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. Obviously the Deep state has some blackmail material on Kinzinger probably some pedophile info that seems to be the norm nowadays in congress.

  2. It is perhaps fortunate that these politicians only have two sides to their mouths out of which to speak.

    1. Olde Edo, I don’t think that the stuff coming out of them is from their mouth. It’s coming from their other side.

  3. “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.”

    Very odd. I wonder whether neuroweapon drugs, bugs, or devices are involved in this perplexing disconnect.

    1. And then there was the criminally-insane AG, Merrick Garland, who has overtly weaponized the DOJ against the nation’s own citizenry.

  4. An interesting video @10:30 the description of the death of Rosanne Boyland and other violence from those who are supposed to protect. The one of the speakers is holding her hand while she died. This man has been placed in solitary confinement. 15 other J6 that were at that spot have been in solitary confinement.

    https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html

  5. THE CURE THAT IS THE CURSE

    How and why was Roe hysterically, incoherently and wrongly implemented?

    Answer: The 19th Amendment.

    Now you know why the American Founders and Framers did not allow women to vote.

    From whence discipline, nay, anarchy comes?
    ____________________________________

    Hysteria and incoherence resulted in the deliberate nullification of the Constitution, sins against the Ten Commandments and egregious violations of basic human rationality and decency.

    – There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

    – Abortion must be legislated to be legal or illegal by Congress and/or State Legislatures.

    Hysteria and incoherence resulted in sins against the Ten Commandments.

    – Thou Shalt Not Kill

    – Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery
    ___________________________

    Hysteria and incoherence resulted in a vanishing nation.

    – The American Founders understood that women become pregnant, give birth to children, make Americans and populate the country.

    – The American population is declining; it is down to 61.6% of the people in the United States.

    – Foreigners breach its borders and occupy America.
    __________________________________________

    Women have “choice”: The choice to stay home and safe, the choice to employ prophylactics, and the choice to not engage in sexual intercourse.

    Women don’t like the choices that God or nature gave them, so they lash out hysterically and incoherently against their own existence and raison d’etre.

  6. Eric Holder, in his university days, was a black-power activist. During those years, Eric learned very well the tools of obstruction, destruction, and the ‘art’ of convincing others to follow his lead. It is beyond curious how Kinzinger would have ‘forgotten’ what Holder was guilty of doing 10+ years ago and Kinzinger’s own response to it, both out loud and in print. It appears that cognitive dissonance isn’t just a Joe Biden problem – much younger Adam K. suffers as well. Unless of course Adam threw Holder’s name out there on purpose, for reasons yet to be revealed?

    1. Adam Kinzinger mockingly doubles down on his fraudulence. He is farther to the Left than most leftists. For his next stunt, he will be extolling the moral virtuousness of Hunter Biden.

    2. Holder, like Bathhouse Barry and the Hildebeast are acolytes of the demonic Saul Alinsky.

        1. Just because you’re too lazy and brainwashed to watch the hearings doesn’t mean anyone cares what you have to say.

  7. Oh we got them there bleeding hearts posting all over this blog. None of the bleeding hearts mention the 2000 guns that were given to the cartels by the Obama Administration. They obviously haven’t taken the time to think what these guns were and still are used for by the Mexican gangsters. There is far more logic to the thought that Obama and Holder were complicit in the act of murder rather than Trump. We know that the guns handed over to the cartels by Obama and Holder are used for the killing of people. Please spare me the fake concern by the Jan 6 committee. Pelosi was informed of the danger but she and the FBI plants wanted a riot to happen as a final attempt to get rid of Trump and to stay in power. There is blood in both the Mexican and American soil due to Obama and Holder and the Jan 6 committee drones on and on. Could it be possible that some of these guns are being used on the streets of Chicago today? Yet the tears continue to fall from the disingenuous bleeding hearts.

  8. OT

    “RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD”

    The Supreme Court decided that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional.

    Now the Supreme Court must find that secession was and is fully constitutional, and that Karl Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” were and are unconstitutional.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Karl Marx congratulated and commended Abraham Lincoln, as “…an earnest of the epoch to come…,” for his leadership “…through the matchless struggle…” toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”

    – Karl Marx, Letter to Abraham Lincoln – https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    “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

    1. You oppose Roe, and you also oppose WIC. You’re totally fine with pregnant women, infants and toddlers being malnourished.
      You’re a disgusting person.

        1. We need to know our enemies, so yes, I read a sampling of your comments (no need to read most, because you copy yourself all the time).

      1. Indeed, Americans are malnourished— intellectually, morally, and literally. Hey, by the way, where is my baby formula? ‘Juck Foe’, square in the booty….and you too, Blue Anon.

  9. Mespo has no credibility. It would be irrational to pay any attention to someone with no credibility.

    1. Anomaly,

      “Mespo has no credibility. It would be irrational to pay any attention to someone with no credibility.”

      Says the anonymous idiot with a bag on his head.

    2. Mespo is a premier legal intellect and philosopher.

      Read.

      Learn.

      That’s what your superiors are there for, a-ninny-mouse.

      1. He’s an “oh so principled and courageous,” self-serving (not a constituent-serving), RINO Dem. Good riddance.

      2. This is where you and quite a few others miss the boat. Who cares about party? We should care about policy and how it affects the people and the economy.

  10. You’d think Turley might care about Trump’s behavior, trying to weaponize the Justice Department, subvert the rule of law. Have them announce false findings of fraud for which they have no evidence, instead he attacks those bringing out the evidence and past administrations. Why?

    1. I believe Turley is obligated to write such columns. He’s a Fox News analyst and these columns are essentially applications for an invitation to speak at Fox News shows where he makes money. They pay only when he “contributes” in a show.

      He’s not going to dive into the obvious implications of what the evidence really means. He’s only pandering to his trump base which is what sustains his blog and his ability to make a nice chunk of money.

      I’m willing to bet there is a non-disparagement clause in his contract.

      1. “I’m willing to bet there is a non-disparagement clause in his contract.”

        I don’t think Fox would put that in writing, but their paid performers know what’s expected of them. If he agrees that Clark is part of a conspiracy, I wonder how he’ll promote that Trump knew nothing about it?

      2. He’s made a choice, even if it was a choice to sign a contract that no one forced him to sign. Calling it an obligation removes his role in the choice.

        1. He’s made a choice, even if it was a choice to sign a contract that no one forced him to sign. Calling it an obligation removes his role in the choice.
          Nothing about the subject of the post.

          All you do change the topic.

          Lefitst have lost any reasonable rebuttal to the days current events. All of your posts are undisputable evidence.

    2. “Why?”

      Rule of law.

      “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.”

      1. Most people see the Biden DOJ doing relatively little until the Committee forced it’s hand by publicly exposing behavior the DOJ was ignoring. Clark’s home should have been raided a year ago.

        Do you have no opinion on Trump trying to get the DOJ to announce fraud without evidence?

        1. “Do you have no opinion on Trump trying to get the DOJ to announce fraud without evidence?”
          ***********************
          No that was the stupid act of a non-lawyer. There’s lots of those around. See the commentary section here with charges of everything from sedition to buggery.

          1. Last questions I promise. Do you have an opinion on the lawyers trying to substitute fake electors or the 5 Congressmen (some of them lawyers) who have asked for pardons?

            1. enigma:

              I think that’s speculative but certainly asking for pardons for uncharged crimes raises some suspicions. it could be an admission of guilt or fear over the partisan nature of recent FBI investigations. Don’t know enough yet.

                1. enigma:

                  You will never find me excluding new, credible evidence from any conversation. I notice you entertain it too in your commentary and it’s why I enjoy our conversations and try to respond as often as I can.

          2. “the stupid act of a non-lawyer …” who happened to be President and who had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.

            Don’t pretend that his role is anything like that of people who post in “the commentary section here.”

        1. Why be insulting to a person you don’t know? I just went through the fact that Barr didn’t get the data right and if he didn’t get the data right he has an agenda. If he has an agenda, he likely is spinning. If he is spinning you can’t trust what he says. Had there been someone on the other side at the Jan6 committee to question him he likely wouldn’t have said things that weren’t true or they likely could have made him look like a fool.

          Compare the data Barr provided and look at the movie and see why the movie spent so much time explaining some of the data.
          Barr perverted the data.

          If Ann Coulter had something to say about the data provide the site. She went off the rails a few years ago. The last time I saw her she wasn’t the same Ann Coulter. That being said, since you are dependent on y=her view you should read some of her earlier books.

          https://odysee.com/2000mules:c

          1. “Why be insulting to a person you don’t know? I just went through the fact that Barr didn’t get the data right and if he didn’t get the data right he has an agenda. If he has an agenda, he likely is spinning. If he is spinning you can’t trust what he says. Had there been someone on the other side at the Jan6 committee to question him he likely wouldn’t have said things that weren’t true or they likely could have made him look like a fool.”

            You believed everything Barr said about the Mueller Report, despite what it actually said. How do you pick and choose. Barr investigated every report about fraud sent to the Justice Dept and found them all wrong.
            As far as there being no one on the other side? You mean nobody that will act strictly in a partisan manner without regard to the facts. Why is it there aren’t more than two Republicans? It’s because Republicans in the House and Senate refused to participate in a more bipartisan process. They don’t want to know anything about Jan. 6th. Senator Ron Johnson was part of a plan to hand-deliver fake electors to Pence. Five Congressmen asked Trump for pardons. You say nothing to see there?

            1. “You believed everything Barr said about the Mueller Report”

              Enigma, I believed what Barr said about the Mueller Report when it matched what the Mueller Report said. In the present case, Barr presented data from 2000 Mules that was wrong. Am I supposed to agree with Barr when the documentary clearly discussed those numbers and why the number 10 drops was meaningful and not 5? Barr chose 5 drops instead of the 10. Barr talked about trucks could go near the drop boxes 10 times in one night. Since the tracking is quite sensitive and since trucks don’t drive on sidewalks, Barr was spinning.

              “Jan. 6th. Senator Ron Johnson was part of a plan to hand-deliver fake electors to Pence.”

              This has already been debunked yesterday where I provided a link that provided the actual details and links to material proof.

              “Five Congressmen asked Trump for pardons. You say nothing to see there?”

              Mespo answered that question. I am not sure of the request or the context. You can provide it if you have it.

              I have had two important cases that were federal. Except for an initial consult with lawyers I managed them on my own. One involved a lot of money and the other involved a law. The monetary case took a total of 5 years, with a settlement after the second year and a retraction by the government less than a year later. That retraction was totally illegal. In the end I won 100% except I was forced to pay a few dollars amounting to less than 0.1% of the claim. In that fashion the government could say they prevailed. A few years later a wider action on this issue was brought to court and the feds lost. Had they had to live under that decision they would have paid me a lot of money (having nothing to do with the second bite of the apple.). On the second issue I won 100% as well. I was carved out of all other cases with similar issues for the win. I learned from these two cases how dishonest the government could be and how much money, time and resources they would spend going after innocent people. They reinforced the need to do everything in writing and get guarantees. If I had worked for Trump and knew I was absolutely innocent of everything and had good documentation, I might have felt the need to ask for a pardon as well.

              You seem to think it is fine for government to abuse the individual, but you refuse to see how government abused blacks in the south and elsewhere. Look at how President Wilson and icon of the Progressives abused blacks and others. You should have faith in yourself as an individual and you should be free from government laws meant to abuse you. You should also have the ability to have a gun to protect yourself especially in the post reconstruction years when government and racists colluded.

              You seem to think I am your enemy. I am not. I am actually your best friend. The problem is I deal with facts and I deal with the present and the future.

              The below site can be used to see what was said and where Barr was not truthful.
              https://odysee.com/2000mules:c

              1. “You seem to think it is fine for government to abuse the individual, but you refuse to see how government abused blacks in the south and elsewhere. ”

                Every time you try to tell me what I think you’re dead wrong. Who here thinks I don’t see government abuse of Black people throughout history, whether by Democrats or Republicans? If anything I shout it to the rooftops while many deny it because it doesn’t meet their image of their country or heroes. I have been critical of things done by Biden, Hillary, and Obama, lest you think I am only talking about the past. Your need to dispute everything I say leads you to contradict yourself beyond comprehension.

                1. “Every time you try to tell me what I think you’re dead wrong.”

                  Then you need to change what you write.

                  “If anything I shout it to the rooftops “

                  Then shout it louder in a more productive manner. Jefferson is dead as are the slaves he slept with and their offspring. Let’s look at the people alive today and their future offspring. Let’s focus on what we can do, not on what we can’t. Let’s not deal with the same things that repeatedly fail. Let’s focus on policy and how we can be consistent and make things better.

                  “Your need to dispute everything I say leads you to contradict yourself beyond comprehension.”

                  Then it should be very easy for you to point out those contradictions when they occur.

                2. Enigma, I don’t want to read more into what you write than you do, so I wish to clarify and make sure that your absence of a response doesn’t add meaning to what you said before.

                  1)Barr: Do you recognize that he changed the data? Do you recognize why?

                  2)Do you recognize that Jan 6 may have falsely accused Senator Ron Johnson especially since there is evidence in Johnson’s favor that was not presented at the hearing? Do you realize a mistruth can last forever?

                  3)Do you understand why some might ask for pardons when they know they aren’t guilty of anything?

                  4)Do you agree that as a black man or any man you should have the right to have a gun for protection?

                  I want you treated as an individual American citizen, and I want your individual rights to include protecting yourself.

                    1. “My absense of a response means you were too ignorant to dignify your questions. “

                      That is why I am left using what you write to determine what you are saying. You create the problem. You called me ignorant when I told you there was a source and that included actual texts and messages. I am dealing with fact. You are dealing with half information that leads to opinion that is wrong. Here is an example. You are to blame for the ill-will.

                      Ron Johnson: “Jan. 6 panel’s Ron Johnson narrative exposes ills of one-sided hearing”

                      “In reality, according to the full slate of text messages and interviews with people involved, the truth is far different.” “Johnson never handed any such alternate electors’ slate to Pence.” “Pence’s staff already knew about the alternate electors before Johnson’s”

                      “That’s where the committee’s media narrative ended. Except there was much more.” I quote this because the text messages are included in the report.

                      “A few minutes later, the senator texted back Troupis, stating he was not going to deliver any such package.” (the electors which is unknown to Johnson)

                      https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/Riley-HodgsonTexts1-6-21.pdf (original messages)

                      In the report he states other situations where Jan 6 provided the wrong information on other people

                      You can read all about this below.

                      https://justthenews.com/government/jan-6-panels-ron-johnson-narrative-exposes-ills-one-sided-hearing?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

                    2. I did read your “proof” which was as laughable as yourself. I said Johnson was part of a plan to give Pence documents. That he didn’t, after Pence’s staff said, they wouldn’t accept them is meaningless. Also, the fake electors had already been received by the National Archives which is protocol so the article lied about them not being received.

                    3. I’ll accept that you had no ill will toward Ron johnson, but Jan 6 impugned his character and lied about what he did. What about the other opportunities the Jan 6 committee take to impugn the character of many people. That’s mentioned in the article, but you say nothing.

                      On the other hand you think Jan6 is swell.

                      What am I to think? I have to believe that you believe what Jan6 is spinning. That makes you wrong since there is proof that the spin is inaccurate due to mistruths or lack of completeness.

                      Ron Johnson did not send a message to Pence having to do with the electors.

                      “That he didn’t, after Pence’s staff said, they wouldn’t accept them is meaningless.”

                      You have the facts wrong again and indirectly again try to impugn Johnson’s character.

                      You used the word, laughable, to insult. I didn’t insult you. I provided facts, texts and other things. That is known as data. You are providing spin.

                      Let’s skip the nasty rhetoric and deal with facts.

                    4. You still seem to think this is somehow meaningful.

                      It is not. Had Johnson gone forward with this, had Pence put forward the electors – congress still would have had to vote for them.

                      Nor are the “fake”. The constitution requires electors as selected by state legislators.

                      And AGAIN as you keep ignoring in the Tilden/Harris election congress actually chose Harris slates over Tilden slates as a result of claims of fraud.

                      This was a desperate hail Mary by Trump, it stood zero chance of happening. but it is still perfectly legal and constitutional.

                      And this is a huge part of why democrats are not trusted.

                      Clinton did very nearly the same thing – Many of us were shocked. no one ranted this was criminal. There were no congressional hearings.

                    5. “This was a desperate hail Mary by Trump, it stood zero chance of happening. but it is still perfectly legal and constitutional.”

                      How many people involved asked for pardons? Even they didn’t think so.

                    6. There was a massive effort to get a pardon for Julian Asange in late 2020 and early 2021.

                      Yet only a moron think Asange actually committed a crime.

                      There were no such pardons granted – there did not need to be, there was no crime.

                    7. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about alternate slates of electors.

                      It has happened in the past.
                      The constitution explicitly directs the selection of electors to the state legislature – not the state as a whole, and does not say anything about people voting.

                    8. Barr: You have the video of Barr and I provided the video of 2000 Mules. Between the two anyone can see that Barr changed the data in his testimony. I have seen both, but you apparently have seen only one.

                      Who is ignorant?

                    9. Enigma, are you telling me you saw both videos and do not see the inaccuracies of what Barr said?

                      Your vague references are never clear, so don’t blame anyone for not getting what you say correctly. Don’t insult the intelligence of the people on this blog.

                      Do you see how Barr’s data on the documentary was wrong? Yes or no?

                    10. 3)Do you understand why some might ask for pardons when they know they aren’t guilty of anything?

                      4)Do you agree that as a black man or any man you should have the right to have a gun for protection?

                      What makes those questions ignorant? I explained my rational for the pardons. Do you not believe you have a right to self defense?

                    11. In other words you recognize you are wrong? Right? Something else? When I make a comment based on what previous discussion said, are you going to chastise me for saying what you didn’t say? You left it up to the reader to fill in the blanks, so don’t blame them for their words. Blame yourself.

                      Answer the question:
                      What makes those questions ignorant? I explained my rational for the pardons. Do you not believe you have a right to self defense?

                      I am supporting your rights. I am telling you that as an individual no man should be enslaved. I am telling you that you have a right to defend your person no matter what race you are. You are not taking your independence seriously and then complaining when someone abridges your rights.

                    12. Enigma, I can’t believe that you would leave black people unprotected. I am trying to understand why you say one thing when the facts say another, or why you can’t answer direct questions when those questions were part of your arguments.

                      I don’t want to have you accusing me of lying about what you said, so that when I provide proof, you have to go through the trouble of changing things you wrote while making the rewrite date earlier than the prior date. That doesn’t seem ethical especially when you are incorporating that into your argument.

                      You mentioned Patrick Henry to me. I responded and then you were quiet. I want you to know something Patrick Henry said while recognizing his own hypocrisy. Things move slow. Move too fast and they break.

                      “I believe a time will come when an opposition will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil–Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot, and an abhorrence for slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, it is the furthest advance we can make toward justice. We owe to the purity of our religion to show that it is at variance with that law which warrants slavery.”

                      There is a lot more. In matters of conscience men need to be helped to do the right thing. What you do is take arms against men facing such a matter of conscience, making it you against them. In that battle you will always lose.

                    13. You critiques are irrelevant if true.

                      They are quite literally Eastman’s plan. And they were CONSTITUTIONAL.

                      You keep putting together all this evidence of a PLOT to act in a legal and constitutional way.

                      All that does is re-enforce this is all partisan hackery.

                      Again this is very little different than what Hillary attempted in 2016 – except that Hilleries actions were more likely illegal.

                      We have had congress accept alternate slates of electors in the past.

                    14. If Turley ever directly addressesthe plan, which he probably won’t. It will be interesting to see what he says. I’ve apparently been misled by testimony from the top people at the Jiustice Department who say it isn’t. I wasn’t paying attention to who it was that told him to “get yourself a good f***ing defense lawyer.”

                      They tried alternate slates of electors in 1876 which led to a backroom deal which probably wasn’t Constitutional. Did Hillary have a plan to have Michigan electors hide overnight in the state capitol and sneak into the room electors had to submit their ballots in? Does it sound like they were following a Constitutional plan?

                      https://news.yahoo.com/insane-plan-fake-trump-electors-182909918.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

                    15. Of course what occured in 1876 was constitutional.

                      Read the constitution.

                      The entirety of presidential elections within a state is the exclusive domain of the state legislature.

                      When the election comes to congress, the constitution clearly gives congress the power to make choices.
                      Nothing in the constitution is pro forma or purely cerimonial.

                      If congress can make a decision that can make a backroom decision.
                      That is how pretty much all legislation is passed.

                      I would prefer otherwise. But the constitution leaves the rules of congress to congress.

                    16. I have no idea whether you have been mislead.

                      What I know is that absent spin the testimony does not constitute evidence of a crime or violation of the constitution.

                      All the facts alleged in the testimony I am aware of do not constitute a crime – even witnesses or congressmen say they do.

                      A crime is has occured when the facts meet all the elements of the crime – not when the witness says that a crime took place.

              2. There were 2000 trucks that were regularly following a route that went by each of 10 ballot boxes and each of 5 different 501C3’s associated witht he election night after night ?

                The tracking data is quite accurate, but even if it was not – TTV did not just spot these phones at ballot boxes and ballot stash houses.
                They TRACKED them. These people did not “pass by” ballot boxes, they traveled paths that were almost exclusively travel between ballot boxes and 501C3’s related to elections.

                In my county someone was just convicted of multiple robberies.

                The evidence – grainy video which at best has the perpitrator of the same body type – even the race is not determinable.
                And 10 bits of cell phone location data – none of which places the defendent at the crime scenes when a crime was occuring.
                And this tracking data – using cell tower triangulation not Geotracking – is +- 1000ft. In this instance the defendant LIVED within 2000ft of the place that was robbed.

                It is my guess that Barr is NOT familiar with geotracking data.

                Geo tracking data comes from places like Apple and Google – Not Cell companies.

                It is based on real time GPS reports that various apps on your phone are reporting back to the google and apply app store and possibly to the apps web site.

                What we will likely see in 2022 is that the “mules” are given directions to disable location reporting for all their apps. That would defeat what TTV did.

                I would further note that TTV’s geotracking data ONLY provides data on phones that have some apps with geotracking on AND those apps active at the time the mules were in transit.

                Law enforcement does not typically use geotracking/geofencing – though I beleive they did with J6.
                They normally use cell tower signal information – which is far far less accurate.
                But the cell tracking data is readily available to law enforcement – whether your cell phone is smart or dumb or a burner.
                Geotracking data is typically only available on smart phones with apps that are reporting geotracking.

                If you want to know how good geotracking is, use google photos to zoom in on the location that you took a picture on your cell phone and see how close that was to where you are.

                I do not know what was available to TTV, But what is available is the absolute GPS coordinates to the maximum current accuracy of GPS – which is typically +-1M today. Often enhanced by the cell phones on tower triangulation data, and even Wifi.
                Additionally it will report your elevation, your speed, and the exact direction the phone was facing.

                1. John, watching the video I posted, it is becoming more and more plausible that the Jan6 riot was precipitated by those in control of the Capital police.

                  I believe 2000 Mules was reasonably accurate and I believe that Biden lost the election.

                  The video I posted. https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html is showing bad and deadly behavior by the Capitol Police. It’s hard to see so I am waiting to go indoors and watch it on a large screen.

                  8:00 talks and shows videos of Capitol workers. They need to be interrogated.
                  10:30 starts the video of Rosanne Boyland’s death. I need a better screen to adequately evaluate what is happening.

                  The video is sickening if what I think is happening happened. When you see it, you might be better able to evaluate the video portion. This video needs to be cut and go viral.

                  1. I do not beleive there was a formal conspiracy on either side regarding J6.

                    I do beleive that lots of people on both sides acted badly.

                    And I suspect that if we were provided with all the evidence the misconduct of the FBI, the democrats leading congress, and possibly the capital police would be exposed.

                    I have little doubt that the FBI had a hand in J6th. It is bat$hit to assume that often the same agents involved in the witmer kidnapping hoax behaved differently at the capital.

                    I also strongly suspect that Qanon is either an FBI false flag, or whoever Qanon is is being fed both false and correct information by sources in the government including the FBI.

                    We know there were Antifa infiltrators.

                    We also know that Democrats chose not to accept assistance that would have allowed keeping the capital open, and instead deliberately closed it when it should not have been.

                    And there is much more – some of those on the left appear to be correct there was a Proud Boys plot – a plot to act legally or at worst to commit misdemeanor trespass.

                    There are many things that should not have happened – wndows and doors should not have been broke.
                    They also should not have been locked.

                    The capital police should had done what was necescary to permit safe protests at and in the capital.
                    Not to prevent protests.

                    1. “I do not beleive there was a formal conspiracy on either side regarding J6.”

                      John, I don’t know what you mean about formal conspiracy. I believe things were done by Pelosi or others to alter what occurred on Jan 6. The video I am looking at

                      https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html starting at 10:30

                      appears to show things not normal. I have yet to see it on my big screen so cannot make out the details.

                      Secure bomb proof doors suddenly being opened? Police opening and letting J6 into the Capitol when the doors were closed, the murder of Ashli Babbitt, the refusal of troops by Pelosi, etc. Most of all, a one-sided hearing where the person who has the most to say, Pelosi, isn’t saying. This is followed by jailing in solitary many in the vicinity of Boyland’s death.

                      Formal conspiracy, what does that mean in the context of what happened and what we see on video?

                    2. There are many many moving parts regarding J6 – and honestly little evidence of consequential coordination on either side.

                      I have no doubt that Pelosi wanted a bad outcome for Trump.

                      But trying to criminalize Pelosi or democrats for their intentions plays into the hands of the left.
                      Bad intent is not a crime. Further it is a tiny step from criminal intent to merely political intent we disagree with.

                      I have consistently attacked Locking Down the capital.

                      THAT is the “crime” or J6, That is the proximate cause of everything else that went wrong.

                      I can not fault those who for whatever reason opened parts of the capital – though I will fault the lawless prosecutors who charge tresspass when tresspass was constitutionally impossible – or worse still when they were invited in.

                      The failure of J6 was simple – it is the duty of government to allow protest – no matter what, at the capital.
                      In doing so government may act to assure that such protests are not violent and that congress is safe.
                      But that is ALWAYS the 2nd priority,

                      I do not beleive the NG was needed at J6 – I do not beleive any of the “threats” were ever beyond the capital police ability to handle.
                      If you beleive differently – fine bring in the NG.

                      But again they are there – not to prevent protests – but to assure peaceful protest.

                      It is self evident from what little video we have that protests at the capital were violent only at places where the capital was locked down, and only where the capital police were violent.

                      The capital should have been protected by a low barrier on J6 – DIRECTING people into controlled entry points where they were searched and allowed to enter the capital in controlled numbers. Had that occured there would have been no violence – the protestors themselves would have assured that.

                    3. “and honestly little evidence of consequential coordination on either side.”

                      John, the death of Ashli Babbitt appeared organized.

                      The opening of the doors and then the attack on J6 with the subsequent death of Roseanne Boyland seemed organized.

                      Many things appeared organized that were intended to get legitimate J6 persons riled up and riotous.

                      Lexington and Concord: Who fired the first shot?

                      Who was Ray Epps, and why was he stirring up the crowd? Why was he removed from the FBIs most wanted list? Why is he considere an agent of the FBI? See Revolver Magazine
                      https://www. revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected- …
                      provocateur-who-appears-to-have-
                      … led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/ (remove dots)

                      I have been involved in protests and have seen smaller groups (Marxists) stirring up riotous behavior while the acts of the leaders were to keep the peace. I have seen police battling rioters and I have seen how a change in police tactics suddenly stopped the violence. I remember one instance when the Police Department started permitting the police to have facial hair. Previous interactions led to arrests, but on this occasion, the police sent out those police with facial hair up front without shields and batons. The horses were kept back. There was no violence, and respect for law enforcement ensued. This didn’t satisfy the Marxists who tried to incite the young and stupid to attack the police so that a riot would ensue and the Stupid would get their heads broken. Good for Marxist Revolutionaries, bad for the movement.

                      After seeing this particular video, I am convinced that those in control of the police intentionally stirred up the crowd and intentionally attracted them to areas where they beat them. I have always stood up for the police where riotous behavior occurred, but in this case, I think responsibility is shared with government leaders who intentionally wanted conflict, FBI personnel who were sent to stir up the crowd and lead them across certain barricades, Leftists or Marxists who were doing what comes naturally to them and the j6 persons who though mostly peaceful had very small elements that were violent.

                      One needs to evaluate the hostilities that occurred in the western tunnel. Did the police promote the violence? I saw pictures of police beating inappropriately and some specific officers that took every chance they could to beat people or push at least one person off the second floor to the ground below (he may have been removed by ambulance). That doesn’t lead to peace. It leads to a riot. With all this, we must ask ourselves, who opened those bomb-proof doors to let people inside? Who refused to permit the National Guard troops so crowds could be controlled before getting out of hand.

                      “Bad intent is not a crime.”

                      I now believe there was not only bad intent but bad action.

                      “I do not beleive the NG was needed at J6 – I do not beleive any of the “threats” were ever beyond the capital police ability to handle.
                      If you beleive differently – fine bring in the NG.”

                      Very likely you are correct and the National Guard should not have been needed. But the National Guard might have prevented the actions of those that I believe ultimately created the problem. Was it Nancy Pelosi? I don’t know, but the fact that her communications have not been released is an indication that there was intent on her part or some type of cover-up.

                      I have been involved in enough protest action to have gotten a feel for things that you may or may not accept. Understand, I would never act violently or inappropriately toward a police officer as I respect the police as those there to keep the peace even when they have been ordered to do otherwise.

                      “It is self evident from what little video we have that protests at the capital were violent only at places where the capital was locked down, and only where the capital police were violent.”

                      That should tell you something. But you should also add the peaceful protestors were peaceful. Then, the doors were unlocked, and they entered peacefully. Then the police closed the doors and entered the tunnel in a hostile and violent (can’t tell the timing) manner. Then violence broke out, and death occurred while the police hindered rather than helped save lives.

                      ” DIRECTING people into controlled entry points where they were searched”

                      I don’t think peace is what many on the inside were looking for. We see it in how the J6 people have been handled. 15 were arrested in the immediate area of Roseanne Boyland’s murder and the ones attending to her were arrested and nearly died. The one who is said to have saved 2 lives, documented in part on camera, was jailed in multiple facilities so he couldn’t see his lawyers and was in solitary confinement as were others from the 15. This person, in particular, is the one who narrates and is part of the ‘production’ of this film.

                      See the movie, and if one wishes to save time, start at 10:30, Roseanne Boyland’s death
                      https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html

                    4. I do not agree.

                      The officer who Killed Babbit acted recklessly and endangered the lives of other officers
                      That was an individual act.
                      He had a history of recklessness.

                      The Confrontation that resulted in Boyland’s death appears similar

                      Generally the Capital police appeared to act in an UNCOORDINATED fashion.
                      The fact that at the west Tunnel they CHOSE to go to war with protestors, and that elsewhere they were letting protestors in pretty much proves a lack of top down coordination.

                      I do not think the Capital police for he most part were hostile to protestors.
                      I think that as a whole the capital police consciously or otherwise understood they did NOT have the authority to prevent protests.
                      That they could NOT lock the capital down.

                      The core problem was that from the TOP they were directed to do something that was NEVER the response to political protests in the past and therefore officers were all in unfamiliar territory and acted in an UNCOORDINATED fashion.

                      I absolutely agree that there were lots of things going on. We do not know the scale of FBI instigators, but there is little doubt they were present.
                      We do not know the scale of Antifa infiltration – but again there is no doubt it occured.
                      The proud boys did plan to occupy the capital – that is NOT a crime, but it is planned and coordinated – but NOT with all other groups and people present.

                      By NOT following “normal order” – which it managing rather than thwarting protests, the Capital police drove Anarchy – not coordination.
                      I do not beleive they did so intentionally.

                      I do beleive that those like Pelosi hoped for a bad outcome, and I think they acted to improve the odds of that, but while they directed the capital police they did not go to them and say – We want anarchy and violence, we are really hoping for a couple of dead capital police.

                      I am not disagreeing with you that there were groups – both left and right with an agenda. But neiher those on the left or those on theright had a COORDINATED agenda.

                      And that is precisely why this went off the rails.

                      I do not think the NG was needed. I think that if the Capital police had just done what they normally do and allowed CONTROLLED access to the capital during a protest those with other agenda’s would have been thwarted.

                      I would note we have seen nothing since – not because there is not still massive amounts of justified anger on the right but because the right learned alot from J6 and now they are trying to digest it an figure out how to do better in the future.

                      At the same time J6 has put them at a tremendous disadvantage.

                      If Protestors can not count on law enforcement to be there to keep order but otherwise be politically neutral – then right wing protestors MUST figure out how to keep order themselves – and that requires coordination – and the Left wing not control of DOJ has made clear that ALL right wing coordinated protests are domestic terrorism.

                      To the extent we are seeing anything “coordinated” – it is efforts by our institutions to deprive those on the right of the ability to use the same Alynskite tactics that the left has enjoyed fr decades.

                      Proud Boys are being prosecuted for “sedition” because they PLANNED to occupy the capital.
                      Mario Savio is rolling over in his grave.

                      Occupying the instutions of power is a archetypical left wing means of protest. Whether it is Occupy wall street or the administrationb building at Berkeley or the Wisconsin state capital – or apparently the AZ state capital after Dobbs.

                      Can those on the left possibly be MORE hypocritical ?

                      I think not,

                      Regardless the right will adapt. What the left had better seriously contemplate is that if it forecloses all other means of protest by the right – he result WILL be violence.

                      The upcoming election is a big deal. Much of the country knows the 2020 election was rife with Fraud – we now have proof the Georgia Senate Runnoff was a rerun of the same ballot harvesting and fraud.

                      TTV exposed massive fraud. But in doing so they put their cards on the table and the left will adapt.

                      There will most certainly be fraud in 2022. But if we see the same large scale unpunished fraud in 2022 that occurred in 2020, the probability of violence is incredibly high.

                    5. “I do not agree.”

                      John, you don’t have to. I form working conclusions that can be changed by logic and fact. There is a strong likelihood that many of the events of jan 6 were coordinated.

                      Babbitt: 1) Four or more police stood by the doors and were not in apparent trouble. Byrd was on the other side of the French doors. 2) Suddenly, they walk away in a coordinated action. 3) The next thing we see is Byrd’s arm pointing his gun at the doors without wavering and the windows being broken. That gun is pointed waiting for the deer to appear across the line. 4) That deer shot dead in cold blood is Ashli Babbitt. The shooting appeared no different than the shooting of a deer. 5) Appropriate release of the investigation and the communications surround Jan6 along with video tapes are withheld.

                      The working conclusion is that it is likely that the events were coordinated. If they weren’t they need to prove it by releasing all the information.

                      “The Confrontation that resulted in Boyland’s death appears similar”

                      That is a second coincidence. How many coincidences are needed before one accepts a working conclusion that the events were coordinated?”The fact that at the west Tunnel they CHOSE to go to war with protestors, and that elsewhere they were letting protestors in pretty much proves a lack of top down coordination.”

                      That would be a third coincidence. The police let people in. The crowd swells and the doors are blocked with nowhere for the wave of people to go. The police push forward with tear gas, etc. batons and other implements of warfare. They inflame the crowd and don’t even let them rescue a person who is dying. Two more people nearly get crushed and die. The police keep moving forward…

                      There was no other rational explanation except if the training was extremely poor and leadership incapable. But then we go back to Babbitt and the crowds there. Clean and deadly shot where the shooter was seen with his outstretched arm waiting to kill.

                      “I do not think the Capital police for he most part were hostile to protestors.”

                      I believe most of the police were likely decent people, but not all and the video shows some bending over and reaching over other policemen to get their shots at a person being beaten by the police in the front row and cornered by a building on the other side. We see an escape only to be grabbed back into the corner and beaten again. We see other police appearing to want to get in every lick they can. Again, I say that I do not believe most of the police were that way.

                      Do we have the interrogations? Were the interrogations adequate? Were the communications and videos released? No, no, and no. That should make anyone suspicious of actives that were coordinated and went out of the bounds of normal police action.

                      “I do beleive that those like Pelosi hoped for a bad outcome,”

                      That is agreement but not the issue. Did she do things or not do things to help provide a bad outcome. My belief is yes. This is how Marxist Revolutionaries act and though she might not be one of them she is one of the titular heads of the movement with powers to aid and abet the movement whether legal or otherwise.

                      “I do not think the NG was needed.”

                      I don’t think so either , but the National Guard would have likely prevented the desired outcome.

                      “I do not agree.”

                      You are free to have your opinion, but unless all information is released the working conclusion has to be what I have set out above. This outcome was likely a creation of Pelosi and / or other influential and powerful left wing people. To think otherwise leads nowhere.

                    6. With respect to Babbit – the evidence you cite is not evidence of coordination.

                      The officers move away from the doors – as they have repeatedly as protesters move through the capital, when the speakers lobby is empty.

                      The officers prevented protestors from entering the lobby while congressmen and staff were in it.
                      When they had left – they moved away – leaving protestos free to move forward.

                      The officer who shot Babbit would likely have struck the other officers had he missed babbit.
                      He not only murdered babbit – but endangered everyone in his line of fire – that includes other officers.

                      Absolutely Byrd’s murdered Babbit – the withdrawl of the other officers makes his actions more egregious.

                      But it was not coordinated.

                      There are lots of actions on J6 that were coordinated – within small groups.

                      But there is zero evidence todate of larger scale coordination.
                      Just multiple competing small scale coordinated efforts colliding in chaos.

                      Recently government involvement outside of FBI has been confirmed – though the details are sketchy.

                      I doubt that Pelosi or Schumer werfe aware of that.

                      I am highly suspicious that Qanon is either being run by FBI or being heavily manipulated by FBI.
                      It would not be the first time.

                      Absolutely everything should be made public.
                      There is NOTHING involved in J6 that should not be made public.

                    7. “With respect to Babbit – the evidence you cite is not evidence of coordination.”

                      It is a suspicious situation warranting release of information and an interrogation of the shooter by a seasoned impartial prosecutor. If you believe that officers should lie in wait and shoot the first unarmed person crossing a line, we have a marked difference of opinion.

                      We have seen police prosecuted for shooting a suspect that was criminal, threatening or both.

                      Add to that all the other irregularities, and yes, one can draw a working conclusion that something is very wrong. The evidence is the knowledge of an unarmed Babbitt and unanswered questions by Pelosi.

                      “The officer who shot Babbitt would likely have struck the other officers had he missed Babbit.”

                      With the crowd, he could have shot anyone but the police. They moved away from the area shortly before Byrd murdered the 105 pound unarmed Babbitt.

                      “But it was not coordinated.”

                      How do you know? You don’t. That is a working conclusion until you show otherwise or Pelosi releases all communications and orders Byrd interrogated in a proper fashion. In any event you admit it was murder.

                      By the way, I am not the coordination was in the movement of the police. I am saying the events were coordinated in some fashion because there are too many ‘coincidences.’

                      I am not sure what your argument is.

                    8. Byrd is guilty of Murder.

                      Where we differ is that you beleive there were others involved specifically in Babbits murder.

                      The evidence I have seen does not support that.

                      Absolutely we should see more – much of the country is in full agreement on that.

                    9. “Where we differ is that you beleive there were others involved specifically in Babbits murder.”

                      That is not exactly what I said. I believe that the decisions made by others created the environment for the murder to happen. I believe if we had all the facts we would find culpability whether direct or indirect.

                    10. “That is not exactly what I said.”
                      So do we agree that Byrd alone has criminal culpability for Babbits murder ?

                      “I believe that the decisions made by others created the environment for the murder to happen.”
                      Certainly, but the only illegal decision was locking the capital.

                      Democrats made innumerable bad decisions.
                      There were small “conspiracies” that made those bad decisions.
                      Those bad decisions had bad results – including Babbits death.

                      I suspect that Pelosi hoped for an outcome similar to what she got – I think she hoped for worse.
                      I think she wanted a violent fight possibly involving firearms.

                      That is immoral. But it is not illegal unless her acts themself were illegal – aside from closing the capital they were not.

                      Absolutely they should be investigated.
                      I do not think there is much “criminal” misconduct to expose, but there is lots of bad and incompetent conduct to expose.

                      This is part of what the J6 committee and so many on the left get wrong here.
                      You can argue that some of Trump’s conduct was “bad” – but not that it was criminal.

                      I do not think they can win the “bad” conduct argument – but by trying to criminalize political conduct they do not like, they harm their own argumentds.

                      “I believe if we had all the facts we would find culpability whether direct or indirect.”
                      Yes, but I doubt much criminal culpability.

                      There should not have been a “riot” there should have been an orderly protest that included marching through the capital.
                      That is what the constitution REQUIRED government to permit.

                      The protestors were atleast partly responsible for the riot – but so was government.

                      The Babbit shooting was murder.
                      It appears likely that Boylan was also murdered.

                      Yes we should get to the bottom of this.

                      But I do not know that we ever will.

                    11. ““That is not exactly what I said.”
                      So do we agree that Byrd alone has criminal culpability for Babbits murder ?”

                      At present there is no evidence that anyone else had culpability, but indirectly could have assisted in the death.

                      “Certainly, but the only illegal decision was locking the capital”

                      I don’t know what other decisions were made whether legal or illegal. I don’t think what we saw would have occurred if some politicians didn’t want to create an incident.

                      “I suspect that Pelosi hoped for an outcome similar to what she got – I think she hoped for worse.
                      I think she wanted a violent fight possibly involving firearms.”

                      I see you are agreeing with what I suspect and indicated earlier.

                      “Absolutely they should be investigated. I do not think there is much “criminal” misconduct to expose, but there is lots of bad and incompetent conduct to expose.”

                      I believe there were abuses of power. Not all abuses are illegal or are paid with a jail term. Some are paid with political capital.

                      Some protestors were responsible, but most were not. I think one has to look at the West Tunnel to see if protesters or police sparked the violence. At the very least the police handled themselves poorly and fanned the flames of violence. I have to review the West Tunnel again.

                      “The Babbit shooting was murder. It appears likely that Boylan was also murdered.”

                      One has to review the cause of death of two other protestors. Both may have been killed by the police though not targeted. It appears that way with one of them.

                      The founders made one big mistake. They didn’t put in term limits for the leaders and restrict the growth of the bureaucracy. Both mistakes (if they can be called mistakes) have permitted D.C. to become the center of power because all those residing in D.C. will have similar self-protecting interests. They were counting on federalism as another check, but D.C. became too powerful.

                    12. “There was no other rational explanation except if the training was extremely poor and leadership incapable.”

                      Whenever thre is a choice between that as an explanation and ANYTHING else – it is ALWAYS that.

                    13. Always is a word you use to frequently and it is dangerous to your argument here and elsewhere.

                      I believe both play a part.

                    14. We have been through “always” before.

                      Will 99% of the time calm you down ?

                    15. Just to be clear – I agree onj many of the specific items you raise – at the very least we MUST look more closely at them.

                      We MUST learn what happened in the West Tunnel. If that proves damning to protestors – then damn them. But if as I suspect it makes Dereck Chauvin look like an angel – then there must be consequences.

                      Regardless we MUST know.

                      The J6 committee did an excellent job of demonstrating the weakness of pollitical show trials.

                      We need the truth – regardless of where that lies.

              3. I prefer statements like WRONG to “not truthful”.

                I am not aware of any J6 testimony that was not truthful.

                But large amounts of it were WRONG.

                This is why real courts use the adversarial system.

                1. “I prefer statements like WRONG to “not truthful”.”

                  John, I know you do. You are a purist. Perfect is the enemy of good. I held my tongue and should have used the word liars.

                  Without lying, I could make you appear to be a murderer. In the end an attempt to do such a thing is a lie. I’ll leave it to others to further explain what the lie was.

                  Does an intentional omission of known fact suddenly become truthful? Not really.

                  Yes, one needs an adversarial system, but even that was prevented by the Pelosi and the rest of the liars.

                  1. Not purism – this is the opposite of purism.

                    Facts determine whether a statement is wrong.

                    But claiming something is a lie usually requires some knowledge of what is inside anothers head.

                    Equally importanty – accusing someone else of being wrong is not accusing them of moral failure.
                    Accusing them of lying is.

                    The burden of proof is radically different. As are the moral consequences of being wrong.

                    1. John, I was not talking about purism of facts, rather the purism of ideology.

                    1. Understanding the intention of others is important for one’s survival.

                    2. Nothing precludes any of us from attempting to read the minds of others.

                      It is a common place and often critical activity in free markets. Those who suceede in the market are those who best understand the minds of their customers and competitors.

                      But it has no place in law or government.
                      We may not use FORCE based on our best guesses as to the intentions of others.
                      Force is only justified to thwart acts.

                    3. We are going to end up in a debate over words. The Supreme Court decides the law (actually the Constitution), what it means based on the law and “Understanding the intention of others”, in particular, the mindset of those who wrote the Constitution.

                      “We may not use FORCE based on our best guesses as to the intentions of others,” but in his duties an officer of the law, he has to guess the intention of another when that other has a gun pointed directly at him.

                      I think your statements are too broad and require a lot of discussion in the what-ifs department. Overall your axioms are correct. In practice they require more discussion.

                    4. SCOTUS is NOT the final authority on the constitution. Ultimately the people are.

                      I think Rowe was unconstitutional, but I do not think Dobb;s is any better.

                      Much is made in Dobb’s that the fact that abortion involves a separate entitity – a fetus, matters alot.

                      That is concurrently right and wrong. The only difference between Griswald, Obergefeld, and Rowe is the fetus.
                      Thomas is correct that they should all be treated the same. He is incorrect that there is no constitutional right involved.

                      One of the things this has brought to the fore is the 9th amendment – and that is a very good thing.

                      There is absolutely a 9th amendment right to control of ones own body.

                      That applies to abortion, to homosexuality, to contraception – and to vaccination, and mask mandates.

                      Alito is correct that Abortion is different – in that a fetus is involved. But he is wrong that that precludes using the same 8th amendment right to control ones body.

                      I have made this argument over and over.

                      You an not prohibit a women from removing a fetus from her body if she is able to at any stage of pregnancy.
                      The states powers are limited ONLY to the fetus – and do not extend to the woman or her body.
                      That state CAN if it so chooses require that abortions be conducted in a fashion to increase the odds that the fetus survives – so long as that does not interfere with the womans right to control her own body.

                      Bifurcating abortion into two parts – removal of the fetus and killing of the fetus resolves all the issues regarding the right to control of ones own body.

                      Fully recognizing the right to control ones own body should have come to the fore for all of us with 2+ years of government covid nonsense.
                      Government took control of our bodies and FAILED on a grand scale.

                      I do not want government forcing a women to remain pregnant any more than I want them forcing me to vaccinate.

                    5. “SCOTUS is NOT the final authority on the constitution. Ultimately the people are.”

                      1776 ultimately led to a revolution with death and destruction. It is better to timely draw working conclusions so one doesn’t have to wait for the shot heard around the world. I cannot live in a cocoon where strict ideology prevails.

                      “I think Rowe was unconstitutional, but I do not think Dobb;s is any better.”

                      Rowe was wrong. Dobbs wasn’t the best, but it righted a judicial error and in doing so was far better than Rowe which has caused a fractured nation. The left should be happy (They are never happy.). They get what they want. In the states where they have power, they will be able to kill the child while it is coming through the mother’s vagina and perhaps for some time afterward.

                      “You an not prohibit a women from removing a fetus from her body if she is able to at any stage of pregnancy.
                      The states powers are limited ONLY to the fetus – and do not extend to the woman or her body……..”

                      You are essentially creating the same solution as Dobbs. You like your wording as it suits your ideological framework. You will have to compromise on the wording to get that result.

                    6. Absolutely it is far better for the courts, for SCOTUS to protect our rights – to get it right, than it is do degenerate to revolution.

                      But the final authority is still the people – not the institutions.

                      I am a strong proponent that we should distrust our institutions.

                      That drives us towards limited government.

                      But elections, and courts are something we must have a fairly high degree of trust in.

                      We do not. That is very dangerous.

                      Those on the left that keep ranting about the purported claims that there was nothing wrong with the 2020 election,
                      do not grasp that there was OBVIOUSLY something wrong – way to many people do not trust the results or the institutions.
                      That alone is a huge and dangerous problem.

                      It is not the duty of the people to trust goverment. It is the duty of government to conduct itself such that the people trust it.

                      We do not have to like the results
                      We do not have to agree with them.
                      Bu we have to trust that the rules – whether those rules are good or bad were fully followed.

                      And obviously they were not.

                    7. Dobb;s repeats the same judicial error that we have been fighting for 250 years.

                      Rights are near infinite. Government powers are limited.

                      Abortion is not a right.
                      Control of your own body is.
                      Life is actually not a right.

                      Looking at abortion and breaking it down the the ACTUAL rights involved makes it relatively simple.

                      One of the things that Dobb’s gets wrong is the nonsense that abortion is somehow different because a fetus is involved.

                      Thomas’s concurrance is WRONG – but it accurately exposes the problem with Dobb’s.

                      If there is no constitutional right involved – than Obergefel, Loving, Griswold, …. were all wrongly decided.

                      There is no ” the 9th amendment does not apply – if there is a fetus involved” standard – which is essentially what Dobb’s says.

                      The whole abortion question is constantly framed as competing rights – it is NOT,

                      When we think there are competing rights – USUALLY that means we are misperceiving the issue.

                      Understand there is no right to an abortion but an absolute right to control your own body and you reach nearly the same end as Casey, but without the constitutional error.

                      A women has a right to have the pregnancy removed from her body at anytime during pregnancy – even if that results in the death of the fetus.

                      Government may – without increasing the risk to the woman insist that removal be done with the greatest possibility that the fetus survives.

                      So that I am clear – government “may” is not government MUST.

                      Should as it eventually will, become possible for government to assure the survival to childhood of a fertilized cell – then it MAY do so.
                      I doubt it actually will.

                    8. “One of the things that Dobb’s gets wrong is the nonsense that abortion is somehow different because a fetus is involved.”

                      If the fetus was a piece of gum, things would be radically different.

                    9. Nope, I am hard pressed to think of an instance in which rights actually conflict.

                      The problem with Dobb’s, Roe and Cassey is that they fail to properly identify the ACTUAL rights involved.

                      There is no right to an abortion.
                      There is no right to life – though there is a right not to be murdered.
                      There is a right to control of your body. In fact you can get to it without the 9th amendment – your body is YOUR property – it is YOUR first property.
                      Further the 5th amendment guarantees that you are secure in your person.

                      Women have the absolute right to remove a fetus – or pretty much anything else from their body.
                      The fact that a fetus is what is in them and that it might die is irrelevant. No one is ever obligated to provide heir body to sustain another.

                      The state DOES have the power – should it so choose, to regulate removing the fetus to increase the odds that the fetus will survive removal.
                      The woman has the right to have the fetus removed – even if that results in its death.
                      But not to go beyond removal to additional steps to ensure the fetus dies.

                      There is no conflict, and it would not matter if the fetus was bubble gum.

                      That is does not matter is part of how you know that you have the question of rights properly resolved.

                    10. You have a very strict and proprietary definition of what our Constitution and amendments say and how they should be interpreted so I am sure to you there is no conflict of rights in your mind. However, for most of the rest of us there is conflict and we see it in court decisions. I prefer that to be less of the case, but I have learned to live with it.

                      I have no problem with your belief. I like your idea on the abortion issue. It fits nicely together and makes a good argument.

                    11. My solution is closer to Casey than Dobb’s in effect. But it is redaically different in constitutionality.

                      Most importantly it preservers the 9th amendment right to control of ones own body – with as we have seen with Covid is far more important than abortion.

                    12. Continuing my point – SCOTUS is not the final authority.

                      Though Dobbs is no better than Rowe – WE THE PEOPLE are still free to have the final word.

                      I strongly suspect that abortion is going to prove a dud as a political issue.

                      I think that SCOTUS should have punted Dobbs into next term – not because of the election, but because we will see the effects of TX SB8 and other more restrictive measures in the interim.

                      Past Gutmacher data – an ARM of PP has shown that the impact of increasing restrictions has been tiny. People adapt.

                      When we make abortion something you can get at 280 days – far to many people wait to 280 days.
                      Make it 90 days and people choose sooner.

                      Birth control remains legal – even in Texas. The morning after pill remains legal.

                      Those on the left are cheering companies that will fly women from restrictive states to less restrictive ones.

                      I doubt they will ever have to put up on their promise.
                      People will adapt their behavior post Rowe.

                      Pre Dobbs the US had the most liberal abortion laws in the developed world.
                      Now we are little different from much of Europe.

                      Clinton long ago said that abortion should be legal and rare.

                      One of the problems the left has is that Abortion is increasingly unnecescary.

                      There will be a blow back against Republicans over Dobbs – if and only if there is a massive problem that arrises.
                      And I do not think there will be.

                      But if I am wrong – people will change the laws. Whether state by state or in congress or by amending the constitution.
                      Regardless the PEOPLE are the ultimate authority.

                      We have a fight here over “democracy” – the real purpose of a republic – of divided government is not to separate ultimate authority fro the people.
                      It is to kill Rahm emanuel’s – never let a crisis go to waste.

                      Congress, the executive, the courts exist primarily to put up lots of speed bumps to direct democracy so that the people do not make rash decisions.
                      But ulimate decision making ALWAYS resides with the people.

                    13. “Those on the left are cheering companies that will fly women from restrictive states to less restrictive ones.”

                      True. In many cases, the costs for the employer for the abortion are far less than the costs would have been. I am not deciding what is right or wrong.

                    14. I doubt we will see much of this.

                      the great “danger” that TX SB 8 posed was not that its creative mean s of enforcement would circumvent constitutional scrutiny, but that it would do so long enough for everyone to realize there was no consequential effect.

                      We already know that the more restrictive abortion laws are – the earlier women make their choice.

                      This is also why I think SCOTUS should have punted this to next term.

                      Whoever leaked Dobb’s unlikely intended it to benefit conservatives – but I think it did.

                      Though we still have outraged left wing nuts in the streets doing their level best to make J6 look like a flower parade,
                      Much of the country is yawning.

                      I do not expect an uptick in the number of births of unwanted children.
                      I expect that women will make the choice to end a pregnancy earlier.
                      Or to do better at birth control.

                      There are far more options today than abortion – if you act sooner.

                      I suspect that the impact on the election will be a small net positive for Republicans.

                      The longer that people have to get over this – and leaking dobbs gave them much longer,
                      and the sooner we come to realize nothing of consequence has actually changed.

                      The more likely this is a fizzle and the outrage of the left looks stupid.

                    15. Yes, pointing a gun is an act, and that should tell you something. Not having an appropriate investigation open to the public about such an act tells you even more.

                      If one wants to look for a conspiracy in the government, this is a perfect place to look.

                    16. Both of us want much more transparency.

                      I have little doubt that greater transparency will be bad for government and good for most J6 protestors.

                      I suspect it will reveal many more “conspiracies” .

                      But it will not find some large scale conspiracy.

                    17. “But it will not find some large scale conspiracy.”

                      That depends on what you call a large scale conspiracy.

                    18. More than a handful of people.

                      I think we have many small groups that were “conspiring” on J6 – both right, left, and government.
                      But not together.

                    19. The default assumption is individual action. The larger the scale of coordination you presume the less probable.

                      To be clear large scale coordination is not impossible, just highly unlikely.

                      I think we had a version o this with the collusion delusion.

                      Myriads of independent actors and small groups sharing the same end, but not coordinating, or coordinating very little, with a result that resembles a massive conspiracy, but isn’t – it is really just independent striving towards similar ends.

                      One of the weaknesses of 2000 mules is that it presumes, or possible requires a very large centrally coordinated election fraud effort.

                      Large conspiracies are incredibly difficult to pull off.

                      To be clear 2000 mules is DAMNING – they have with certainty found fairly large scale election fraud.
                      But we still have alot to understand about the entire picture.

                    20. “One of the weaknesses of 2000 mules is that it presumes, or possible requires a very large centrally coordinated election fraud effort.”

                      Right, but it changes the argument of who lost. Based on the very credible 2000 Mules documentary, Biden lost the election. That is why leftists don’t want to acknowledge the existence of 2000 mules.

                      https://odysee.com/2000mules:c

                    21. I believable that 2000 mules is compelling.

                      But I would note that 2000 mules is much more damaging and dangerous than the claims that were floating arround immediately after the election.

                      Dominion did it – would not have required the democratic party to be corrupt.
                      Foreign interferance would not have required the democratic party to be corrupt.
                      In person voter fraud would not have required the democratic party to be corrupt.
                      Dead people voting – …….

                      But the ballot harvesting operation that TTV found is with near certainty – very targeted, centrally planned, and has significant number of participants at relatively high levels.

                      It is very hard to beleive that Zuckerberg and his organizations were not KNOWINGLY involved in large scale election fraud.
                      It is very hard to beleive that the DNC is not involved,
                      That the Biden campaign is not involved.

                      2000 mules paints a damning picture – of the WORST kind of election fraud we could possibly have – organized targeted large scale fraud that requires the involvement of large numbers of powerful people who KNOW what they are doing is wrong.

                      That is also 2000 mules greatest weakness. I do not think we have had any fraud that of the kind that 2000 mules puts forth – since the 19th century,
                      and possibly not even then.

                      One of the other weaknesses is that it is pretty close to impossible to keep a conspiracy that large secret.
                      Though there are two factors. It is likely that many of the participants did not understand that what they were doing was illegal and WRONG.

                      This is one of the problems with our education today and the success of the left in undermining education.

                      We fixate on racism that is mostly past, we fixate on gender and sexual orientation.
                      But there is virtually no education in civics, in ethics, in morality, in critical thinking.

                      Destroy those, and you have destroyed the foundations of western self government. Of the west entirely.

                      It is self evident right HERE that many of the left posters here thing honestly that they are moral – when they clearly are not.
                      They have no objective moral system. They have no system that does nto devolve done to some permutation of the ends justifies the means.

                      We have people here defending the conduct of the J6 committee who will rant about crimes and corruption if the GOP in 2023 does 1/4 as much.

                      While the claim that there is something to fear from the right at this moment is FALSE. If this keeps up it will not stay that way for long.

                      A lawless left WILL with certtainty ultimately produce a lawless right – especially if are elections can not be trusted.

                      The left is litterally recreating the conditions for the american revolution.

                    22. In case anyone hasn’t seen the video, this version is free and without commercials.

                      https://odysee.com/2000mules:c

                      Those on the left have a chance to look at it and see how Barr was untruthful with the data he presented. He couldn’t use the correct numbers because his argument would have fallen. Those on the left can also learn about tracking, statistics, study creation, etc. Great fun, and seeing the documentary permits the leftist to be smarter than his leftist friends.

                    23. I have seen it.
                      I have also seen many comentaries on it.

                      Derschowitz reviewed it and found the evidence of fraud compelling, but not the claim that Trump won.
                      While I will agree that is not proven – the odds of the fraud being Pro-Trump is about as close to zero as you can get.

                    24. “Derschowitz reviewed it and found the evidence of fraud compelling, but not the claim that Trump won.”

                      Alan D., is it compelling that it looks like a lot of Biden votes were illegal?
                      Based on that would you say, if those votes weren’t counted, could Biden have lost?

                      We can only guess at his answer, but if he answered the question directly the answer would be Yes and yes.

                    25. I do not think there is much room for doubt about who benefited from the 2020 illegal ballot harvesting.

                      But I will be happy to have ANYONE accept that there is sufficient evidence of fraud to warrant further investigation and to tighten up our election laws.

                      Derschowitz did conclude that mailin elections are insecurable.

                    26. The Big Lie mentioned countless of times by Jeff is that the election was the most secure in history. It shows Jeff to be brain-dead and unable to think past the leftist drivel he reads.

                      We need to correct the election process for the future, but Democrats recognize they will lose if elections were secure.

                    27. I have paid fairly close attention to the various audits and election inquiries.

                      While they do NOT provide proof to a high degree of certainty that Biden lost, Trump won and the election was fraudulent.

                      They DO make it very clear that is possible. That alone should be enough to demand we do better.

                      Elections can not have the degree of doubt that 2020 had.

                      The AZ audit found major problems in more than 50% of votes cast. Often these problems were not clearly fraud – though many could be symptoms of fraud and nearly all were oportunities for fraud,

                      Regardless those problems would have required tossing 50% of the ballots in the election had AZ;s election laws actually been followed.

                      The left correctly rants that we can not toss 50% of the ballots in an election.
                      But they fail to grasp we can not accept them either.

                      An election conducted so badly that 1% of the ballots should be tossed – is an untrustworthy election.

                      Elections prior to 2020 had serious problems,
                      Even if we get rid of mailin ballots and return to the status quo ante – we are still short on election integrity.

                      We must not only have laws that make fraud near impossible – mostly we do.
                      We MUST follow them.

                      It is not until there are consequences for failure to follow the law, that we can expect the law to be followed and fraud to be rare and elections to be trustworthy.

                    28. Barr is a great disappointment to me.

                      He sought the Attorney General position to restore trust in law enforcement.

                      He FAILED spectacularly.

                      We now have DOJ memo’s were US attorney’s sought to investigate credible allegations and were directed to forward them to Democrat State AG’s who ignored them.

                      The 2000 mules evidence is about as strong as you can get – withoutthe power to subpeona records and witnesses.

                    29. I am not sure there was aright man.

                      I do not think anything short of mass firings of pretty much everyone easily fireable in the administrative state would have accomplished anything.

                      Firing everyone at the levels outside of civil service protection would have crippled the administrative state – in a good way and even though the acting people would have been no better ideologically, having mice ascend to actin positions would be a major improvement while better people were found.

                    30. “I am not sure there was aright man.”

                      That is true. The left would prevent the right man’s existence. Barr and Trump were like oil and water. Barr kept his eyes on the desk and refused to look around. Barr actually thought Trump did a good job and that the left acted badly. He just couldn’t move the needle.

                    31. I do not try to guess what others think.

                      Barr has repeatedly said that he is proud of what he did.
                      If his accomplishments lasted past Jan 20, 2021 I would aggree.
                      They did not, therefore he is a failure.

                      Barr has repeatedly praised Trump on many things, but claimed Trump is his own worst enemy.

                      In a normal world I would agree.

                      The fundimental difference between Barr and Trump is that Barr trusts existing institutions far more than Trump,
                      Barr underestimates the lawlessness of the left, and even ordinary democrats.

                      Barr beleives in the rule of law and beleives most others – even his political opponents do to.
                      And that is where he is wrong.

                      Barr does not buy the election fraud claims for what ordinarily would be good reason.

                      The odds of a successful large scale fraud operation remaining secret is near nil.
                      In ordinary times, where the press, and most people left or right are shocked by fraud, by lawlessness,

                      But the collusion delusion alone should disabuse us all that is these times.

                      A hoax was sold to the FBI – who knew they were buying a hoax, and persued it anyway.
                      People who Barr disagrees with but likely admires PARTICIPATED in this lawlessness.

                      We are NOT dealing with something dirty being done by the likes of Roger Stone or his democratic peers,
                      We are talking about unethical conduct by some of themost prominent lawyers in the country – inside and outside govenrmnet.
                      We are talking about Journalism abandoning its own core committment to the truth and making itself a willing propoganda tool.

                      In that world – Trump is not his own worst enemy and Barr is out of touch with reality.

                    32. We are debating a hypothetical.

                      You claim a larger scale conspiracy is possible – it is.
                      But there is not evidence of it, and as things stand it is unlikely – but not impossible.

                      Absolutely we should for many many reasons have much more evidence be made public.

                      And maybe that will change things.

                      But given what evidence we have – lots of small uncoordinated conspiracies on bother sides. Nothing more.

                    33. Again, this is a matter of the definition of terms.

                      If Nancy Pelosi instructed the head of the Capitol police to act a certain way. it might be small scale to you but big scale based on her political position.

                    34. Pelosi did not stand infront of the 2000+ member Capital police and direct them.
                      She did not send an email to all members.

                      She gave the leaders some direction.
                      Further those directions were not – Go out and provoke J6 protestors to become violent.

                      I do not think Pelosi knew exactly what she was doing.
                      And I highly doubt the Capital police chiefs had a clue either.

                      We had various groups and individuals sympathetic to J6 protestors, while others were hostile, all of this came together anarchically.

                      I have zero doubt that Byrd and the offier that killed Boylan were brutally hostile to Trump supporters.
                      But it is also clear than many Capital Police officers treated the J6 protestors decently – even favorably – letting them in.

                      I do not think that these seemingly at odds actions were actually a coordinated plot. ‘

                      I do think Pelosi wanted something – probably worse than what she got. I think she really hoped for an “armed insurection” or more likely something closer to the BLM riots. and I think that she acted to the extent that she was able to get that.
                      But there are limits to her powers – particularly without communicating her intentions.

                      What is clear is that the government side of J6 was handled disasterously.

                      Despite the media/democrat picture – it i clear that the overwhelming majority of those involved were peaceful, and even most of those that were less so, were responding to the government limiting their right to protest and petition govenrment.

                      The mele that happened at the west Tunnel – did not happen elsewhere – where people were let into the capital.

                      It is self evident that had the Capital Police setup to allow but control access to the capital on J6 that possibly thousands of protestors would have paraded through the capital peacefully but loudly demanding an inquiry into election fraud. And there is a fair chance they might have actually gotten that. And that was something else Pelosi sought to thwart.

                      Regardless, it is unwise to presume a large conspiracy when small conspiracies with lots of independent actors – with SOME shared goals will produce the same results.

                      The collusion delusion clearly involved a very large number of people acting towards shared goals.
                      But it did not involve large amounts of coordination.

                      It was not a vast conspiracy, it was a few independent small conspiracies and lots of useful idiots – like the press.

                    35. John, I don’t think we disagree. This was not an orchestrated conspiracy where individuals were following a script. This was created from the top down based on attitude and evaluating how people will act.

                      How did those doors get opened?
                      How did the police let a peaceful crowd in on the West Tunnel and then suddenly it got violent.
                      how come there was no National Guard troops
                      What about people like Ray Epps and others who were seen doing bad things but despite being filmed were not arrested?
                      How and why did Roseanne Boyland get killed?
                      Why was Byrd positioned close to the door?
                      Why are videos and the important documents controlled by Pelosi and the left not being released? What is on those documents?

                      I can continue for pages. Too many little things to say each item was isolated from the others. That is where we might differ, but I say too many coincidences. A broader conspiracy had to exist even if it wasn’t scripted.

                    36. I think we are still at odds.

                      This is not ONE conspiracy opertating from the top down.

                      It is multiple independent conspiracies – each with different objectives, sometimes reinforcing each other sometimes at odds.

                      There are no large conspiracies right or left.

                      I would further note that most conspiracies are NOT illegal.

                      The proud boys conspiring the occupy the capital is not.

                    37. “This is not ONE conspiracy opertating from the top down.”

                      I don’t think we disagree. The basics are shared by all the groups. They hate Trump and a few other things. That makes disparate groups work together though not synchronized. I don’t know what you don’t get.

                    38. Too much of what you are calling coincidences, do NOT work together into some cohesive plan.
                      In fact they work against each other.

                      The same decisions were made different ways by different people in different places nearly simultaneously.

                      At some places they let protestors in – at others they fought them tooth and nail.

                      That is not a coincidence leading to a conspiracy.

                      That is an “anti-coincidence” arguing against a conspiracy – or atleast a broad well organized one.

                      There are a FEW things that are close to certain – the decison to reject the NG was made very near the top – either by the sargent of arms, or far more likely by Pelosi. It was NOT made by the capital police – it is clear they ultimately decided they wanted help.

                    39. “Too much of what you are calling coincidences, do NOT work together into some cohesive plan.”

                      They don’t have to work together to end up moving in the same direction.

                      ” the decison to reject the NG was made very near the top – either by the sargent of arms, or far more likely by Pelosi.”

                      Agreed, and everyone down the line did their part frequently independent of one another..

            2. Yes, I beleive Barr on the Mueller report – because absent Mueller spin, Bar correctly summarized the Mueller report.
              Further because the report itself as well as Barr’s memo was subject to rigid critical analysis – as was the whole collusion delusion nonsense. The press, numerous law enforcement agencies all tried to find evidence of collusion and not only didn’t they find any, they ultimately found the dossier was a HOAX.

              I also beleive that Barr had good intentions as AG. I think he is a good man.
              Had he succeeded he would be a great man.

              BUT he failed. every single improvement to DOJ and FBI he put in place – which was not nearly enough did not last past the inauguration.

              Barr was there to restore the integrity and credibility of the FBI and DOJ. HE FAILED.

              It is also NOW self evident there was very strong basis for a federal investigation into the election. Much of the basis for that was available to Barr THEN. Trump should not have had to ask. Regardless, the only questions that remain regarding the 2020 election is how bag was the massive lawlessness and to what extent did it effect the election.

              And that is another call Barr BLEW.

              I would note that the more we learn – really about pretty much anything – the collusion delusion, Biden/Ukraine, the election, …..
              The more we learn that Trump is about as close to right as someone who is not omniscient can be.

              1. Barr skipped over the ten counts of obstruction did he not? His preemptive dismissal of the report which wasn’t released until much later and failure to prosecute the obstruction charges said a lot. Yes, he finally reached a point where he could stand no more biut it was way too late. We agree he failed but for far different reasons.

                1. He did not.

                  Aside from the FACT that Mueller had no valid claims of obstruction,

                  You have so many huge legal problems.

                  It is now KNOWN that Mueller knew or should have known the collusion delusion was a fraud from day one.

                  That makes his appointment and investigation unconstitutional.

                  You can not obstruct and abuse of power.

                  Any Jury outside of DC would laugh you out of court.

                  You left wing nuts continue this idiotic nonsense of pretending the law and constitution is maleable to your politics.

                  Actions are legal or they are not – regardless of politics.
                  When you reach different conclusions from the same fact pattern based on politics – you are lawless.

                  Mueller knew or should have known he was investigating a hoax.
                  Within a few days of opening his investigation, Mueller should have been investigating all the things that Durham has.

                  There is no valid criminal investigation of a hoax – except investigating the hoaxsters.

        1. My understanding is that Barr presented critical data about 2000 Mules that was false. Why would he do that if he saw the movie?

          The movie spent a lot of time explaining why they used 10 drop boxes in a night, not 5. That was to make it almost impossible to include those with a reason to be at the box.

          Take all the “facts” Barr mentioned and compare those facts to the movie. If his facts are wrong, his conclusions are suspect and likely wrong as well.

          https://odysee.com/2000mules:c

          1. If you missed it it’s because you were hiding from the sworn testimony on national television. It’s true one has to be gullible to believe everything you hear. But you have to be really special to believe nothing you see! Short bus special.

  11. Olly says:

    “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.”

    Turley has never said anything remotely like this. I really pity you.

    1. Well, if Turley didn’t say it he certainly should have. It is the truth. Whether or not it irks you is entirely irrelevant.

Leave a Reply