened and whether it has implications for legislation (e.g., the wording of the Electoral Count Act) or internal congressional matters (e.g., the LE protection of Congress). The DOJ has its own staff to investigate evidence and determine whether to charge people for committing federal crimes.

      1. The DOJ can use the evidence gathered by the committee. Testimony and evidence.

        They are currently running their own investigation and nothing prevents them from issuing warrants or subpoenas for the information the Jan 6 committee has. Since it’s already been litigated they won’t have to go to court to get the evidence that’s already been deemed material to their investigation.

        1. “nothing prevents them from issuing warrants or subpoenas for the information the Jan 6 committee has”

          I doubt that. What judge is going to sign off on a warrant or enforce a subpoena against a Congressional committee (which is distinct from an individual member of Congress)? For a warrant, you need probable cause — what are you suggesting is probable cause for a warrant? The whole reason the DOJ is complaining about the J6 Committee not sharing all of the interview transcripts is because it’s up to the Committee to choose or not to provide the DOJ with copies. As for subpoenas, sure, the DOJ can subpoena Committee members, but for what purpose?

          “it’s already been litigated …”

          I don’t know what “it” refers to there. What are you referring to as already having been litigated?

    2. Sevlaz, your statement about the purpose of the January 6 Committee is incorrect. It must be structured for a legislative purpose. Remember that the separation of powers is foundational.

    3. ” Turley avoids discussion on those issues by deflecting to Holder’s irrelevant past.”

      Why is Holder’s past irrelevant?

    4. NO that is not their job.

      Congress is not a criminal investigative body. In fact that role is explicitly barred them int he constitution.

      As corrupt as it may be we have a DOJ and it is their job to investigate crimes. Not Congresses.

      Congress has the power to conduct hearings with regard to legislation and oversight.
      J6 committee does not even make much of a pretext of either of those.

      I would note that I do not expect andything much beyond rhetoric from either the J6 committee or DOJ – because criminalizing politics will blow up in their faces.

    5. The bar is pretty simple – it is not a crime to do something you do not like.

      You can be offended by some of what Trump or others did or sought to do, but most reasonable people understand you can not bend the law or the constitution half that far.

      This is the same mistake you made in Faux impeachments I & II

    6. There is actually audio tape of the Trump phone call.

      You can not get to a crime without bending the law into a pretzel.

      More efforts to criminalize political differences.

      Do you think before you start this nonsense.

      Lets say Trump asked Raffensburger to find votes – and Raffensberger found legitimate votes.
      Trump’s call would obviously be legal.

  5. Turley is trying to distract from the reason that Holder was mentioned: the importance of upholding one’s oath to the Constitution. Here’s what Kinzinger said before he introduced the clip from Holder and other former AGs:

    Kinzinger (who served in the US Air Force, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, prior to becoming a member of Congress, whence his comment about asking Americans to be willing to die in service of our country):
    “I remember making a commitment out loud a few times, and in my heart repeatedly, even to today, that if we are going to ask Americans to be willing to die in service of our country, we as leaders must at least be willing to sacrifice our political careers when integrity and our oath requires it. After all losing a job is nothing compared to losing your life. Within the halls of power, in the face of a President, that commitment can easily be forgotten. Presidential pressure can be really hard to resist. Today we will focus on a few officials who stood firm against President Trump’s political pressure campaign. When the President tried to misuse the Department [of Justice] and install a loyalist at its helm, these brave officials refused and threatened to resign. They were willing to sacrifice their careers for the good of our country.
    “The Department of Justice is unique in the executive branch. The President oversees the Department of Justice, yet the President’s personal or partisan interests must not shape or dictate the Department’s actions. The President cannot and must not use the Department to serve his own personal interest. He must not use its people to do his political bidding, especially when what he wants them to do is to subvert democracy. The President cannot pervert justice nor the law to maintain his power. Justice must both in fact and law be blind. That is critical to our whole system of self governance.
    “During this hearing you’ll hear time and time again about the President’s request to investigate claims of widespread fraud. Our witnesses Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue, and Mr. Engle stood firm in the face of overbearing political pressure, because they understood that their oath to the Constitution and not to the personal or political interests of the President. The President and his allies became keenly aware that with legal challenges exhausted and electoral votes certified, their only hope would be a last ditch scheme to prevent Congress from certifying the win, thus throwing the entire system into constitutional chaos. The President wanted the Department to sow doubt in the legitimacy of the election, to empower his followers and members of Congress to take action. If the Department could just lend credibility to the conspiracies, people would have the justification they needed to spread the Big Lie. So President Trump ultimately wanted the Department of Justice to say the election was, quote, “corrupt” and quote, “leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” As you will hear today, the Department’s top leadership refused. Not surprisingly, President Trump did not take no for an answer. He didn’t accept it from Attorney General Barr, and he wouldn’t accept it from [then acting AG] Mr. Rosen either. So he looked for another Attorney General, his third in two weeks. He needed to find someone who would be willing to ignore the facts. That is not the norm. Let’s look at what Attorneys General, Democrats and Republicans alike, have said about upholding their oath to the constitution.”

    Then he presented clips from former AG Sessions, former AG Holder, former AG Mukasey, and former AG Lynch.

    Trump wanted to make Jeffrey Clark acting AG, and everyone else at the top of the DOJ (the then-acting AG and all of the assistant AGs) threatened to resign if Trump made Clark — an unqualified toady — acting AG. Clark is implicated in carrying out an illegal scheme involving fake electors. The FBI carried out a search warrant at his home yesterday and also served subpoenas on several of the fake electors. This is not the last we’re going to hear about the fake elector scheme and Clark’s role. Clark repeatedly invoked the 5th Amendment in his testimony to the J6 Committee.

    But Turley cannot bring himself to discuss any of this. His role is to deflect from any news that undermines Fox’s preferred narrative.

    1. Anonymous,

      Not quite. No primetime Fox hosts share Turley’s views. Turley is appearing on the Fox news shows, not the opinion shows which are largely ignoring the hearings. Turley is griping about the lack of balance on the committee, but he is NOT discrediting the damning witness testimony.

      Just like in the impeachments, however, he is arguing that there is not enough evidence of a crime – yet.

      1. I said his role is to deflect, not discredit.

        He is not engaging with Kinzinger’s argument in an effort to discredit it. He is trying to deflect to other matters and ignoring Kinzinger’s argument altogether.

  6. Turley says of the hearings:

    “I think they’re making a much stronger case than what we already knew. This is that amplification of how many people were saying the same thing, that they had run count the allegations and that were untrue. That is coming through.”

    “But going to Andy’s point, it’s so scripted that they don’t even have opening statements. It’s so controlled that it makes kabuki theater look like improvisational dance.”

    “There’s no room nor the witnesses to go to the left or right. That really undermines it. It’s not suggesting that these witnesses would be saying something different. Just it would be good to have some exchanges that don’t feel quite as scripted.”

    Admittedly, it would be good to have some exchanges that don’t feel quite as scripted, but Turley is NOT suggesting that these witnesses would be saying something different.

    The bottom line:

    “I think they’re making a much stronger case than what we already knew.”

    Read it and weep Trumpists. Read it and weep.

    1. Serious TDS, Bagel Boy! Mr. Trump is bouncing around the that vacuous, numbed skull of yours like an out-of-control ping pong ball. Seek help before that Blue Kool-Aid destroys what little gray matter you have left!

    2. Turley may argue about an unbalanced committee, but he will not point criticism to where it belongs, the Republicans. They had an opportunity to have a say in the committee. The senate republicans voted down the creation of a commission that would have been balanced. They didn’t want to have it because many knew they would be implicated.

      So a select committee was created and republicans offered candidates, but it was obvious the ones they proposed were only interested in sabotaging the investigation. So after offering others who would be more likely to be honest about the investigation the republicans pulled them off. There are still republicans on the committee and so far nearly all witnesses and testimony has been from republicans. So Turley is still being disingenuous with the facts despite also being not a trumper.

      1. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday rejected two of the Republican picks — Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Jim Banks (Ind.) — for the Jan. 6 select committee.

        Jordan and Banks were part of a group of five GOP lawmakers nominated by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to serve on the 13-member select committee.
        Pelosi wanted a stacked deck not a true inquiry.

        1. No, Jordan and Banks made it quite clear they weed going to stymie the investigation rather than engage in it. McCarthy offered different members who would not be obstructionists, but removed them under pressure from Trump supporters in congress. There are still two republicans on the committee and so far nearly all witnesses and testimony are from republicans.

          1. From the NYT, July 27: “Ms. Pelosi said she had decided to disqualify Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana because of widespread Democratic dismay about “statements made and actions taken by these members.””

        2. Pelosi would have accepted the other 3. She would have accepted proposals for replacing the other 2. McCarthy was the one who withdrew the other 3 and refused to nominate anyone else.

          1. In so many words you admitted she packed the committee. She had no right to and that should not have been tolerated by Republicans or Democrats.

            The only one not wanting a true investigation seems to be Nancy Pelosi and her supporters. They want a kangaroo court and Trump is not a kangaroo. (This references the mayor of NYC, Ed Koch, when he walked out on the Catholic Church)

      2. Svelaz,

        I’m thinking that it is fortunate that the Republicans didn’t get Jordan and others on the committee. I doubt whether cross-examining these Republican witnesses would have been effective. It might have backfired as these witnesses defended themselves against insinuations of being RINO’s or suffering TDS! Such tactics would be a bad look. You’ll notice that few Republicans are stepping forward to defend Trump, Giuliani, Clark or Eastman. The Republicans are simply deflecting and ignoring these proceedings.

  7. I’ll trust the Biden/Garland Justice Department when I see one, even just one Democrat getting the Roger Stone/Peter Navaro/Jeffery Clark treatment. Peter Strozk, CLpper, Brennan, McCabe etc etc lied to Congress or the FBI and there was never an early morning raid complete with swat teams and cameras.

    I will trust the DOJ when one, even just one left wing rioter get the Jan 6th treatment. We have two ATTORNEYS in NYC throwing firebombs at police cars and they get treated better than the rioters at the Capital. We had rioters at the White House just 6 months before Jan 6 who burned a church and INJURED SIXTY secret service agents protecting the president and the President and his family were ushered into the bunker and yet there was not even one arrest?? If the Trump family was like AOC they would have been crying that they thought they were dead.

    I will trust the DOJ when the woman that was caught in the Senate elevator yelling at Jeff Flake is arrested. I will trust the DOJ when the people that blow up pro-live centers are treated as if they blew up a Planned Parenthood center. What is wrong for one should be wrong for both.

    Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress and the DOJ did not prosecute him because way back 6 years ago that is not how politics worked. Today the left has become so authoritarian, so unhinged and so radical that anything goes when it comes to “winning”.

    The one-sided actions of our Justice Department threatens to unravel our civil obligations due to it’s unequal treatment of conservatives.

    1. You complain about the Biden/Garland DOJ, but it was preceded by the Trump/Sessions and Trump/Barr and Trump/… (for acting AGs) DOJ. According to you, why didn’t the Trump DOJ do what you want?

      “We had rioters at the White House just 6 months before Jan 6 who burned a church and INJURED SIXTY secret service agents protecting the president and the President and his family were ushered into the bunker and yet there was not even one arrest??”

      There were multiple arrests. Why don’t you know that? In fact, those on the left have repeatedly noted that the policed kettled the DC protesters and prevented them from leaving, then arrested them all, while not doing likewise for the J6 protesters.

      “Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress and the DOJ did not prosecute him”

      Just like they’re not prosecuting Mark Meadows: because BOTH are considered to have a job that’s in the President’s inner circle, and they’re simply not going to prosecute anyone in that inner circle — Republican or Democrat. Of course, you’re too partisan to acknowledge that, so you pretend that it was “one-sided” on the DOJ’s part.

      I’m not sure whether you’re being purposeful dishonest here or are just willingly ignorant.

      1. The people arrested for the riot in 2020 were not held without bail, were not held in solitary confinement and were not sentenced to multi-year sentnces. Were they?

        You are comparing Barr with Garland? When did Garland ever push back against his boss as Barr did many times? When did Barr arrest even one Democrats? Nice try loser, but you look as moronic as we all know you are. Sessions recused himself, would Garland? Weak sauce by a weak mind.

        You of course did not offer up even one time a raid was used against a Democrat. Why wasn’t McCabe or Struzk arrested with a SWAT team? Come on hot shot, show us one time a Democrat was not afforded the right to turn themselves in when being processed? Roger Stone bein arrested by a damn SWAT team with CNN at the site??

        I noticed you didn’t mention the two NYC lawyers that firebombed a police car?? Are they insurrectionists? Is injuring Secret Service Agents an insurrection? Is burning down police stations and a FEDERAL Courthouse and insurrection? Did or did not Kamala Harris rais bail money for these rioters?

        Anonymous, people should try to find someone to love them as much as you love yourself.

        1. “The people arrested for the riot in 2020 were not held without bail, were not held in solitary confinement and were not sentenced to multi-year sentnces. Were they?”

          The vast majority of the 800+ people arrested for illegal acts on J6 also “were not held without bail, were not held in solitary confinement and were not sentenced to multi-year sentences.” The small subset of people who were or are being held without bail or held in solitary confinement (for their own protection) committed and were charged with more serious crimes, which is also why that subset has also been sentenced to longer sentences.

          You can read the charges and case statuses here:

          Pick the person you believe committed the most serious crimes in the 2020 DC protests, and let’s compare those charges/treatment/sentencing with the person who committed the most serious crimes on J6.

          1. Jake Lang:

            The polarizing politicization surrounding January 6th has led to the denial of due process and the incarceration of hundreds of protestors. The “insurrection” is said to be among the likes of Pearl Harbor and 9/11, at least according to the Vice President. Edward “Jake” Lang, a 27-year-old Hudson Valley man caught in between the crossfire, lies within his cell, alone for 22 hours a day, only with his Bible, pen and paper.

            On several occasions, he has been cast into solitary confinement without any justification of disciplinary action. Mr. Lang has also been transferred to eight different detention facilities over the course of the last 17 months, making it even more difficult for him to establish communication with his attorney.

            Mr. Lang was arrested on January 16, 2021, by the FBI, without any state agency involvement. His attorney, Steven Metcalf, tried to negotiate for bail, but the government expanded upon its interpretation of the Bail Reform Act, scrutinizing the defendant’s statements made after January 6th.


              1. Tell us why “he has been cast into solitary confinement without any justification of disciplinary action. Mr. Lang has also been transferred to eight different detention facilities over the course of the last 17 months, making it even more difficult for him to establish communication with his attorney.”

                Kamala was busy helping to provide bail for much more dangerous people.

                There is no reason for what has happened to him or many others. You keep providing a link because you have no answers and probably no little of their plight.

                1. I said to hullbobby: Pick the person you believe committed the most serious crimes in the 2020 DC protests, and let’s compare those charges/treatment/sentencing with the person who committed the most serious crimes on J6.

                  You refuse to do that, and in return, I refuse to do what you want. As you sow, so you shall reap.

          2. “Over 700 people have been arrested in connection with the events of Jan. 6, 2021. This website provides current information about each one, including relevant news articles, an arrest map, and list of those currently incarcerated. We also provide ways for you to contact those in prison, and to help cover their legal and living expenses. If you would like to provide corrections, updates, or requests, please please contact us.”


            Anonymous the Stupid is full of Sh!t.

            1. Meyer the Troll Liar, once again, you make an allegation but cannot back it up with evidence. You haven’t — and apparently can’t — quoted anything I said that’s false and provided evidence that it’s false.

              1. I admit, I stated it wrong. Let me correct my mistake. “Anonymous the Stupid is full of Sh!t and he has always been full of Sh!t. Now you can refer to all your comments and see for yourself you are full of Sh!t

            1. Can you identify people who committed the same crimes? If so, name them, it’s fine by me to compare them.

            2. I didn’t ask you to compare them. Please take a moment and read my question again. I was hoping you would explain why you would choose to compare extreme acts that may not be similar with those that are similar.

              1. You asked “Why not compare like crimes instead?,” and I’m telling you that I’m quite willing to do that IF you can identify people who actually committed the same crimes.

                As for your new request — that I explain why I suggested “comparing extreme acts that may not be similar” — I suggested to hullbobby that he “Pick the person you believe committed the most serious crimes in the 2020 DC protests, and let’s compare those charges/treatment/sentencing with the person who committed the most serious crimes on J6,” and I did so because I believe that it’s central to identify a person — if you want to compare how people have been treated — and simpler to identify the people with the most extreme charges than to do what you suggested as an alternative. But I’m willing to discuss either kind of comparison.

    2. “ I will trust the DOJ when one, even just one left wing rioter get the Jan 6th treatment. We have two ATTORNEYS in NYC throwing firebombs at police cars and they get treated better than the rioters at the Capital. We had rioters at the White House just 6 months before Jan 6 who burned a church and INJURED SIXTY secret service agents protecting the president and the President and his family were ushered into the bunker and yet there was not even one arrest??”

      There were arrests. The problem is you don’t understand how the justice system works. You think those arrested for the Jan 6 violence at the Capitol are being treated…unfairly? They were committing multiple crimes. The majority of them posted bail or are awaiting trial in jail. Many for assault on police officers, vandalism, and because they were in a federal building most of their charges are felonies.

      The comparisons are apples and oranges. Those leftists “rioting” the majority were simply arrested for being at a protest many with little to no proof that they engaged in violent destruction of property or even theft. Those that did were charged accordingly. Those riots involved non-government property which is a separate charge and often a lesser one. Remember republicans wanted destruction of government property in a riot to be felonies. Looks like the Jan 6 rioters got the tougher charges thanks to republicans.


  9. “ There should have been no question about the obligation to share information with Congress, but Holder was defiant and encouraged Obama to assert sweeping executive privilege claims. It was part of an overall assertion of privilege by Obama that went far beyond what has been asserted thus far under the Trump Administration.”-Turley.

    Turley is being disingenuous as usual. The Trump administration has trotted out the executive privilege tactic almost constantly with congressional investigations under far more shaky reasoning. Turley is being dishonest here.

    1. “Turley is being disingenuous as usual. “

      You can’t get the law right, so you blame Turley. That is a stupid way to debate.

    2. Turley is being disingenuous as usual

      Turley is a legal mind of God like proportions, A second coming of Hugo Black. According to the retard silverman

  10. ” profiles of courage that emerged from the testimony” you mean like Bill Barr…who was a traitorous liar who did NOTHING to stop the country unraveling?

  11. Kinzinger is out of office shortly so the question is what position is he kissing up to the Democrats for? He can’t be putting on this Benedict Arnold performance for a Cuomo Emmy, so what’s waiting for him?

  12. Holder is a bad memory. And Kinizinger, like Holder, should help everyone understand that slipping towards a Matriarchal model of socio-political organization infers making Delusion a Institutional pillar.
    Yet, in retrospect, it is true, considering the overwhelming number of Republicans who voted for Joe Biden, only if all Democrats had voted Trump, could we believe the election was stolen.
    But interestingly, the greatest deception I had on January 6th, was that I was Naive enough to believe the different States assembly members (the 6 to 9 States) who prior to the 6th all said that they refuted the electoral vote results and that their State Constitution allowed them to cancel these results and contest them to the Federal Congress on Electoral Vote Count Day (Jan 6 2021).
    We later learned, that while the Constitution grants the legislative body the final decision over the process of the Electoral Vote, and the Federal Electoral Vote Count Act also asks these different Assemblies to elaborate very precise and clear rules as to how the authority flow concerning final authentication and certification of the results to be sent to the Federal Congress must proceed, these States assertions were misleading. And for almost all of these States, claiming they would challenge their own Electoral Vote results, we found out they had effectively a long time ago differed final authority to the Governor’s Office of each respective States through their own Laws…so we were all duped…and this was a final slap in the face for what is the “Credibility” of Federally elected officials…

  13. ‘Witness’? As in ‘bystander’, perhaps, but these hearings are not a court of law. They simply aren’t. They aren’t in any way, shape, or form any different from the specials Geraldo did in the 80s. As far as the committee goes it is quite literally a DNC fabrication regardless of subject (if I made a homemade YouTube version it would have the same non-existent legal standing), and it will accomplish nothing but for turn more voters red or Independent.

    There *have* to be woke newbies running the show, possibly (probably) in cahoots with Barack or George, because the quadrupling down has passed any sane form of Rubicon. There ain’t no winning back the people’s good will. Likely ever. And sorry, but woke radicals are wealthy and very vocal (and usually white) but very much a minority.

    The dems can spin and postpone all they like. It won’t change any of this. If their solution is to then start raiding, jailing, and shooting – it’s just more evidence their organization has spun so wildly out of control there is nothing remaining to redeem.

    1. “They aren’t in any way, shape, or form any different from the specials Geraldo did in the 80s.”

      Sure they are. As a start, the witnesses are all testifying under oath and can be charged if they make material lies in their statements.

  14. When was the last time we were able to cross-examine Turley by his addressing any of our questions?

    Are there any of his present or past students here? Does he take questions from his students in class?

        1. Bagel Boy, you wouldn’t know the truth if it poked you in the eye. I am surprised you can even spell the word without catching your screen afire. Get a life you angry little cretin!

  15. As a writer I’ve ghost-written articles in BARRON’s, Forbes, Fortune. Can a witness on J6 Committee really be a witness if there is never any cross examination? This isn’t Elizabethan England yet? It then these people are no Thomas Mores.

    1. Oh you can be a witness for sure without cross, you just can’t be a credible witness. It’d like me claiming to be flying aboard the Enola Gay on that fateful day and you not knowing I was born in the 50s.

    2. Hence the name J6 “committee”. It’s not a trial. It’s lack of “cross examination” ability rests largely with McCarthy and McConnell either sleeping on the job, or making a conscious backroom decision to let trump hang. Either way, trump’s a b hole and his own actions are what is doing the hanging.

      1. Aninny:
        More mushy thinking from ol’ Mashed Potato Head. It’s a hearing where you’re supposed to get to the truth. That means cross and opposing party examination. It’s not a “J6 committee.” It’s more like the J5 with you playing Jermaine.

        1. Even Trump is blaming McCarthy for not having put additional Republicans on the Committee. He told conservative radio host Wayne Allyn Root on Sunday that “In a way, the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. … Unfortunately, a bad decision was made. This committee, it was a bad decision not to have representation on this committee. That was a very, very foolish decision.”

          Trump eventually turns on everyone, it’s only ever a matter of time. Eastman is now in his crosshairs too …

          “With the Justice Department and Jan. 6 committee taking a close look at Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, he and his cronies could certainly use a fall guy, and it looks like they’ve found their patsy: right-wing lawyer John Eastman. Eastman worked for Trump as the attorney devised legal strategies to overturn the election to keep the outgoing president in power. But, in recent weeks, Trump has confided to those close to him that he sees no reason to publicly defend Eastman, two people familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone. The ex-president is also deeply annoyed with Eastman and all the negative “attention” and media coverage that the lawyer’s work has brought Trump and his inner sanctum, including during the ongoing Jan. 6 hearings on Capitol Hill.
          “Furthermore, to those who’ve spoken Trump about Eastman in recent months, the ex-president has repeated an excuse he often uses when backed into a corner, as investigators confront him with an associates’ misdeeds: He has privately insisted he “hardly” or “barely” knows Eastman, despite the fact that he counseled Trump on taking a string of extra-legal measures in a bid to stay in power and wrote the so-called “coup memo,” which laid out the facsimile of a legal argument for reversing Trump’s election defeat. …”

          May Eastman return the favor and turn on Trump. Ditto for Pence.

          1. You seem to think that Trump is some God to those on the right.

            I am not a big McCarthy fan. But the Republican decisions regarding the J6 committee were correct.

            The house refused to follow its own rules. Republicans were right to deny the committee legitimacy.

            Trump is incorrect on this point.

            Trump has been incredibly loyal to those who were loyal to him.

              1. I did not infer anything

                I stated it outright.

                Most of my responses to you are of the form

                “here are the facts, these do not support your conclusions”.

                There is no inference, not implication.

                All you are doing is demonstrating your own problems.

                You can make your arguments however you wish – if they are so unclear as to require people to infer or imply – that is your problem.

                And when you make claims about inferences and implications – when statements are clear and direct – you just look foolish.

                With few exceptions I do not presume you infer or imply anything. Nor do I infer or imply things.

                I deal with what you actually say.
                And I say what I mean directly without infering or implying/.

                1. John thinks because he said something it’s not an inference. This made me laugh uncontrollably for a moment.

                  1. Pretty much all versions of infer are indirect logic. Stating something directly is NOT inferring.

                    Your use of inference implies slight of hand. There are no slights of hand in open blunt speech.

                    I very rarely use inference, implication or other forms of logic that require significant thought when dealing with leftists – not because they are not valid, but because your not capable of logical analysis that inference requires.

                    This is a stupid argument on your part.

              2. One can usually tell left wing nuts, but the extent to whcih they avoid dealing with arguments directly,
                and either engage in assortment of falacies like straw men or ad hominem, or they argue about arguing or other things unrelated to the topic at hand.

    3. This is not a trial. A witness is simply a witness. It is not defined by a need to cross examine. A car crash can have multiple witnesses. Obviously none are required to be cross examined so based on your logic they cannot be witnesses. Makes no sense.

  16. Politics is politics ain’t it, Turley?

    Here’s the thing…, Mueller did find obstruction by trump and detailed out various instances of it in the report that Barr squashed (and that you’ve long maintained absolved trump from his — clear — partnership with Russian intelligence in gaining an electoral college TKO in 2016).

    Things are relative in Washington, as we know. Obviously, Kinzinger is reflecting on the wildly functional by comparison DOJ under Obama than the complete chaos of the multiple AG’d trump first term. I mean, my god, comparing the two is like comparing EMILY IN PARIS and BREAKING BAD.

    Attempt to dirty up Kinzinger aside, Jon (I know it’s your assignment for today), the hearing I’m looking forward to, and I hope they do it, is the one that ventures into what would’ve happened if trump got away with overthrowing the leadership of DOJ and ran it himself. And what would’ve happened if his encouragement of the 1/6 riot worked and became fully insurrectional. And what would’ve happened if trump’s illegal elector scam worked. This is the part of the trump’s scam he never really thought through…, and I’m curious if in backroom R legal circles you put your two cents in?

    My guess is the Pentagon would’ve had no choice to move on an occupied Capitol, picking off MAGATS one by one as they tried to escape the building. Trump would’ve been flown immediately to Mar a Lago, thrown in a gold plated bath tub and had a live toaster thrown in the water with him. immediate martial law with the Pentagon tasked with determining the date for the inauguration….

    The country would’ve been forever changed. Hell, it already was.

    1. So grateful for your post and the reminder that the Left consists of nothing but delusional lunatics.

      1. I know right? Why can’t we just accept that invading and s&*t fingering the Capitol is standard political discourse???

        1. Ask Wisconsin. They were insurrected a few days back….Those insurrectionists are running free…as usual. They have a D after their name. Rules for thee, but none for me.

      1. No, the Constitution doesn’t say that. Glad I got you before the liquor has its way with you.

        1. The President is in command of the the enitre Executive Branch. So so yes. The constitution lays it out clearly. Even if I was drunk, I’ll sober up. You on the other hand, Stupid is forever.

          1. The fact you can’t see the difference between putting forth a nominee for AG and ‘controlling’ the entire DOJ is a rather spectacular accident of faulty interpretation of the Constitution. I’ve come to expect it of you though.

    2. “My guess is the Pentagon would’ve had no choice to move on an occupied Capitol, picking off MAGATS one by one as they tried to escape the building.”

      UNDER WHO’S orders? Since the military is barred from military action against citizens,

      Your constitutional knowledge is abysmal.

      1. Pence, you moron.

        He was in charge on the 6th. Well documented. After trump incited the crowd he just went straight to dereliction of duty.

        1. Pence was never the President.

          Try to learn something about the constitution. Its getting boring exposing your ignorance.

          1. Might help you to realize much that occurred in the trump administration wasn’t constitutional….

            Count me as impressed with your staggering amount of delusion re the executive branch relationship to DOJ.

            And I don’t care in the least bit about how entertained you are. If I did I’d send you a coloring book.



    “The House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot is an equally impressive effort to painstakingly debunk election fraud claims and to show how former President Donald Trump refused to accept his electoral defeat.”


    “The hearings have created a lasting, damning record leading up to Jan. 6. Yet, some members of the select committee have claimed they have established clear evidence of criminal acts by Trump. It has to be more than Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-Wyo.) insistence that the evidence would show Trump was not “an honorable man” on Jan. 6 — an assertion that even some Trump supporters might endorse.”


    “The fact is that this evidence is important for Americans to hear and see.”


    “However, the evidence presented does undermine Trump’s claim that he truly believed that the election was stolen when he pressured state and federal officials to block certification of the election.”


    “Hearing an account of Trump lawyer John Eastman tell the Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers to “just do it” in scrapping the state’s slate of electors was cringeworthy.”


    “The committee has established that Trump was told by his attorney general, White House counsel, and a host of Justice Department and White House lawyers that there was no good-faith legal basis to challenge the election’s certification or a factual basis to support the alleged widespread electoral fraud.”


    “Trump’s delay in calling for supporters to go home was denounced by many that day; some of us objected to Trump’s speech as he was giving it and later criticized his recklessness. Making a case for condemnation is easier than making a case for criminalization of speech.”


    “Trump may have been delusional or dishonest in siding with one team over the other. The committee has portrayed “Team Crazy” as a clown parade — but a clown parade does not make a criminal conspiracy. For a strong federal case, the charge would have to be based on proof that Trump believed these legal and factual claims were meritless. Not probably meritless but entirely, knowingly meritless.”


    “The select committee may still have the smoking-gun evidence of a criminal conspiracy. However, if the committee hopes to do more than declare Trump a modern-day Secundinus, it still has to prove that he is a criminal.”

    A jury does not need “smoking gun” evidence. Just evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew that he was lying that the election was stolen.

    Turley believes Trump is a jerk. Do you Trumpists share his opinion? Let’s hear from you….

    1. “A jury does not need “smoking gun” evidence. Just evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew that he was lying that the election was stolen.

      Turley believes Trump is a jerk. Do you Trumpists share his opinion? Let’s hear from you….“
      You’d better light a candle at the coven tonight that we don’t start jailing people for lying, and while we have a true penchant for discerning jerks, most of us don’t regard Trump as one, But hey, think a little closer to home to find one you likely don’t yet recognize. An annoying lack of self-awareness is part of the malady.

      1. Actually, everyone thinks trump is a jerk. And he clearly is one. New York knew he was a jerk in the ’80’s. Trump couldn’t have won a seat in city government, let alone the job of mayor…

        Thing is, more accurately, there are people who like trump’s jerk-ness, and there are people who despise it. Those who like it admire his ability to vocalize their own prejudices and get away with it. Those who like it also have *never* done any personal business with trump, because he steals from everyone. That’s an easier trait to admire from a distance than from up close.

        But as the saying goes about trump, to know him is to hate him.

        1. Well if a guy is hated and gets 70 million votes and you can’t muster enough interest to get folks to hold a bake sale for you, how should we analyze your reputation?

          1. It’s up to you…

            We can analyze trump’s 70 million votes as being on the losing end of the second popular vote in a row he lost, however.

        2. Weird…how the richest…including the Clintons DID BUSINESS with Trump!
          Trump name is highly regarded in the real estate!
          You just HATE republicans and people like love America.
          You being a DEMOCRAT…HATE America…are pro-illegall, pro-crime, pro-drugs, pro-corruption!

        3. Your grammar is embarrassingly horrific. It is no wonder you type ‘anonymously’…..being just another hateful little Blue pill sheep.

          1. Does embarrassingly horrific qualify as appropriate use of an adjective? Is horrific ever not embarrassing? If so, how?

        4. “Those who like it also have *never* done any personal business with trump, because he steals from everyone.”

          I love it when people who have absolutely no knowledge make such stupid comments. I actually know people that have dealt with him. They would deal with him again and they have. A man that relies on the capital of others doesn’t get that capital if they believe they are going to lose money. His deals are enforced with contracts. Contract disputes unable to be settled, go to court and the courts decide what the contract says. All you are doing is proving you have no abilities in the world of business and finance.

          1. As I’ve mentioned on this blog many times, I subcontracted for someone who was ripped off by trump, when trump violated their negotiated agreement. This translated into my not being paid.

            As far as what you love, I would’ve guessed something like cheap frozen pizza.

            1. I had the same experience but later on I realized that the one who complained about Trump ripped me off. Not only did I have to pay him, but I had to pay a lot to get rid of what he did and then I had to pay to get it right.

              That you can’t handle your own business affairs is your problem. His contract with Trump was his, not yours. Take him to court. He is the cheat because he cheated you.

              1. I’m not complaining about my personal circumstances and I’ve not given you enough specific detail for you to comment one way or another without sounding foolish. But I know this is standard fare for you.

                Just highlighting standard trump practice.

      2. Mespo,

        Trump will not be convicted for lying in public, but knowing that he was lying constitutes the mens rea which is an element of crime.

        I did not expect you dead-enders to agree with Turley’s opinion that Trump is a jerk. Only NeverTrumpers believe he is. Trumpists will end up just like Birthers- laughingstocks!

        1. JS:
          Get a Black’s Law dictionary and learn the difference between “fact” and “opinion” in the context of a fraud charge. Hope you aren’t representing clients. Hope you are prosecuting.

    2. He can be. But I’ll take a generally competent leader who is occasionally a jerk over a senile boob who was incompetent even before the onset of his mental incapacity.

      1. Mespo- not a jerk
        Kremer- jerk

        It’s a tie in early voting. The polls are open all day…

          1. I don’t know if you are a jerk. I’ve never met you. But you a lying Trumpist.

            1. Jeff, if you and Mespo get into court, the judge will decide incompetent representation and order you to replace yourself with a real lawyer. Do you not notice that Mespo is consistent and always has legal logic supporting him? One doesn’t have to agree with his conclusions, but one has to recognize his logic. Why don’t you learn from him? You are giving lawyers a bad reputation.

    3. That’s exactly right. Turley loves to set up the highest possible bar for evidence of criminality and culpability in terms of absolute unquestionable evidence in order to charge Trump. However he lowers the bar considerably when it comes to liberals or democrats, showing his bias.

      What Turley conveniently leaves out is that the majority of the testimony and evidence is coming from republicans from Trump’s administration. Michael Sussman was charged with a crime with far less evidence than Turley claims is needed to charge Trump. Durham only had conspiracy theories to rely on not hardcore evidence that Turley contends should be applied to Trump.

      Turley defends Trump by setting impossibly high standards of evidence when the law only requires reasonable doubt.

      1. Svelaz,

        You are correct. There is a damning admission when Trump said to DOJ officials:

        “just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

        That IS a smoking gun.

        Will Turley acknowledge it?

        1. Maybe. But he’ll long be in retirement when he does. Turley is not the ‘admit when i’m wrong’ kind of guy. We see him play out his personal grudges on this blog everyday. Not symptomatic of being a mea culpa sort.

          1. Yes, it’s true. You do get a sense that Turley has some old scores he wants to settle. Turley is not likely to admit he was wrong because he always maintains plausible deniability. He straddles the fence of both sides. He is with the Democrats that Trump’s conduct theoretically could subject him to prosecution, but he is with the Republicans that the facts have yet to prove him a criminal.

      1. Unlike you, I share Turley’s opinion that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer” whose “reckless” 1/6 speech caused his Trumpists to storm the Capitol amounting to a “desecration of our democracy” which deserved his Congressional censure.

        You are violently opposed to all of those “retarded” statements by Turley though you don’t say it out loud because you won’t give me the satisfaction of a display of your disgust in Turley.

    4. A long list of quotes that flies in the face of the facts,

      What actually occured at the hearings.

      The law, the constitution

      and the oppinions of the majority of americans.

      I am happy that you want to own the J6 hearings.

      While I argue some of the idiotic claims, and most of your quotes as obviously idiotic and stupid.

      The J6 hearings did not debunk anything – by their failure to address the elephant in the room them made the claims stronger.

      They were a big failure – Only true beleivers were impressed.

      I watched some analysis by a leading democrat who while wrong about myriads of facts, made one excellent point.

      The hearings accomplished NOTHING for democrats. they did not change votes. they were a colosal waste of time, and what little political capital the democrats have left.

      Worse still they empowered republicans – both as voters and as legislators come next year.

      1. John Say says:

        “While I argue some of the idiotic claims, and most of your quotes as obviously idiotic and stupid.”

        You DO realize that these are Turley’s quotations, NOT mine, you moron.

        1. JS – Yes you idiotically quote Turley out of context and attempt to create far more meaning than the quotes will bear.

          I am not accusinjg Turley of being idiotic.

          I am accusing you of quoting idiotically.

          But then READING is not your forte either.

          Nor was I specifically refering to just you quotes of Turley. You quote lots of people out of context and attempt to attach more significance than the quote will support.

          The very fact that so much of your arguments devolve to “someone said”.

          Should alone demonstrate how bankrupt your arguments are.

          Turley or anyone calling someone else a name is inconsequential.

          1. Side topic here, not reflecting on what Jeff has said, but rather on pointing out that the absolute king of tactically using the ‘someone said’ trope to lend credence to their speculative ventures…, that person is trumpy bear.

            1. Examples ?

              Trump is pretty specific in his attacks.

              I would further note that a giant gulf between making an argument rooted in ambiguous references and attacking an argument on the same basis.

              Generally sources matter alot when making an argument- because most arguments fail if even a single valid datum contradict the argument.

              While sources matter alot less when attacking an argument as AGAIN even one single valid datum that contradicts the argument falsifies most arguments.

    5. Turley is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. No one needs you to tell us what he thinks.

      As to whether Trump is a jerk or not – what relevance has that ?

      I think McConnel, Schumer, Durbin, Pelosi, Graham, and Harris are jerks and Biden is a moron.

      Does that magially remove any of them from power.

      There are at most a handful of politicians I do not think are sociopaths.

      I can say lots of bad things about Trump.
      I think Trump was not a very good president.
      He was STILL the best president in the 21st century – whether he is a jerk or not does not change that.

        1. Again you can not read. I did not say Trump was or was not a jerk.

          It is pretty common for left wing nut arguments of the form “so you admit ….” to be flat out lies.

          What I said was that plenty of politicians are jerks, and that it is not relevant whether Trump was a jerk.

          The only progress we are making is backwards.

          You telling even more LIES.

          But that is not suprising.

          You constantly try to mangle Turely’s remarks – often throw away lines to keep idiots like you happy into something meaningful.

          1. John, let’s set aside the absolute hilarity of you accusing Jeff of mangling Turley’s words while simultaneously mangling Turley’s actual name…

            But your circular logic isn’t tracking, bud. By saying it’s not relevant whether ‘Trump’s a jerk’ you’re opening the door to the strong possibility that he is, or at least enough of one to require someone like you to defend him for it on some level (even if it has no bearing on politics in general). You constantly back yourself into corners like this and then huff and puff with super long posts that never stay on point.

            1. The circular logic is not your.

              Saying something is irrelevant means EXACTLY that.

              It does NOT make your efforts to read my mind any less stupid.
              It does NOT allow you to conclude that I have taken a side on something I have said is irrelevant.

              Trying to argue from a correct assertion of irrelevance to support for EITHER position – is deliberate misrepresentation – Lying.

              Whether I think Trump is a jerk or not – it is a LIE for you to claim I accept that Trump is a jerk. Claiming to know what you know you do not know is LYING.

              This is common to YOUR and other leftists arguments – LYING.

            2. Once upon a time the ACLU defended the first amendment rights of nazis, the KKK, communists. That does not make them Nazi sympathizers or white supremacists.

              Defending anyone or any groups against false attacks or against efforts to abridge their rights says NOTHING beyond my support of RIGHTS.

              I defend Trump and others against idiotic attacks against their rights. On occasion I defend Democrats or the left.
              Hillary Clinton was as constitutionally entitled to challenge the 2016 election as Trump was the 2020 one.
              There is no doubt at all that Clinton was entirely wrong in her claims – she was STILL entitled to claim the election was stolen.
              Even her manufactured Hoax’s while morally repugnant are both legal and constitutional.
              The line between bad politics and crime was crossed when these hoaxes were brought to the FBI/DOJ as crimes and when an fraudulent investigation in violation of the constitution resulted and continued for years.

              Clinton was free to attempt to get electors to flip their votes, or to get congressmen to object to slates of electors, she was free to do everything that she did to “overturn” the election – just as Trump was.

              The least rights we allow our enemies are the most rights we have ourselves.

              A position on RIGHTS is not a position pro or con on the merits of the exercise of those rights.
              I fully support your constitutional right to buy Heroin, overdose and die – even though that is an incredibly stupid thing for you to do.

              Saying something is irrelevant is NOT a position on the issue, it is NOT an implied position on the issue. Even if you accidentally guess right – you are still LYING. Claiming to know something you do not is a lie whether you are right or wrong.

              Abridging the rights of another is evil whether that person is good or bad.

              Claiming that you know where someone advocating for the free excercise of rights stands on the use of those rights is ERROR, it is a LIE.

            3. You have an odd concept of “backing into corners” or “circular logic”.

              Do you understand what “irrelevant” means ? It is an assertion that you are WRONG – regardless. That puts a spotlight on the fact that YOU are in a corner and the walls are closing in.

              It should be self evident at this point that Trump was a far better president that Biden. That is an overall assessment based on the positive and negative effects on the country.

              The result is that Whatever Trump’s many flaws – whether he was a jerk or not, and whatever Biden’s merits – and there are a few, OVERALL Trump was still far better for the country than Biden.

              I watch movies made by actors whose lives and politics are revolting and shallow. They are STILL great actors even if they are abominable human beings.

              Your are cornered – not I.

  18. My first instinct is to say that Dems are hypocrites (absolutely true), but perhaps more accurate to say that politicians are hypocrites.

    Americans (for the most part) are not well served by their politicians.

    1. Funny, my first instinct is to say Kinzinger is a beta male with an accomplished sense of irony wrought by his own woke stupidity but “hypocrite” works, too. Along with imbecile, clown, buffoon, charlatan, pawn, numbskull, fool, lily-livered, coward, toad, rapscallion, scoundrel, fustilarian, and, my favorite, a stable boy with a penchant for the equine caboose.

      1. Mespo in classic projection. Behold the beta male lard ass internet addict, in his 60s no less.

        “Funny, my first instinct is to say Kinzinger is a beta male with an accomplished sense of irony wrought by his own woke stupidity but “hypocrite” works, too. Along with imbecile, clown, buffoon, charlatan, pawn, numbskull, fool, lily-livered, coward, toad, rapscallion, scoundrel, fustilarian, and, my favorite, a stable boy with a penchant for the equine caboose.”

        Then there are alpha male heroes

        First Lt. Adam Kinzinger, 30, officer in the Air National Guard, was enjoying a night on the town in Milwaukee in May of 2007 when he saw before him a woman clutching her neck and bleeding profusely, a man with a knife standing behind her. Acting quickly, Lt. Kinzinger subdued the man and stopped any further harm from coming to the unknown woman.

        Others also came to his aid to keep the attacker subdued and still others whisked the injured woman off to a local hospital for treatment. It is reported to have taken about 100 stitches to close the wound. The attacker is in jail awaiting trial for the assault. Immediately after the incident, Lt. Kinzinger was off to Iraq to serve his country, not to meet the woman whose life he saved until much later. In the meantime, Lt. Kinzinger won the Valley Forge Cross for Heroism for his service in Iraq among other accolades.

        Then came the day when he finally met the woman he so selflessly helped on that night in Milwaukee.

        Adam Kinzinger was elected to the McLean County Board as a Sophomore at Illinois State University in 1998 beating a 12 year incumbent Democrat. He was re-elected four years later. Shortly after 9-11 he decided to join the Air Force. Since then he has completed Pilot training and participated in missions to Afghanistan and Iraq numerous times. When he has not been deployed overseas he has flown missions on our Southern borders in the War on Drugs. As of February 16th, 2009 Adam has returned to Iraq for another mission that will last till early May. Upon his return he will be hitting the trail, as a near full time candidate. He will retain his Air Force Reserve Status and if elected will be part of only a handful of Representatives in Washington DC that serve as Reservists.

        1. Aninny:

          And Benedict Arnold commanded an army in the field. He was a putz, too. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. You really oughta get off this hero worship of your Leftist “gods.” Kinzinger is everything you don’t want your kids to grow up to be.

          1. Oh Mespo, Kinzinger is a balls king. You’re a bitter keyboard jockey who’s become enamored of the alt right’s ‘shock jock’ way of popping off on the internet. If you were true to your values you would’ve hopped those bike racks, fought with cops and s^&t fingered the Capitol like your daydreams would have you do.

  19. Kinizinger is a FOOL, he is always crying, he is out come Jan. Holder was a very Political AG with a liberal and Political Agenda. Glad Kinzinger is out. He says he is running in 2024 Presidential Election, good luck.Perhaps MSNBC will hire him as a former Republican????

Leave a Reply