“Anybody Here, Seen my Old Friend Abraham?”: Cornell Silent on Disappearance of Lincoln Bust and Gettysburg Address

Cornell University has been silent after Cornell University biology Professor Randy Wayne raised the sudden disappearance of a bust of President Abraham Lincoln in front of a bronzed Gettysburg Address plaque in a library display. Wayne told The College Fix that he had heard that the display was removed after a complaint, but there is no confirmation of the reason since the university has not responded to him or media inquiries. Wayne is left asking the same question as Dick Holler in his 1968 song “Abraham, Martin and John“:

“Anybody here, seen my old friend Abraham?

Can you tell me where he’s gone?

He freed a lot of people, but it seems the good, they die young

You know I just looked around and he’s gone

Professor Wayne simply heard “Someone complained, and it was gone.”

The bust and plaque reportedly has been on display in the library since at least 2013. Accordingly, Professor Wayne emailed Cornell University President Martha Pollack on June 23:

Dear President Pollack,

I am wondering if you are aware that the bust of Abraham Lincoln purchased by Ezra Cornell and the bronze plaque of the Gettysburg Address that was beside it has been removed from the RMC in Kroch Library and replaced with nothing. If you are aware, can you tell me why? Thanks.

President Pollack has not responded.

Cornell has a particular reason for the display since it is the recipient of a handwritten copy in Lincoln’s hand known as the Bancroft Copy. It also has an envelope signed by Lincoln and a letter to Bancroft.

We have recently seen attacks on statues of Lincoln, including by faculty members. There was also an effort to remove Lincoln’s name from schools and remove statues from campuses.

One issue that was raised is that Lincoln ordered the execution of 38 Dakota men and signed the Homestead Act, which gave settlers land forcibly taken from Native Americans.

Lincoln’s role in the Dakota executions is legitimately controversial but has been presented without some countervailing facts.  The Sioux or Dakota uprising occurred not long after Minnesota became a state and involved the death of hundreds of settlers.  The Army crushed the Sioux and captured hundreds.  A military tribunal sentenced 303 to death for alleged crimes against civilians and other crimes.  The trial itself was a farce with no real representation or reliable evidence.  Lincoln reviewed the transcripts of the 303 and told the Senate:

“Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I ordered a careful examination of the records of the trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females.”

However, only two men were found guilty of rape and Lincoln later expanded the criteria to include those who participated in “massacres” of civilians as opposed to battles with the Army.

Lincoln, however, commuted the sentence of 264 of the 303 convicted.

I have heavily criticized Lincoln for the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus and the loss of free speech rights as well as other decisions. However, historical figures often have such conflicted elements that can be discussed and understood in context as we did recently with a pre-revolutionary hero.

Cornell should respond to these inquiries from faculty and media. If this was not due to a complaint, it can simply state so and explain the reason. For now, Cornell seems content to leave the matter where Holler left his lyrics in 1968: “You know I just looked around and he’s gone.”

259 thoughts on ““Anybody Here, Seen my Old Friend Abraham?”: Cornell Silent on Disappearance of Lincoln Bust and Gettysburg Address”

  1. The Four Olds or the Four Old Things was a term used during the Cultural Revolution by the student-led Red Guards in the People’s Republic of China in reference to the pre-communist elements of Chinese culture they attempted to destroy. The Four Olds were: Old Ideas, Old Culture, Old Customs, and Old Habits. We’re seeing a similar Maoist effort to destroy American history and culture. Mao used the CR simply as a way to eliminate his enemies. The universities were the primary source of the Red Guards.

  2. Everybody is offended by somebody or something….the current way of things can be compared to farting in a full to capacity elevator….the farter is the only one not-offended…

  3. If you can remove Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator, can I remove George Floyd, the great imposter? Why not?? I thought so.

    1. Cornell still sends fundraiser emails. When I respond that as long as the wokism and its associated maladies are flourishing the chances of my donating are nil, the response is just a resend of the original fundraising email. They are even worse than our elected representatives who at least select canned response paragraphs based on keywords. There is no intelligent life on the other end of the communication channel. I now see that the seeds of wokism were present at Cornell even in the late 70’s. At that time I wrote those sprouts off as silly but normal affectations, part of an open academic environment. Now I see that it was a growing infestation of pernicious weeds that is now damaging what should be carefully cultivated.

      1. Even weeds need water. You’re doing the right thing, Mike. Keep starving them.


    4 killed in Amtrak crash.

    Ban trains.

    50 illegal invaders killed.

    Ban illegal invasion.

  5. I’m looking forward to what happens when the LGBTQ mob takes a good look at what MLK had to say about homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. Should be interesting to see what happens when they start tearing down MLK statues, removing his name from streets and demanding they do away with the MLK holiday.
    Will be interesting to watch the battle between the 2 groups when they take their ‘non-violent protests’ to the streets and face off against each other.





    The bust of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln may be missing, but the letter of congratulation and commendation to Lincoln from, none other than, Karl Marx is right here for all to see:


    It must be prominently displayed at the unfortunate Lincoln Memorial.

    Americans do so treasure the truth, do they not?

    Lincoln espouses Marx’s principles, rhetoric and pejorative, “capitalist,” in 1837:

    “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

    As fate would have it, “Crazy Abe” was sentenced to death for all his death and unconstitutional abominations, subsequent to which, his communist successors assumed control and persist to this day.

  7. I’m watching the Fox News coverage of the hearings, I can’t wait for the break to hear how commentators try to pretend they didn’t hear what they heard. I wonder if Turley will be there?

    1. They said all they wanted was “FREE DOM.”

      What they really wanted was “FREE STUFF.”

      What they should have received was the law, under contemporary immigration law, when their status changed from “property” to “illegal alien” without visas.

        1. Yeah but for free. Can’t expect people to earn what they get can we? The white folks will pay for it for the rest of the world that can’t catch up.

                1. Enigma, read your own links before posting them. This proves me right and you wrong.

                  66% of HUD users belong to racial minorities.
                  47% are white, including white Hispanic (14%) as well as non-Hispanic(33%).
                  45% of HUD-assisted individuals are Black.

                  Black 45
                  white and Hispanic 47 – hispanic 14 = white 33%

                  If one looks at the situation based on percentage of population the numbers get even worse. Did you not study math or were you too busy spending time gathering inconsequential facts?

                  1. I suppose someone should explain to Allan that 47>45. Of course he’ll try to chew his leg off to get out by bringing up percentage of overall population, which in his case he’d cherry pick to try to balance out 47 to 45 breakdown. And he’d want to completely avoid all the other implications expanding out would bring in to the conversation…, but that’s our boy Allan. Scientifically boggled. Truly tone deaf. Self righteous. Triple Crown.

                    1. The percent was in addition to the real numbers. You must be having Enigma tutoring you in mathematics.

                      33% White
                      47% for white and Hispanic.

                      You have trouble in both reading and math.

                      45 Black >33 White

                      You never were good in math, even when you identified yourself.

                    1. I see Enigma, now you are telling Hispanics they are not Hispanics. You are the decider of ethnicity

                      In any event you need to learn math.

                      “66% of HUD users belong to ***racial minorities***.”

                      That leaves 34% for the majority race, White and 45% black which has less than 15% of the population. 100 – 66 = 34.

                      You don’t want to admit that you screwed up when you asked your question:

                      “Give me an example of “free stuff” that Black people get that white people don’t get more of?”

                      You will admit nothing and that is a defeatist attitude for anyone who follows you. If you can’t learn from your mistakes, don’t think yourself a good candidate for medical school.

  8. My wife who works in healthcare law once said “you can win every single argument when you omit half the facts”. Isn’t that right woke left and corrupt media?

  9. Maybe the ghost of Lincoln removed the bust in total disgust with the state of the nation?

      1. enigmainblackcom Well, it wouldn’t have been anyone from his party that would have done such a stupid thing. Leftist children (of all ages) seem to have lost, or never had, the ability to think, reason, and analyze. One bad move on the past of a public figure and it’s Off with his head. And yet, they tolerate all sorts of criminality and deceit from liberal politicians and POC. Makes one think that maybe there’s a simpler explanation for the “outrage” than actual knowledge of history. Petty power moves may satisfy the dull-minded for the moment, but there will be consequences long term.

        1. If you aren’t watching the Jan 6. hearing right now, you should be. The level of treason surpasses anything I ever imagined. I didn’t think much of the testimony up to this point moved the needle but this is worse than anything John Dean revealed during Watergate.

          1. More BS. Third party statements, especially without cross examination, are near meaningless bits of evidence. Your imagination runs wild again.

              1. But the statements that were most meaningful to the press were third-party. You can quote the most important things Hutchinson said as a witness to an event. Maybe I missed something.

                I found the hearing near meaningless because nothing proven was criminal, and what might have been disturbing wasn’t subjected to cross-examination. Lack of cross-examination and orchestrating testimony sounds more like a kangaroo hearing.

                Supposedly Trump reached to take control of the wheel from the backseat of a limousine. That is ridiculous, but that is what we are hearing.

                (The above Anonymous was mine as well.)

                1. She heard the president being told there were guns in the crowd and because he wanted a bigger crowd, he tried to order the magnetometers removed to let the crowd in, guns and all where they could then go to the Capitol. Everything that was second-hand, she named names, Mark Meadows, Pat Cipollone, and all the rest are welcome to come forward under oath and say different. Admittedly, Trump assaulting the secret service agent was second hand, but she named the names of those in the car. Do you have any evidence she lied under oath? “Thery’e not here to hurt me, take those f**king mags away! – Donald Trump (heard first hand)

                  1. I don’t have to prove she lied under oath. You have to prove those things are fact and meaningful. So far you have bubkus and that lacks appropriate examination.

                    1. You did say the most meaningful things she said were second-hand when she testified she saw and heard them. Are you going to keep spouting that untruth?

                    2. Are you unable to accurately relay what another said?

                      One of the biggies that hit the news was that Trump tried to grab the wheel in the limousine when he is sitting in the back seat. He must have gargantuan arms or the news reporters need glasses. Better yet would be a cross-examination of Hutchinson so that ridiculous things never hit the news media.

                      It is bad form to misrepresent what another said especially since this mini-thread is short. Your statements are wildly inaccurate.

                      Tell us what she said that would convict Trump. Don’t tell us any more lies about Trump’s gargantuan arms.

                    3. This is you saying what’s important to the media. Of course I didn’t allow for what media you pay attention to. The multiple networks I watched were concerned that Trump knew there were guns and wanted them not to have to pass thru the magnetometers.

                    4. The entire Jan6 hearings are for the media to expand on. That is why they don’t mind crazy and blatantly untrue things being said because the media will pick up on it even if crazy.

                  2. She was not in the car.

                    Neither was I, but I heard Trump put on a red hat and started shouting “This is MAGA country”!

                    Objection! Hearsay, your Honor.

                2. There is video of the limo coming to a sudden halt leaving his rally, now we know what was going on whether you think it ridiculous or not. In case you missed it, they played radio transmissions of the secret service and capitol police talking about the guns spotted in the crowd. I don’t want to hear you guys saying there were “no guns!”

                  1. “There is video of the limo coming to a sudden halt leaving his rally, now we know what was going on whether you think it ridiculous or not.”

                    So what? You hear something and suddenly you create a story that suits your needs. So far you have been wrong on almost anything. The odds are that one day you will be as correct as the broken clock which is right twice a day.

                  2. There is video of the limo coming to a sudden halt leaving his rally, now we know what was going on whether you think it ridiculous or not.

                    The President did not take the “Beast” that day. He was in a SUV.

                    You must enjoy when the media lies, to tell you stuff you want to hear

                    1. It has to be hard having to figure out how to deny everything a witness said. Did yo hear the radio broadcasts about the guns in the crowd. Guess they were fake too. Just wait for Hinnity, Tucker, and Turley to tell you what to say.

                    2. Enigma, we have heard all about guns in the Capitol Building but the only one murdered with a gun was Ashli Babbitt. https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html

                      What we found out later was there were no guns in the Capitol Building.

                      Now we start hearing the same BS about guns. Were they illegal guns? Were they guns carried by the FBI and other law officers? Were they guns carried by leftists?

                      You know very little about what happened. You heard hearsay that you will incorporate into your personal encyclopedia. At a later date you will repeat this nonsense and someone like John Say will have to correct almost everything you utter.

                      Try dealing with facts.

                    3. Then provide the transcription of the radio tapes rather than hearsay. The two will be different. Don’t you realize that? You provide too many things that are out of context and aren’t true.

                      If the transcription is available, why do you rely on testimony that is prompted to provide answers you want? Do you wish to add more wrong facts to your personal encyclopedia?

                    4. The transmissions have been telecast on several networks. It just proves you are only getting your news from the deny channels. Google it if you want to know.

                    5. Enigma, you are the one to provide the fallacious account when the transmissions were available.That is your problem. You don’t know what evidence is. Now that you have found out what evidence looks like you can tell us what in that evidence is proof of criminality?

                      You won’t. Strike up another failure.

                    6. You provided phony fact when the transmissions were available.That is your problem. You don’t know what evidence is. Now that you have found out what evidence looks like you can tell us what in that evidence is proof of criminality?

                      You won’t. Strike up another failure.

                    7. There are photographs of approximately half a dozen people carrying handguns – I beleive mostly OUTSIDE the capital.
                      To my knowledge NONE of these have been arrested. Revolver has been providing evidence these are likely Federal agents.

                      Todate there is no evidence of anyone outside of law enforcement taking a firearm into the capital. and no one using one except Byrd.

                      There is atleast one and likely a few other protestors who LEGALLY brought guns to Washington, but so far no evidence that any protestors had guns in or outside the capital – even though guns outside the capital may be legal.

                      But lets assume that some group brought 10,000 AR-15’s to DC for the protest.

                      They STILL did not take them to the protest or into the capital.

                      The left keeps ranting insurrection – an actual insurrection would have had thousands of guns – and it would have succeeded.

                      This is why the Capital was surrounded by Barb wire for months – Democrats have pissed off the country and the know it and they are terrified of an actual insurection. They are terrified – because as we see from the Abortion decesions – Democrats respond to political outcomes they do not like with massive violence – of course they are affraid the right would do the same.

                3. SM,
                  This January 6th commission’s mission to find something to convict Trump on and get him out of politics, is equivalent to opponents of the 1927 Yankees trying to convict Ruth to get him out of baseball. His great record is still history, the opponents still suck, and the rest of the lineup is very deep.

                  1. I already listened. Nothing there that counts for criminal action. You will have to make your own case.

                    1. That is what the hearings are for. To claim Trump did something criminal or something that would prevent him from running again.

                      If something were there, you are not the one able to show it.

                    2. Have the rules of evidence changed since the Democrats tried to convict Trump using hearsay witnesses the last time?

                      The Democrats are Charlie Brown to Lucy’s football.

                4. This J6 farce is Roman bread & circus clown show for the weak of mind. Hearsay and gossip galore…rest assured if anything was indictable we would already be there. The dems are taking it in the rump in the polls due to the pathetic and disastrous reign of the biden blue lagoon leftwaffe.

              2. What I found most damning was that Trump knew that people in the crowd had weapons when he sent them to the Capitol Complex, that he had no concern about rioters chanting “hang Mike Pence” / thought Pence deserved whatever was coming his way / subsequently condemned Pence in a tweet, and that there’s evidence of witness tampering.

                I wish that Hutchinson’s willingness to testify publicly and her testimony would prompt Cipollone and Pence to testify, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

                1. I understand that Hutchinson said the secret service agent told her about Trump trying to grab the wheel. CNN reports that the agent denied talking to Hutchinson and said it didn’t happen. He was in the car.

                  You guys love stories that aren’t verified despite the fact that they have turned out to be untrue repeatedly. That makes you not credible.

                  1. a) I don’t consider that anywhere close to her most important testimony. You couldn’t bring yourself to address a single item that I listed.

                    b) You understand wrong. She testified that Tony Ornato told her about what occurred while he was with Trump. CNN does not have a statement from Ornato denying it; they only have a statement from an unnamed source who wasn’t there, claiming that Ornato will deny it. Unless Ornato testifies about it under oath, there’s no way to know what he’ll say.

                    1. What you don’t understand about your witnesses is true about yourself. When they produce questionable testimony they lose credibility for everything.

                      You have been wrong on almost everything so you have no credibility either.

                      Produce your evidence of your contention, but make it good evidence, not the cr-p you always provide that later turns out to be wrong.

                    2. You are amazing. You make a big thing about a third person’s claim that has been refuted. Neither statements are good in my book, but since her statement was third hand you should be quiet until more information is obtained. But you aren’t silent. You act as if her claim is proven. Where has that gotten you and your friends?

                      Harry Reid told us the answer. Mitt Romney lost didn’t he, even though the statement was an intentional lie.

                      Spying on Trump: You guys were wrong
                      Steele Dossier: Wrong
                      Russia Hoax: Wrong
                      Ukraine Hoax: Wrong

                      These are just the major claims where you guys have been wrong.

                      The Biden laptop claims: You guys deny its real. Then it’s Russian disinformation. Then it’s not confirmed. Every step of the way you have denied the seriousness of the laptop. Now we hear Joe’s voice showing Joe lied about what he knew. We have Joe on tape telling how he threatened to withhold funds. We have money given to Joe’s family from multiple Russians. Everything is denied until it is forgotten about.

                      Get it straight. You have no credibility because you have been wrong about virtually everything and you deny all those things step by step. Your credibility stinks and only a fool would trust anything you had to say.

                      There is no ad hom in what I say for what I say has been proven repeatedly. You are a proven deceiver and a liar.

                    3. In other words, you can’t counter her testimony, so you turn to ad hom, as is your norm.

                      Again: if someone is going to claim that she said something false, they need to say it under oath. Anyone can lie in public, like you often do, as there are no legal consequences.

                      She testified under oath. If she committed perjury, she should be indicted. But the only way to show that is with other testimony under oath.

          2. Almost no one is watching J6.

            Treason is defined in the Constitution – specifically to keep idiots from pretending that political differences are treason.

            I would further note that spin is not facts.

            The means by which we find the actual truth in this country is adversarial proceedings.
            Everything else is propganda – show trials.

            Most people figured out that there is little difference Between J6 and Stalin’s show trials.

            BTW I thought that according to the left investigating the criminal actions of political rivals was grounds for impeachment ?

            Why are democrats still in congress ?

            All you re doing is making it clear how hypocritical and corrupt democrats are.

            You had better pray that republicans do not repay the favor in 2023.

            1. The Democrat base is watching with great interest. Just like they listen to CNN and Morning Joe and the ladies on The View. Whoopi is so stupid that she thought “Dr Jill” would make a great Surgeon General because she’s “one hell of a doctor.” The Democrat base listens to stupid people because they are all stupid people.

              No one in their right mind would want to be living under Democrat rule anywhere, at any level.

              1. Even NBC and CBS managed to report that the Secret Service denies several outrageous claims one of the recent “big witnesses” made.

                Not that those claims amounted to actual crimes. This is a huge DUD.

                The last poll I read suggest that DEMOCRATS who watched came away with more doubt that J6 was consequential than they had before the hearings.

                These are a bad soviet show trial – atleast staling got his targets to “confess”.

      2. The state by which human dignity is recognized without racialized idolatry, by which law is deferred to and treated with respect, by which human life is respected in its entirety, by which our constitutional order is respected and adhered to? These states? You mean these states? Pretty sure Abe wouldn’t object to these things and I’m pretty sure that if his brilliant mind had the facts of abortion, for example, he’d wage the same unfettered war on it as the monstrous injustice that it is, as he did with slavery.

      3. ,Oh so you are AOK with the dem party being headed by a racist segregationist , total career grifter with a money bagman son , taking money chicoms , ukraine and russian oligarchs. The state of the Republican party is such that this coming mid terms will be a bloodbath for the blue lagoon and it’s leftwaffe henchmen. The very henchmen of the blue lagoon you support hypocritically and pathologically.

        1. ” total career grifter with a money bagman son”

          Which President are you describing? If you said career grifter with two money bagman sons, a daughter and son-in-law that covered up for the Saudi’s and Russians I’d know for sure.

            1. I’d never heard a disparaging word about Cassidy Huitchinson until she testified, under oath, about January 6th. Now she’s a pariah because certain people don’t like what she said, much of which was backed up by earlier testimony. I guess your willingness to consider new evidence reached your limit? As Brett Baier said on Fox News, (before they figured out what the party line was going to be). “Cassidy Hutchinsonm testified under oath and Donald Trump testified on Truth Social.” The good news for Trump is that it might help get his fledgling social media operation off the ground as his loyalist rush to subscribe so they know what to say to deny the truth.

              1. “Now she’s a pariah because certain people don’t like what she said, much of which was backed up by earlier testimony. I guess your willingness to consider new evidence reached your limit?”
                No I’ll wait for the testimony from the eyewitness who reportedly disavows everything Cassidy says before proclaiming Trump a “traitor” as you so judiciously put it. You’re considering the usual Leftist second-hand hearsay as credible. About 500 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence says you take hearsay with a grain of salt if you take it all. You have no such timidity declaring a conclusion before the evidence is in and now you expose your zealotry. How anyone could believe that obviously rehearsed, sultry performance is beyond me but to those who did: how many Trump “bombshells turned duds” does it take to convince you it’s a frame up?

                Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me forever, call me a Democrat.

                1. We’d all love for eyewitnesses like Cipollone and Meadows and Trump and Pence to testify in public under oath.

                  But if you’re waiting for them to do it, don’t hold your breath, or you’ll pass out.

                2. You keep saying second-hand which some of it was like the secret service incident in the beast. Most of it was first-hand including her hearing Trump say to let the armed people past the magnetometers. There were also radio transmissions played that supported what she said about guns in the crowd. The people who you want to come forward are doing all they can to fight their subpoenas. You know what, I want them to testify too!

              2. I guess your willingness to consider new evidence testimony reached your limit?


                Now, when should we expect the evidence? Or is Schiff doing a parody of their last hearsay witness list?

                1. Eye witness testimony IS evidence. It is an extremely common kind of evidence. A bit of Hutchinson’s testimony was second-hand, but most of it — and the most important part — was eye witness testimony.

                  Also, Cheney presented testimony from others that someone(s) in Trump-world are engaged in attempted witness intimidation.

                  1. Bull. She made incredulous claims that appear to have been debunked. She was wrong, Therefore the rest of her testimony is in doubt unless you can prove she was right.

                    This was one of the major claims..

                    You have repeatedly lied so you are not to be believed. You are not credible.

                    1. None of what she said has been “debunked” under oath. Some of it was confirmed with other evidence, including tapes of police transmissions.

                      Again: if someone is an eye witness and wants to counter what she said, they have to testify under oath. Anyone can lie in public with impunity, as you often do. They need to do it under oath, where there’s a legal consequence if they lie.

                    2. “None of what she said has been “debunked” under oath.”

                      We understand, hearsay is good enough to publish as the truth and to be hyped by a kangaroo committee, but reports that it is a fabricated story suddenly get looked down upon.

                      That is you Anonymous the Stupid. Grabbing whatever garbage you can while disputing a comma at the end of sworn testimony that proves you wrong.

                      Where else have we seen this before?

                      Hunter’s laptop
                      Biden’s claimed innocence
                      Steele Dossier
                      Russia Hoax
                      Ukraine Hoax.

                      Why should anyone listen to anythingg you have to say. You are a trickster and a liar. You are not credible.

                    3. “Again: if someone is an eye witness and wants to counter what she said, they have to testify under oath.”

                      Why don’t you wait for both sides of the story to come out before you lie? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid, the Liar.

              3. “d never heard a disparaging word about Cassidy Huitchinson until she testified, under oath, about January 6th.”
                And Booth got great reviews until he upstaged the cast of “Our American Cousin” on April 14, 1865. Funny, how one bad performance can do that.

                1. Whenever I see a person spend as much time on a comment section, arguing with EVERY possible adversary, I know there is an agenda which is not noble occurring. It is why I generally (at this point) simply gloss over every blackenema post I see. Anyone trying that hard is not genuine.

                1. Or is it Juicy? Were there Nigerians with rope around their neck anywhere in Juicy Hutch’s “testimony”?

              4. She’s entering the “Hoaxers Hall of Fame” where she will now be famous for “Grab ’em by the steering wheel”!

  10. I am deeply disappointed in my Alma Mater. I found the breath of Cornell’s offerings wonderful: studying law in the Law Library, accounting in the Hotel School, small group interactions in ILR and public speaking, archeology, writing in the Liberal Arts. There was so much freedom and such a variety. I literally cannot understand why today’s students are so terrified by opposing views and so willing to fall in line to support the cause de jour.

    1. Ken Phillips They are so terrified because they were never taught to think critically, so they really don’t know how to respond to actual controversy in any way other than “cancellation.” It’s the equivalent to hiding in a corner or shutting yourself in a room when things get tough. These are very fragile minds, and the only reason they have this clout is because it benefits the Democrats and their media allies. If there were actual adults in power, these kids would not be able to act out their irrational temper tantrums in public.

    2. Ken, you must have attended Cornell in my era, the 1950’s. All of your recollections are mine as well. Starting in the ’60s it has been a downhill slide into rabid, anti-intellectual and totalitarian “progressivism”, which is anything but progressive. I am sure my grandson, who starts there in the fall, will never experience what we had. And worse, he may come out of it as one of them.

    3. I would be interested in seeing the evidence behind your assertion. I read the Cornell Daily Sun, the Ithaca Journal, and news.cornell.edu. I also visit campus a few times a year (from NYC) and interact with a wide cross-section of undergraduates and some business school students. And, I respectfully disagree.

    1. Frederick Douglass said Lincoln was the white man’s President. He refused to accept Lincoln’s plan to ship freed slaves out. He had plenty of serious problems with Lincoln, why would you say differently?

      1. Enigma here’s a quote from Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln’s position on slavery in the United States is one of the most discussed aspects of his life. Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private. “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong,” he stated in a now-famous quote. If you had been uprooted from your homeland against your will wouldn’t an option of being returned to your birth place be an option that you might want to consider. Then again, Dougless probably understood that slavery in Africa was even more oppressive than slavery in America. Slavery in Africa was not prohibited until 1875 but the practice continued up to World War I. Lincoln could have pressed the issue and sent black men back to Africa to be slaves but he didn’t. Lincoln’s title of “The Great Emancipator” still stands today. Perhaps a better understanding of history will result on a more informed gratitude on your part. Perhaps not.

        1. At the time of the Civil War, pretty much all US slaves were born in the US, as were their parents and probably their grandparents and perhaps ancestors even further removed. Some of their ancestors were “uprooted” (your description) from various African countries against their will, and other of their ancestors were likely white men who raped Black women slaves. Bizarre that you assume a US slave could identify a specific African country as his or her “homeland” to return to.

      2. Frederick Douglass, 1876. Great speech to read in full, but here is an excerpt that faithfully captures its import:

        “Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

        “Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery.”


  11. “Lefties are often dishonest, lying by both omission and commission (just read some of our lefty bloggers). -monumentcolorado

    “Of course, the Left wants to tear everything down, burn it, and build their socialist utopian dream society. I guess European white folks and every vestige of their existence including statues must go. Okay, sure thing.” – Randy Perkins

    “Leftists only care about finding something to use as a cudgel, to rationalize their unfounded hate” -iowan2

    I never can tell what the definition of “lefty” is? Any story about any subject leads to multiple diatribes about lefty’s whether it’s related or not. Randy Perkins seems to feel it’s people that don’t come from European white folks although most lefties as far as I can tell come from European white folks. You guys hate those lying politicians on the left but adore Trump? Think of the irony of that? Lefties are alleged to be full of hate while you express how much you hate them. Assuming I’m considered part of the left, I could give you a long list of the flaws of Biden, Obama, both Clintons, the Democratic Party, Lyndon Johnson, JFK, et. al. You guys defend the indefensible on the right and claim they do no wrong. Jim Jones’s followers were less devoted. I am beginning to wonder if you’re all in a cult?

    1. enigma…..What we have is a fraternity of fairness, truth and mutual respect.

      It’s painful to watch your abiding jealousy, as you stick your nose under the tent.

      1. Hi Cindy, I imagine everyone thinks they’re fair whether true or not. I suppose you can convince yourself that you’re respectful, maybe you only mean to each other by not calling each other out when you see someone being ridiculous. But truth? I won’t mention Trump and his lies because that will trigger people, I’ll start with low hanging fruit. Steve Bannon was convicted of taking money from your people and pretending to build a wall. He’s still a champion to the people he stole from. The truth is inconsequential in your fraternity. It means nothing.

        1. All politicians lie.
          Trump is not a politician.
          Therefore Trump does not lie.

          1. All politicians lie
            Some people that are not politicians lie
            Trump is not a politician
            Consider the possibility that Trump is one of those other people that lie. Your “logic” makes no sense.

            1. Like using a laser pointer to play with a cat
              The “logic” he used was your logic

        2. “I won’t mention Trump and his lies because that will trigger people”

          That only acts as a ‘trigger’ when you lie or mistake the truth.

          “Steve Bannon was convicted of taking money from your people and pretending to build a wall.”

          Not true Enigma (He wasn’t convicted.), but consistent with your comments about many people from the right. Your tendency to get the facts wrong is legendary.

        3. Enigma, i know your are not aware that Steve Bannon was not convicted but just in case here’s some information you may find useful. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/25/steve-bannon-officially-cleared-of-federal-charges-after-trump-pardon—but-this-state-probe-still-looms/?sh=733bc6fa57c4. There where people in the build the wall organization who plead guilty to the misuse of funds. In contrast were all the people in the BLM organization guilty of the siphoning of funds by the BLM leadership. Even though Bannon was pardoned by Trump charges remain against Bannon n New York. Has it ever crossed your mind that the pursuit of Bannon might be for political purposes. Perhaps New York is not expediently pursuing the charges against Bannon because there is no there there. Ya think. You did say convicted. Right.

          1. You are right that he wasn’t convicted, he was pardoned on the Federal side because Trump having nothing to do with whether he was guilty.

    2. “You guys hate those lying politicians on the left but adore Trump? ”

      Enigma, a better statement would be, You guys hate those lying politicians on the left but adore Trump policies? You have a great deal of difficulty separating the man from his policies that are generally good.

      “Lefties are alleged to be full of hate while you express how much you hate them.”

      When Antifa and BLM burned the cities, rioted, looted, and killed people, the lefty politicians did nothing and supported these illegal actions. When Ron DeSantis secured Florida from these actions, the lefties chastised him.

      I have provided some context as to who the lefties are.s. There are many more examples, but we can start there and build your understanding.

    3. Enigma, you say that you could point out the flaws of Obama, Biden and the Clintons but you never do. You could point out that Hunter Biden is just another grifter but you never do. You could say that RussiaGate was made up by Hillary Clinton but you never do. You could say that the Black Lives Matter riots were wrong but you never do. You could say that the Hunter laptop was not Russian disinformation but you never do. You could say that you disavow yourself of these lies by your Democratic party but you never do. You could take back your oath to the Democratic Party written in blood because of the falsehoods that it foisted on the American people but you never do. Therefore our understanding of who you are will remain and it ever will.

      1. That you never pay attention when I do doesn’t mean I don’t. I have often listed the historical wrongs of the Democratic Party and said they have more blood on their hands than Republicans. I have praised the Republican Party when they were the Party of Lincoln (before they started a steady slide in 1877).

        1. Enigma, but you just said that Lincoln was the President of the white man. Now you say that you praise Lincoln. You may have said that the Democratic Party has more blood on their hands than the Republicans in the past but you refuse to find enough condemnation of the Democratic Party for creating the RussiaGate hoax today. The RussiaGate hoax did tremendous damage to the nation but you continue to be a card carrying member of the Democratic Party. You claim to find fault with both parties but when assessing the flaws of the Republicans you use a ten power microscope and when assessing the flaws of the Democrats we need a ten power magnifying glass to read your fine print. We know. You believe yourself to be such a fare fellow. As an illustration, you said that Bannon has been convicted of a crime when he has not. Itching ears hear what they want to hear.

          1. Don’t misquote me, I didn’t say Lincoln was the President of the white man, I said Frederick Douglass said it.
            “It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
            He was pre-eminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.”
            I didn’t [praise Lincoln but did praise the Party of Lincoln pre-1877.

            I do find fault with the Democratic Party, past and present, but today, the time we actually live in. Republicans are far worse. After the testimony in today’s hearing, I’ll have to take a little time to sort out if any elected officials in the party are worth salvaging?

            1. Enigma, you reveal to us the bend of your thinking when you say things like Steve Bannon was convicted of a crime when no such thing has happened. Why should you see the Jan 6 hearing without the same jaundiced eye. Being such a fare fellow why aren’t you calling for witnesses from both sides. When black men were being lynched witnesses for the defense were not allowed. We now are experiencing a high tech lynching and no witnesses for the defense are allowed. One would think that you would be aghast at such an injustice. Where is your fare minded concern?

              1. The Republicans had a chance to participate in bipartisan hearings which they refused to do. Fortunately, enough Republicans testified to what they saw and now it’s reached the point where you have to decide whether to be a loyal Republican or an American? You can’t be both anymore.

                    1. This was after McConnell turned down the bipartisan effort. At least one of the picks McCarthy wanted we now know was actually a witness (Jim Jordan). You can make the case this is a one-sided presentation, but it’s only was because Republicans initially wouldn’t participate and later wanted to place people only to gum up the works.

                    2. You sound ridiculous. “gum up the works”. Yes that is what good cross-examination does. The Jan 6 committee is a bunch of kangaroos. They need a zoo-keeper to keep them under control.

                      The investigation should involve everything. When is Pelosi going to release her communications and all the videos?

                    3. I’ve jeard Jim Jordan in multiple hearings on different topics. Gum up the works is exactly the right term. Plus he’;s a witness to the events that refuses to testify.

                    4. Just like John Say exposes the fallacies you push Jordan does the same to Congress. You don’t like that. I understand. When they are wrong who wants to be held to the facts?

                      So far despite seeing the hearings and getting news you are unable to put together first hand proof Trump did something criminal.

                    5. one of the Huge problems with the J6 hearings is that they go far beyond the norms regarding congress exceeding its power

                      Congress is NOT an investigatory body – the DOJ/FBI are.
                      Congressional hearings are for the purpose of legislation or oversight.

                      SOME of the rules that apply to criminal investigations and civil and criminal hearings apply to congressional hearings – but not all of them – specifically because the nature of the hearings – an therefore the rights of those testifying are quite different.

                      Congressional hearings are often political – that is a feature not a flaw. but they are still political in the context that both parties have proportionate voices, both parties can call witnesses and examine witnesses. But this is STILL not the same as a criminal or civil hearing in which the defendent can call witnesses and present evidence.

                      Rules such as Conflict of interests do not apply to congressional hearings. Chair Thomson has a signficant conflict of interest with Virginia Thomas.
                      If he were a judge he would have to recuse himself. Even the appearance of bias is sufficient – not that judges follow the rules either.

                      Pretty much the whole country was a “witness” to J6. There is no “you are a witness you can not participate” rule for congressional hearings.

                      I would note there is not one for civil and criminal procedings either. It is a violation of the rules of ethics for a lawyer to make themselves a witness in a proceding in which they are a part. But that is a bar against taking actions that inevitably end up with the lawyer in the witness seat.
                      Thus lawyers generally operate in pairs. That means should something ever happen one is a witness while the other continues to represent the client.
                      There are more complexities – because many of the rules of ethics do not apply to pro see representatives – even when they are lawyers.

                      My point is that though the J6 hearings have major problems because they have the appearance of a show trial, the same rules do not apply to congress that apply to courts. The J6 committee has problems because it has failed to comply with the rules congress makes for itself.
                      Such as proportionate representation, each party selecting their own committee members, an a quaisi adversarial process.

                      But nothing has ever Barred Jordan from sitting on the committee – except pelosi.

                    6. The Democrats that pushed this type of committee are spitting on the Constitution, Americanism, the law and the people. They are reprehensible and destructive.

                    7. It goes well beyond that.

                      They are destroying the bonds that hold the country together.

                      I have and will continue to fight to change bad rules, bad laws.
                      But we do so within the framework of the law and constitution.

                      So much of what is going on now is destroying institutions, their trust, the rule of law.

                      Lawlessness is incredibly dangerous – that is what sparks catastrophic failures.

                      Further the left while ranting about saving democracy are acting as totalitarian as possible.

                      NOTHING they seek to do has majority support, much less super majority support.
                      Most of the agenda that democrats are pushing hard is UNPOPULAR.

                    8. “They are destroying the bonds that hold the country together.”

                      Of course many are. I have said it repeatedly. We are dealing with Marxist revolutionaries and their followers that might be brain dead.

                    9. I do not honestly think most of these people are smart enough to be marxists.

                    10. “I do not honestly think most of these people are smart enough to be marxists.”

                      They aren’t. In fact Sowell has said that many who have written books about Marxism don’t understand Marxism. Most people are followers. Even Anonymous the Stupid awhile back didn’t understand what the isms were, but that is expected. I don’t know if he has learned much since then. He is an ideologue who follows the head in front of him. He isn’t a real activist. Call him a couch activist.

        2. Enigma, what the Democratic Party does today for the black man is give them free stuff to get their vote. The Democratic Party has convinced the black man that if they don’t vote for a Democrat they ain’t black. The blood of the black man is still on the hands of the Democratic Party today proven by the murders in Chicago every day. Then they answer that they want to defund the police so the killers won’t be stopped. Please show us your Democratic Party membership card again.

    4. what is a lefty ?

      Someone who does not know what a woman is.

        1. Point out an actual crime ?

          The only actually criminal acts I have seen from significant political figures are those of democrats.

          There was no collusion delussion – there was a hoax sold to the FBI/DOJ and therefore an illegal investigation spanning years during which tim those involved in that investigation KNEW they has no actual basis.

          Conversely there WAS a legitimate basis to investigate the Biden’s conduct in Ukriane.
          Though there were myriads of lies – just like the collusion delusion in an attempt to hide that.

          The 2020 election was lawless, there is also more than sufficient evidene to REQUIRE a thorough investigation into widespread large scale fraud.
          Self evidently democrats, the courts, the DOJ/FBI Barr, You, the media have had their head in the sand. The only unresolved questions are:
          How large was the fraud, Who benefited (though that is self evidence, and was the fraud sufficient change the outcome of the election.

          Even if the election was “perfect” – Trump and many others were entitled to challenge that.
          Further the courts and law enforcement were OBLIGATED to take allegations of fraud seriously and even to investigate the election itself ABSENT allegations of fraud. It is Critical that we trust elections. The legitimacy of government rests on that trust.

          It was legal to challenge the election.
          It was legal to protest the election – especially at the capital. It was legal to enter the capital, and even to non-violently occupy the capital.
          Government actions thwarting that were unconstitutional and lawless. People are allowed to FORCE their rights against LAWLESS government.
          All of the above is true – even if the election was “perfect” – all of the above occurred in 2016 when Democrats protested Trump’s election – except that government did not at outside the law to lockdown the capital.

          It was legal and constitutional for people to advise Trump to take steps to “overturn” the election – that were consistent with the constitution. That includes seeking alternate slates of electors, demanding an election commission and attempting to persuade congressmen to object to the count. It also includes directly the AG to look for election fraud, and to asking state election officials to look for fraud or to look for additional votes.
          It was legal for Trump to try to go to the capital on J6.

          What act of acts do you think Trump or Republicans committed that were crimes ?

          I can identify a long list of actual crimes likely committed by democrats.

          Things you do not like are not inherently illegal.
          Even things that are immoral or unethical are not inherently illegal.

          Legal acts done for purportedly bad purposes is STILL legal.

          The rule of law requires that we narrowly follow and enforce the law we have – even when we do not like it.
          We are free to change the law if we can, otherwise we are bound to follow it.

          That includes election laws, state constituional provisions, immigration law.
          Prosecutor discretion does not extend to circumventing the legislative process.

          The constitution and our law are written for good times and bad, for normal times and for emergencies.
          If the constitution and our law do not work during times of stress – our law and constitution are themselves bad.

          1. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember Watergate and the long list of convictions that came from it. Before this is over, the list will be longer and you’ll still be claiming no crimes were committed.

            1. EB I probably know far more about Watergate than you – I would also suggest looking into some of the modern research into Watergate.

              The actual number of convictions for Watergate was extremely small – it was limited to people who were directly involved in the actual commission of crimes.

              Might you succeed in getting someconviction from a DC Jury – certtainly – no one on earth thinks DC juries are any more sane or lawful than the J6 committee – but ultimately you are not going to get a conviction of anyone that is upheld.

              Because you do not have any underlying crimes.

              You an rant and rave about Eastman – but there is no crime – just an effort to thread an unlikely constitutional needle.

              Hutchinson is imploding all over – not that even she alleged an actual crime – but it appears that she was not even the “eyewittness” – you claimed.
              There appears to be evidence she was not even int he car at the time.

              As Iowan2 noted False in one, False in all.

              We keep going through this same nonsense from you and the left over and over.

              According to YOU – everyone else is lying. everyone else is a criminal, everyone else is a racist. Annecdotes become the themes of history,
              And gossip becomes fact – atleast in your mind.

              But what continues to happen over and over is that you, and the left BURN your own credibility.

              You can foll all of the people some of the time
              and some of the people all of the time
              but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

              The collapse of Hutchinson;’s testimony demonstrates precisely what is wrong witht he J6 hearings and WHY you need an adversarial process to get to the truth. The weaknesses in Hutchinson’s claims would likely have been exposed BEFORE she testified, certainly WHEN she testified.

              Instead – you have sold the country what i near certain perjured testimony.
              The bad news is like the collusion delusion there will be a few people who continue to beleive this nonsense for years.

              1. “near certain perjured testimony”
                Give me a specific example that has been contradicted by other testimony?

                I’m reminded of the letter from the Capitol Police saying there were no tours conducted by congressmen on Jan. 5th, then seeing videos of the tours the letter said didn’t exist. All this talk about perjury is cheap, especially from people like Meadows that refuse to cooperate. I hear he is disputing he asked for a pardon but not denying anything else.

                1. Give you and example ? Are you deaf and blind ?

                  Your most recent star witness is contradicted by the Secret Service – who is fully prepared to testify.
                  Do you think that will happen ? I do not.

                  It appears there is not only witness willing to contradict her testimony, but even documents that prove she was not where she claims to have been.

                  Of course it is not possible to contradict the testimony of a witness – if you do not require testimony that contradicts, if you do not allow cross examination.

                  Given that witnesses at the J6 hearing were not examined by inquistors reflecting all sides to the issues, and given that contradictory testimony is not allowed. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the testimony is perjured were there are witnesses willing to testify and documents to support them.

                  Face it EB you have a huge problem. The J6 committee did more accidently end up with perjured testimony – it SUBORNED perjury.
                  And it is trying to hide that.

                  This is the obvious problem with show trials.

                  1. Where is the specific example? You say there are people that contradict her, where is their testimony. Much more obvious are the people she named that are unwilling to testify. Also clear are the attempts to keep people from testifying or to testify the :right way.” If you want evidence of suborning perjury, listen to Liz Cheney’s final warning to those tampering with witnesses. Soon, you and your ilk will reach the point where you have to decide whether to be a loyal Trump follower or an American. You can’t be both!

                    1. The J6 comittee is free to call the Secret Service Agent and the Driver.
                      They are also free to request Records from the whitehouse confirming who was with Trump when.

                      How much do you wish to bet they will not ?

                      There is a reason that real hearings are adversarial and allow all sides to call witnesses and to cross examine them.
                      And you are seeing it in real time.

                      Chenney is Full of Schiff. A congressional hearing is not a grand jury or a trial.
                      Witness tampering does not apply – atleast not as she and you are using it.

                      And I find it absolutely hillarious that left wing nuts are enthralled by Liz Chenney – Super NeoCon.
                      I guess you forgot the Iraq invasion and Nigerian Yellow Cake.
                      Or the fact that Chenney and democrats are soley responsible for the fact that the patriot act was not allowed to die.

                    2. You keep making the same stupid claim – that the truth is determined by what people say.

                      It is not.

                      Crimes are defined by legislation – Law.
                      That law is REQUIRED to be read NARROWLY.

                      The J6 committee can Claim something is a crime all it wishes
                      That is pretty much meaningless.

                      It would not have alot of meaning even if this were a reasonable committee

                      It is SELF-Evident That all the nonsensical claims of crimes floating arround are FAKE.

                      This is little different from the stupid claimed that Trump was violating the Emoluments clause.

                      A crime is an act that meets EVERY SINGLE required element of the law defining the crime.

                      You do not have that.

                      Ranting, does not change that.
                      Nor does the J6 committee saying that something is a crime.

                      Further it is presumed that acts that were accepted as legal in the past remain legal today.

                      Conduct by Trump that attempts to replicate the 1876 election is not a crime.
                      Conduct that Clinton engaged in, in 2016 is not a crime.

                      It is also self evident that there is nothing that the J6 committee has that DOJ did not have.
                      DOJ has a grand Jury related to J6.
                      They have not charged or indicted anyone.
                      Given that we are dealing with a DC grand Jury – that is actually surprising.

                    3. First, I am not a “trump follower” – I have never voted for Trump.
                      I am libertarian.

                      Next, I am not an idiot. I look at real world FACTS and do not try to bend them to fit my wishes.

                      I would be happy if both Clinton and Trump lost in 2016.
                      I would be happy if Both Biden and Trump lost in 2020.

                      But I am never getting the constitutional government that I want.
                      The best I can hope for is the least evil of the available choices.

                      Democrats are bending over backwards to make sure they are the most evil available choice.

                      Please do not wrap yourself and the party that sold out to Russia – Uranium One, The Clinton Foundation.
                      Sold out Ukraine in favor of Russia – Burisma, and sold out to china in the american flag or patriotism.

                      The J6 hearings have not addressed the most critical issue.

                      Why were protestors unconstitutionally denied their first amendment rights on J6 ?

                      Last I checked it was the US – american, constitution, and it was the rights of AMERICANS than were violated.

                      There is no place on earth were protest, petitioning government, political speech is more protected than the US capital.
                      There is no moment in time where protest against a lawless and fraudulent election is more protected than when Congress considers the election.

                      If you wish to wrap yourself in the flag – then stand up for the values this country stands for.

                      You know the ones you are constantly ignoring when you rant that the country is irredeemably corrupt do to slavery.

                      If you want to wrap yourself in partriotism – then quit pissing over core american values.

                      Even by your own arguments – if you are looking to remake the country – which you are entitled to try.
                      You are not a patriot. You seek to make the country more like you mythically beleive other countries are
                      That is neither american nor patriotic. You are free to do so, but not free to lie about it.

                      George Washington may have been a slave owner, he may (or may not) have had teeth from slaves.
                      But he was an actual american, and a patriot. You are by your own arguments neither.
                      You weigh the good and the bad of our past – and find little or nothing good.
                      You are free to do so, but not free to pretend that is either patriotic or american.

                2. I honestly do not care if the purported testimony is true – Hutchinson did not testify to any criminal conduct.

                  With respect to your claims regarding J5th. There were no tours on the 5th. This issue was addressed.
                  A single congressmen took a small group of school children through part of the Capital that had nothing to do with J6.

                  Regardless, the entire “tours” issue was nonsense from the start.
                  Representatives, Senators, the Capital staff themselves take people for Tours through the capital all the time.
                  Had 50 Representatives taken 300 Constitutents through the capital on J5 or the weeks before – that would be evidence of business as usual at the capital.

                  This is the THEME of the entire J6 hearings.

                  Democrats – and You make claims that if true – do not constitute crimes or even evidence of Crimes, and then the claims prove to be FALSE.

                  You are he little boy crying WOLF – there is no Wolf.

                  This is little different from the Russian collusion delusion.

                  You fixagte on minor details – blow them radically out of proportion, pretend they are unusual when they are not, and then assign meaning to them that they are incapable of supporting.

                  Why should this surprise me ? This is exactly what you have been doing regarding the history of race and slavery in the US.

                  We are in the midst of a significant reversal or a long term trend of decreasing violence in this country. In 2020, 2021, and 2022 so far we have seen year over year increases in most violent crime at complete odds with trends that have existed for 40 years.

                  If I were to argue as you do constantly – I would claim this is all evidence of the criminality and moral bankruptcy of blacks.
                  After all blacks make up 14% of the country and commit 50% of the violent crime. Further the increase in violent crime is almost exclusively in democrat controlled minority run major cities.

                  1. With respect to your claims regarding J5th. There were no tours on the 5th. This issue was addressed.

                    A single congressmen took a small group of school children through part of the Capital that had nothing to do with J6.”

                    Is believing anythingnyoiu’re told part of joining the cult? First you say there was no tour, then you say it was just kids. I post this video, knowing that even if you see it,you won’t believe.


                    I’m no longer debating you, I’m laughing at you,

                    1. That is your evidence ?

                      You think that video means anything ?

                      You have video that is CLEARLY not a tour of a SINGLE person – that may or may not be with a congressmen and several women and children ALL of whom are taking pictures, You have that person at ONE or TWO places, you THINK that you have him later in J6 OUTSIDE the capital.

                      This is your idea of “evidence” ?

                      Listen to your own News report.

                      This is a claim without support in real evidence made by the J6 committee.
                      You do not seem to understand what “evidence” is, what Facts are.

                      Many people are at the capital every single day that it is open.
                      One person captured on video one or two places taking pictures is NOT evidence of a Tour, much less a plot.

                      Tempest in a teapot.

                    2. Congressmen are free to take people through all or parts of the capital whenever they please.

                      In fact ordinary people are free to go through the public portions of the capital whenever it is open which ispretty much all work days.

                    3. There in the video YOU linked.

                      Do you actually look at the links you post ?
                      Do you actually read the links you post ?
                      Do you check to make sure that ANYTHING you assert is true ?

            2. I strongly suspect that the ONLY positive aspect of Garland’s tenure as AG, and likely the ONLY thing that will prevent him from being impeached in 2023 is that so far he is not stupid enough to engage in these political prosecutions.

              I hope that continues.

              I suspect that he now grasps he was played for a fool by the whitehouse over the treating parents objecting to their schools racist curicula as domestic terrorists and he is not going to repeat the mistake.

              Regardless, neither he nor democrats should be so stupid as to think that they will remain in power long.

              What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

              If you are going to engage in lawless political prosecutions. If you are going to criminalize political differences – Republicans are capable of that too.

              Outside of DC republican DA’s Republican law enforcement, Republican prosecutors, republican AG’s are FAR more numerous than democrats.
              But have so far stayed within the rule of law.
              To my knowledge there are no State AG’s investigating the Biden’s – as idiot leftists have don with Trump and Republicans.

              But every single stupid political witchunt you engage in encourages ever more blowback.

              But you do not even see that it is YOU that is in trouble.

              Trust in government is now LOWER than watergate – that is NOT about Trump – that is about YOU.

              Biden’s approval, continues to decline.
              The Generic Ballot continues to move ever more republican. I do not think it has been R+5 in my lifetime. But the RCP average is R+5 today.

              The J6 hearings are worse than a Dud – your “star witness” appears to be a hoax.

              There are serious discussions of the possibility o Republicans willing governorships in Oregon, New Mexico, Washington and New York.
              I doubt that will happen – but it is near certain that even in secure democratic states – races will be competitive something they have not been for a long time.

              It is not republicans in trouble.
              It is not republicans that keep lying to people.
              It is YOU.

              1. Current polling has Republicans losing seats in the Senate. They are still likely to win the House but they keep digging that same hole you are in supporting an insurrection (some of them participated). Then there will be the list of those tampering with witnesses.

                1. “Current polling has Republicans losing seats in the Senate”

                  In your dreams.
                  RCP has the current Senate Map as 46D 47R with 7 Tossups.
                  RCP has 3 of the Tossups leaning Republican
                  Which retains the current 50;50 Senate.
                  RCP currently has GA going to Warnock – by 1.6%
                  NH to Hassan by 4% – yet there is no GOP candidate yet.
                  NV is going to Cortes by a razor’s edge.

                  Democrats MUST win every single one of those races to hold the Senate,
                  and they must do so in an R+5 environment.

                  Further the political environment is growing WORSE for democrats over time.

                2. You keep pretending that the J6 hearings are he same as a criminal trial.
                  They are not.

                  There is no such thing as “witness tampering” with respect to congressional testimony.
                  No one is on trial, and the only legitimate goals of congressional hearings is legislation or government oversite.

                  Government ALWAYS “coaches” its witnesses appearing before congress,
                  Private actors testifying before congress pretty much always have an agenda – especially with respect to legislation,
                  and all kinds of people try to influence legislation as well as congressional testimony.

                  You do not seem to understand our system of government at all.

                  A major reason that the J6 hearings are illegitimate – is specifically because congress does not have the power to conduct criminal inquiries.

                  Congress is not a grand jury. The fact that they are acting like a very bad one does not make them one.
                  Nor does it make it possible to make claims that would apply to a grand jury force fit to the J6 committee.

                  You are free to beleive you have been effective.
                  But I would prepare yourself for disappointment.

                  1. “There is no such thing as “witness tampering” with respect to congressional testimony.”

                    You just made that up didn’t you? Another good joke for the day.

                    1. I did not “make that up”.

                      It is self evident.

                      Congressional testimony is quite different from testimony before a grand jury or in a civil or criminal hearing.

                      WE are constantly hearing idiocy like witness tampering and obstruction by those on the left – without any understanding.

                      There is no such thing regarding congress.
                      Congress is a legislative body, it has no criminal or civil investigative or adjudicative power.

                      If someone contributes to Chenney’s campaign – are they bribing a judge or jury tampering ? Are they obstructing justice ?
                      You keep claiming everyone is a witness – well Chenney is too – is someone contributing to her campaign “witness tampering” ?

                      The narrow meaning of words is important whenever you are alleging crimes.

                    2. Under oath under penalty of perjury sounds like a real witness to me. Tampering with that person’s testimony is a crime, at least in real America.

                    3. A real witness is someone that can testify to something they observed themselves.

                      Regardless, it is not just me, or the right or Fox that is highly skeptical of Hutchinson – even CBS and NBC are reporting numerous problems.

                      There appears to be a LONG list of errors.

                      Someone has come forward and claimed – with evidence that a Memo she claims to have written was written by them.

                      Appearently she was deposed by the committee 4 other times, and most o her testimony is different from what she testified to previous.
                      You seem to like the phrase “witness tampering” – could be that Chenney is the one engaging in Witness tampering.

                      You are free to bet your credibility on Hutchinson.
                      But I would not advise it.

                      If she had been testifying Favorably to Trump with the same issues, she would be facing perjury charges.
                      But only those who offend the left can violate the law according to the left.

                    4. You are no better at reading my mind than anyone else’s.

                      Do you have an argument ?
                      Or are you limited to bad attempts at clairvoyance.

                    5. On issue after issue it is clear that your views are not driven by facts, or law, or logic or reason, but by your politics or the outcomes you hope for.

                      This leads you to innumerabl errors,
                      It also leaves you without credibility.

                      It is a repairable problem

                      Quit fixating on what others arround you say and think for yourself.
                      Look at the facts.
                      Use logic and reason.

                      An excellent test is to consider what your position would be if the situation was the reverse.

                      Would 2000 mules be compelling if the same FACTS were being used to demonstrate election fraud by Trump ?

                      Flip all your arguments and see if they work if you change the politics of the participants.

                      If you still reach the same conclusions – then you are approaching objectivity.

                    6. “An excellent test is to consider what your position would be if the situation was the reverse.”

                      You should try that, consider Obama or Biden trying to overturn an election?

                    7. I already have Repeatedlyu Write here in my posts.

                      I have specifically noted that Clinton tried to overturn the 29016 election and that aside from making a false report to the FBI nothing she did was illegal.

                      Did Obama try to overturn an election ?
                      So far I am not convinced that Biden was personally involved in the lawlessness and Fraud of the 2020 election,

                      All that said – had Obama or Biden lost to Trump or some other republican and did exactly the same things as Trump – they would not be guilty of any crimes.

                      That said there is pretty good evidence that Obama and Biden did participate in attempting to overturn the 2016 election, and they specific efforts them engaged in were likely criminal abuses of power.

                      I would further note that Trump’s actions in 2020 were right out in the open, while Obama’s and Biden’s in 2016 were done in secret.

                      It is not always true that what is done in the open is legal and what is done in secret is not.
                      But it is a good point for thought.

                    8. So is this whataboutism or denial? Trump’s effort to substitute fake electors wasn;t done in the open. See: Michigan fake electors planning to hide in the State House overnight. If you don’t know what I’m taking about, Google it, it really isn’t that hard. If it wasn’t so sad, I’d pity all of you pretending not to know what Trump and his squad of lunatics attempted to do to overturn the election. I’d argue with you but you believe in 2000 Mules, what else, Italian computers flipping votes, fake ballots with traces on bamboo from China? If there weren’t so many of you it would be laughable, instead it’s scary.

                    9. Neither whataboutism nor denial.

                      Clinton’s actions SHOCKED many of us – but I do not recall large numbers of republicans calling her (and many others) actions and words a crime.

                      The Republican congress in 2017 did not immediately investigate Clinton for attempting to overturn the election.

                      If you are shocked at Trump’s actions – that is your choice. But when you pretend they are Crimes you are WRONG.
                      When you ignore the fact that Clinton did the same – you are a hypocrite.

                      Abnsolutely Trump had conversations with eastman and others in private.

                      But this effort was NOT secret – it was playing out publicly in state legislatures accross the country.

                      IF you were not aware of this that is your problem.

                      Private conversations about something that was and had been taking place in public are NOT acting in secret.

                      Anymore than my discussing the idiocy of your posts with a friend are evidence that I secretly think you are an idiot.

                      I have said so repeatedly in public, and laid out the evidence.

                      You do not know what secret means.

                    10. My new policy is to stop reading after the first couple of points you make as you just go on and on.
                      “Clinton’s actions SHOCKED many of us – but I do not recall large numbers of republicans calling her (and many others) actions and words a crime.”
                      You do know who “Lock Her UP” was all about? In this case you are being so ridiculous I stopped reading after that.

                    11. “My new policy is to stop reading after the first couple of points you make as you just go on and on.”

                      Enigma, you should be happy John posts long responses because it gives you more opportunity to correct his mistakes. Unfortunately you are unable to correct his first few points or the rest. That is your problem.

                    12. EB like typical leftists everywhere do not actually debate or defend their positions.

                      They toss insults, or offer excuses for why they refuse to actually defend their positions.

                      Because they can’t.

                    13. Yes, you are correct, John. But worst of all, when it comes to a present situation, he has nothing to say because he is not used to making decisions based on facts and experience. Historically he can do that, but only by manipulating and spinning the facts.

                    14. “Lock her up” occured During the election and refered to her violation of the espionage act by negligently removing classified communisations from Sensitive compartmented information facilitoies

                      And actual crime that Clinton actually committed.

                      Post Election Trump did NOTHING to seek prosecution for actual crimes, much less for the fake crime of trying o overturn the election.

                      The use of law enforcement to criminalize political differences exclusively democrat.

                    15. So you are offering more hearsay.

                      You are comparing prosecution for an actual and obvious crime, to prosecution for opposing you politically ?

                      I would also suggest that YOU and democrats should take the advice that YOU claim was given to Trump and TAKEN.

                    16. Maybe you should reconsider your story contains first hand accounts of Trumpdefinition of hearsay? One video shows Trump supporters doing the exact thing you claim didn’t happen after the election. A different story contains first-hand accounts of Trump’s attempts to prosecute his enemies.

                    17. I need reconsider nothing.

                      There was no post election effort by Trump or anyone to “get” Clinton until it was clear she was STILL engaged in illegal nonsense.

                      The Obama DOJ should have prosecuted Clinton for violating the espionage act.

                      Durham under Biden did attempt to prosecute a Clinton Crony for obviously illegal acts – unfortunately DC juries are lawless.

                      Regardless you are comparing apples to oranges. Clinton has unarguably committed actual crimes.

                      You still can not name something Trump has actually done that can credibly be argued is a crime.

                      Aside from her ACTUAL crimes – Clinton did the things you have accused Trump of – NO ONE has every considered prosecuting her for that.
                      They have considered prosecuting her for ACTUAL crimes, and they should have.

                      There is no parity between Trump and Clinton.

                      Clinton is an actual crook, and a constant liar and abuser of government power for personal gain.

                    18. “You still can not name something Trump has actually done that can credibly be argued is a crime.”

                      Obstruction of justice, wasn’t their ten counts identified in the Mueller Report. Ocourse, Bill Barr said there was nothing to see before the public got to read the words for themselves.

                    19. Barr was correct.

                      Barr is wrong about many things – most frequently the facts, but he remains a competent lawyer.

                      Mueller obviously was not, and his staff was just “lots of angry democrats”.

                      Mueller did not follow the evidence where it lead – as Durham has done, because his own staff or their close freinds would be indicted.

                    20. Correct, you can not obstruct an illegal investigation – that is first and foremost.

                      Next you can not obstruct justice unless that is an actual crime.

                      Mueller found no crime that Trump could possibly have obstructed.

                      But beyond that Mueller’s claims of obstruction were poor.

                      Muller’s most fundamental problem is that conflict with those conducting an investigation is NOT a crime.

                      He was literally asserting that the president can not act as president if there are unfounded allegations against him.

                      His claims have other problems. Mueller assured McGhan in writing several times that Trump was NOT a target of his investigation.

                      That is an important legal assertion. The standard of conduct that would constitute obstruction is different.

                      Further you can not obstruct justice – especially if you have not been identified as a target by conduct that is a normal part of your life or job,

                      Next, Mueller’s concept of obstruction – violates the constitution – the 5th amendment.
                      You can not obstruct justice by asserting your innocence, you can not obstruct justice by refusing to be a witness against yourself.
                      You can not obstruct justice by refusing to cooperate with an investigation into your own conduct.

                    21. Numerous people have pleade guilty of election fraud comitted in the 2020 election.

                      Are those of you who keep asserting there was no such fraud “obstructing justice” ?

                      Mueller – as is typical of the left uses overboard claims of crime, that if applied consistently would make criminals of everyone.

                      Whenever you are reaching in your definition of a crime – you are wrong.

                    22. Correct, Mueller made no charges of obstruction.

                      He offered a number of idiotic theories under which he pretended that he might have been able to charge obstruction.

                      But he did not actually ever charge obstruction – because he was smart enough to understand that he could not.

                      That section of the report was their to attempt to explain why he had wasted a small fortune and dominated the public consciousness and come up with nothing.

                      And you still do not get that because the investigation was based on two hoaxes and nothing else – the entire Mueller investigation was unconstitutional and illegal,

                      Worse – there is nothing that Durham has made public – that the FBI, DOJ did not know in Oct. 2016 and Mueller when he started in 2017,

                      This whole thing was a massive unconstitutional and illegal abuse of power.

                      Had there been ACTUAL obstruction – it would not be a crime. you can not obstruct an unconstitutional and illegal investigation.

                      This should not be a difficult concept.

                      Government serves US, not the other way arround.

                      Its legitimate purpose is to investigate crime not investigate people.

                    23. Ifyou have no figured it out yet,

                      The mueller report,
                      The entire Special counsel investigation.
                      The prior Crossfire Huricane investigation.

                      Are all DEAD.

                      Durham may not have convicted Sussman but he DESTROYED the entire investigation.

                      He exposed it as rotten right to the core.
                      He exposed it as illegal and unconstitutional from the start.

                      Trump has actually filled a lawsuit against much of the DOJ/FBI that was involved and Clinton.
                      And if he can try the case outside of DC he is near certain to win.

                    24. “Trump has actually filled a lawsuit against much of the DOJ/FBI that was involved and Clinton.

                      And if he can try the case outside of DC he is near certain to win.”

                      Like he’s been winning all his other lawsuits; to keep anyone from seeing his taxes, to hide his bank records, to keep his real estate transactions hidden, to fail to disclose records. His record is filled with almost nothing but losses, but you go ahead and believe.

                    25. Trump has won many lawsuits. You are not paying attention.

                      What you cite is no lawsuits filed by Trump it is motions by Trump’s lawyers in lawsuits filed by others,.

                      In some cases those were decided wrongly,
                      In most cases rightly or wrongly they were done strategically.

                      Trump’s lawsuits regarding records, pretty uniformly assert as ONE of many arguments that if he provides information it will be illegally leaked.

                      Whether He wins or loses, the result is that leaking the information that he provides will in addition to a possible crime, will also be criminal contempt of the court.

                      You will notice that even though Trump’s records have been turned over to a variety of bodies – they have not been leaked.
                      And generally the cases associated have died quietly because there was never anything there.

                      Regardless, myriads of people involved in Trump suits have had to pay damages, even legal fees.

                      We have watched 6 years of efforts to “get Trump” – and you have FAILED miserably.

                      At what point do you accept the FACT that there is nothing there.

                      Or do you wish to continue with the nonsense that just one more thing, the next investigation the next lawsuit, then next will bring Trump and all arround him down.

                      You have bet the farm – and lost.

                    26. why is it that you beleive you are entitled to know the private activity of any other person ?

                    27. No the story does not include first hand accounts – Read your own story carefully.

                    28. I would note that not only does your other story not contain first hand accounts – but it does not really include Trump efforts to prosecute Clinton.

                      McGahn was the Whitehouse Counsel. Essentially the pesident’s lawyer as president. He is NOT a part of DOJ or law enforcement.

                      This would be little different from Trump asking Guliani why Clinton could not be prosecuted.

                      McGahn can not prosecute Clinton and he can not initiate prosecution of Clinton.

                      And your Source is not McGahn.

                      I would further note that while I am not aware of McGahn being asked about this – much less confirming or denying it.

                      McGahn has pretty routinely denied all the leaks claiming that he and Trump had some alleged conversation.

                      So you are not merely peddling hearsay but fake news.

                    29. “lets do the time warp again”.

                      As is typical your arguments require people to ignore the actual order of events – the time line, and to pretend that things occured in a different order than they actually did.

                      “Lock Her Up” was a chant at Trump rallies BEFORE the election and refered to Clinton’s violation of the Espionage act as Sec. State.

                      Clinton’s efforts to overturn the 2016 election occured AFTER the election. There were no Trump rallies then. There was no effort by republicans – neither Trump, nor Sessions, nor the GOP house or Senate to investigate Clinton further much less prosecute her.

                    30. So why aren’t there successful prosecutions of AGAIN real crimes – like selling a HOAX to the FBI ?

                      You do understand the Alpha Bank claim was a HOAX – according to CIA analysis – not actual data, but human altered data that failed to support its claim ?

                      You do understand that the Steele Dossier is Was Made Up by Brookings Danchenko – whose Sources were NOT Russians. But gossip from within the DNC ?

                      You do understand that Sussman and Elias – with the approval of Hillary Clinton SUCCESSFULLY pushed these hoaxes on the FBI resulting in an illegal and unconstitutional investigation.

                      I presume that you understand that calling up the police and making a KNOWINGLY false report is a crime in every single state in this country ?

                      So your “whataboutism” is to comapare REAL crimes committed by Clinton or Clinton cronies. to accusations that are only crimes in your head ?

                      I do not think there is a single person in this country that wishes to See Donald Trump avoid prosecution for actual crimes he committed.

                      But you can not even allege an actual crime. Your allegations are NOT crimes.

                      Trump and his family and his associates have already been anally probed by multiple ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL investigations – andyou are STILL convinced that somewhere out there is some crime – that you either can not name or make up out of whole cloth.

                      Do you understand you do not even meet the constitutional requirements to continue to investigate Trump or his family or his associates.

                      You can not investigate people for legal and constitutional actions. That violates the 5th amendment.
                      For government to investigate a person – an actual crime must be alleged and credible evidence the crime was committed by that person.

                      If I accuse you of being a pedophile – that is NOT sufficient basis for law enforcement to open an investigation into YOU,
                      First they will demand from ME a credible basis for that allegation. If I can not provide it, it is likely I will be charged and convicted of false reports.

                      Always you lefties seem to think you can do as you please.

                      And I would note that AGAIN you screw up the timeline.

                    31. Yes, After finding a new Crime that Clinton and Cronies committed Trump and supporters wonder Why Clinton is not at the docks.

                      As Do I.

                      No one in US politics ever has been engaged in so much repugnant and occasionally criminal conduct.

                    32. Catching Clinton at an entirely new crime restarted the clock.

                      That simple. Trump did not seek to prosecute Clinton for violating the espionage act after getting elected.

                      Further Clinton criminal conduct coming to light changes that.

                      You still do not have ANY actual allegation of a real crime regarding Trump – just the crime of political disagreement.

                      Are you requiring that degree of precision for future discussions ?

                      Must I specify that committing new crimes changes things ?

                      You complain that my posts are too long as it is.
                      I am far more specific in my claims than you are.

                      “Someone somewhere did something I did not like”

                    33. I have repeatedly said hat democrats are lawless.

                      Lets presume that you are atleast partly right here.

                      Lets presume that Trump’s acts or words, or intentions or whatever it is that you think is the crime was actually a crime.

                      Then inarguably Clinton’s actions were a crime, and the 1876 election was criminal and unconstitutional.

                      And every democrat who has ever challenged electors is a criminal.

                      All that leaves is that we are lawless because the law is only enforced against republicans.

                      EB there is not a way out of the box you have put yourself in.

                      You are either wrong about the law and constitution – or you are lawless.
                      There is not a good way out.

                    34. I think the 1876 election, decided in a back room by a limited number of people was likely unconstitutional and by all appearances, the racist Democrat was the likely winner. The Compromise of 1877 followed up by Posse Comitatus the following year was probably more than Samuel Tilden could have gotten done with a Republican Congress.

                      Challenging an election is not criminal, trying to overthrow the government? Pretty much.

                    35. If it was unconstitutional – then you can give legal and constitutional reasons.

                      All you have done is claim that you are unhappy with the outcome.

                      The constitutionality o something is not determined by outcome.

                      There is no argument that there was massive fraud in the 1876 election – likely by both sides.
                      Large scale Election fraud was extremely common in the 19th century prior to states adopting secret ballot laws and constitutional amendments.

                      The contitutional question is can congress constitutionally refuse to accept the electoral college results ?

                      The answer is OBVIOUSLY yes, If the constitution gives congress a choice, then they are free to say yeah or nea.
                      The same is true of the Vice President, the same is true of slates of electors.

                      The US constitution is NOT ceremonial.

                      I would note that this is not unique about the constitution, it is the norm. The constitution provides the means for government to exercise power, and then provides multiple checks and balances over that exercise.

                      I do not think our founders specifically thought – We should give congress to power to overturn a fraudulent election. But they absolutely thought – something could and likely will go wrong with an election, we should give congress the ability to correct that.

                    36. So what ?

                      The actions of Congress in 1877 are prima fascia constitutional.

                      They are a matter of record, no one made a constitutional challenge to them.
                      Modern actors can assume that acting similarly is constitutional and legal.

                      I do not care if the north lived up to the deal or the south did.

                      I do not care much about the deal at all.

                      I am not surprised that southern democrats did not live up to the deal – they do not today either.

                      The critical issue is that congresses actions then were no different from what Trump unsucessfully sought in 2020

                      Your entire lets get Trump silliness is not merely wrong by reading the constitution, it is wrong because history tells us Trump’s actions were constitutional and legal.

                      The “deal” is an independent issue – one I do not care much about.

                      The north could not and had no right to continue to occupy the south.
                      It also had no obligation to do so.
                      Posse Comitatis is good law.

                      This is true whether you like the consequences, and whether the south lived up to its end.

                    37. Not an argument.

                      You keep pretending your are clairvoyant.

                      You continue to make huge but obvious errors,
                      I keep correcting them.

                      If you do not want responses don’t make obvious stupid errors.

                      I am not triggered, and it is not relevant.

                    38. The only problem i have with the 1876 election is the massive fraud.

                      While you are correct that the outcome was bad for blacks in the south,
                      OVERALL the outcome was good.

                      The continued occupation of the south was a serious political and economic problem.
                      It nearly certainly violated the 3rd amendment.

                      Nor was it a duty of the north to assure than having ended slavery the world would be honkey dorry for blacks.

                      Posse Comitas is excellent law. despite the fact that is did not benefit blacks,.

                      Contra your claims – US history is not all about Blacks.

                    39. No one tried to overthrow the govenrment.

                      Even the Proud Boys conspiracy documents have them in their own words saying their objective was to occupy congress until the agreed to a new election.

                      That is NOT an attempt to overthrow the government. It is an attempt to constitutionally overturn the election.

                      Your claims regarding Eastman – are that he plotted to overturn the election – within the constraints of the constitution.

                      The Cruz plan was for congress to vote to delay certification for 10 days and conduct and election audit – it was a small permutation on what happened in 1876.

                      You are free to beleive that 1876 was unconstitutional – though you have not said why – beyond that you do not like the outcome.

                      Something is unconstitutional because you can cite that the constitution requires a different process or prohibits this process.

                      The constitution gives congress the final voice on elections – that means they are free to excercise that voice.

                    40. I do not need to google the stuff you cite. It is irrelevant whether you are correct or not.

                      You do not seem to grasp that.

                      I will suggest a grammatical test for you.

                      Adjectives are essentially spin.

                      Take your remarks and remove all the adjectives and see if what is left is a crime or has the import you place on it.

                      “fake” as an example is an adjective – atleast as you have used it.

                      An elector appointed by the legislature is not inherently fake,
                      Arguably they are the only legitimate electors – according to the constitution.

                      You make huge deals out of spun molehills.

                      Electors appointed by the michigan legislature plan to stay in the statehouse overnight is accurate and without spin.

                      It is indistinguishable with respect to FACTS from your statement – without spin.

                    41. Yes, it does say it all.

                      You own arguments rest on SPIN not facts – not even the alleged factual statements you make.

                      You lace your remarks with adjectives to spin them, But that does not change the fact that the remark itself is not actually evidence of what you claim.


                      You remarks are usually factually wrong.
                      But that is irrelevant – because even if true they do not support your conclusions.

                    42. It is NOT the duty of the people to trust elections, It is the duty of government to conduct elections such that nearly everyone trusts the outcome REGARDLESS of whether their candidate won.

                      The 2020 election was a FAILURE.

          2. You asked for someone to point out an actual crime done by a Republican. There have been many and in just the last few years no less. Just today, in fact, a brand-new not-yet-sworn-in Republican member-to-be of the House of Representatives from Long Island said that he lied on his election materials (which people took at face value to make an informed voting decision) about his place of employment and his education. Or, how about the Republicans in Congress who sought to make a personal gain in the stock market by trading on non-public information? That happened to at least two of them recently perhaps more.

            1. I asked you for a crime. When we are dealing with the excercise of the powers of law enforcement we are dealing with crimes.

              Any candidate that lies to get elected should resign – the Rep. From Long Island, Our current president.

              But few lies are actual crimes.

              As to law makers trading stocks on non-public information – that should be a crime. It is if you are Martha Stuart.
              It is not if you are Nancy Pelosi. Are there are republicans who have also done so – absolutely. And it should be a crime.

              My point which you missed completely is not that republicans are good people and democrats bad.
              I am not a republican for good reason.

              But that FBI, Law enforcement exists to investigate and prosecute actual crimes. Not thought crimes. Not speech you do not like.

              “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”.

              I will defend the free speech rights of nazi’s, communists, left wing nuts,
              I will defend their right to spew hate and stupidity.

              And in this country that right is guaranteed by our constitution.

              Our government, our FBI may not infringe on the hateful or wrong speech of the most vile people in the country.

              The FBI is free to investigate the ACTUAL criminal acts of americans – left or right.
              It is not free to interfere with their speech – no matter how false or vile that speech may be.

              The current president lied to us repeatedly to get elected. That is not something new. It is not something new for him.
              Your ranting about some Republican congressmen from Long Island. The current president has repeatedly plagerized the speeches of others,
              lied about his resume, past experiences. He continues to do so all the time.
              The republican Rep from long island has a long long way to go to catchup with the president.

              Regardless, he should resign. So should the president.

              But neither’s lies are actual crimes.

    5. What is a lefty ?

      Someone who think that centuries of involuntary servitude by the irish was not as bad as slavery, that indentured servitude was not as bad as slavery,
      but that post reconstruction sharecropping was as bad as slavery.

    6. enigmainblack: Ok, so here is something I agree with you on. Yes, many lefties are of white European decent. Many white people are self-loathing. Have you not heard the cries of some (many of them white European) for white people to genocide themselves so to speak. BTW, personally I do not adore Trump. What I like about him is his unabashed love for America…and Americans. I do not HATE lefties. I do hate the ideas and policies of those who trash America at every turn. The perfect example of horrible policy is that of a top America-hater Mayorkas. Leftists certainly hate the American culture and country that I love. What more is there to say.

      1. Which Americans does Trump love, surely not those who served our country. What was it he called Americans who died in wars, “losers!” What about those he fleeced at Trump University, or the cancer kids his kids ripped off thru the Trump Foundation, or the money he raised after the last election by getting people like you to donate to a non-existent non-profit.

    1. “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

      – Vladimir Lenin

      He’s had the last century in America through the imposed dominion of the Eminent Majestic Communist Teachers Unions.

      If the Supreme Court would simply implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Americans would have their children and their schools back.

  12. However, historical figures often have such conflicted elements that can be discussed and understood in context

    Let those without sin, cast the first stone.

    Man is flawed. Leftist only care about finding something to use as a cudgel, to rationalize their unfounded hate. Fine Lincoln, abused power. Now do FDR internment of Japanese, and Obama spying on a political campaign and President elect.

    1. Let those without sin, cast the first stone.

      Excellent! If men were angels… We all have faults; Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, all of us. Admitting them is difficult; without humility, it’s nearly impossible.

  13. Of course, the Left wants to tear everything down, burn it, and build their socialist utopian dream society. I guess European white folks and every vestige of their existence including statues must go. Okay, sure thing.

    1. You mean the party of the nullified Constitution and Bill of Rights, martial law, general death and destruction, and the commencement of the incremental implementation of the principles of communism with Lincoln as the party boy of Karl Marx, the “…earnest of the epoch…,” leading his country toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”

  14. Lefties are often dishonest, lying by both omission and commission (just read some of our lefty bloggers).

    Cornell appears to be teaching its students lefty values.

  15. Yeah, all Lincoln did was free the slaves, preserve the union and die in service to his country. Where’s the Ibram X. Kendi bust?

    1. The left hates the United States, The constitution, that created the United States, and all the values that created them.

    2. I wouldn’t remove any Lincoln statues/busts. He was certainly consequential. He did issue the Emancipation Proclamation which only affected slaves in the states that seceded and only then if they escaped to free territory. He preserved the Union. I guess he died in service to his country? You could make the case that Malcolm X did as well. I do wish a more complete conversation about Lincoln was told. Lincoln wanted to ship those freed slaves off to Liberia or Central America. Those famous Lincoln/ Douglas debates, you never see them televised because America doesn’t want to really hear their conversation, they were competing to say how much they didn’t want to get rid of slavery.

          1. And all but John Adams are worthless? Nature is a bell curve.

            I would suggest you work on you and stop judging others by random standards of doubtful relevance.

            1. Also on that curve is John Jay, who inherited slaves, gradually freed his slaves, and ended slavery in New York. There are hundreds of examples in that time which means you can’t say most of the Founders didn’t know any better.

              1. At the very moment in which the west – and particularly the US was coming to the realization that slavery was evil,
                You are ranting because some people took longer to grasp and act than others.

                I would note that Jefferson attempted to include a passage in the declaration of independence excoriating King George for inflicting the abomination of slavery on the colonies.

                Jefferson was late to act on changing values – like Pelosi, Obama, Biden, …..
                And Adam’s was good on slavery – but not so good on the first amendment.

          2. You could be correct, but who would know? You look at everything with tunnel vision and incorrect facts, so it is reasonable to question your credibility.

          3. Do you understand the entire concept that Slavery is morally wrong rests on the very same scottish enlightenment values you seek to destroy ?

            Biden, Pelosi, Obama, were all opposed to gay marraige for most of heir lives.
            Yet you have no problem letting them off the hook for values more acceptable at the time.

            The libertarian party of america has had gay rights as a political principle since its founding in 1972.

            Where were you ? Where were democrats ?

          4. Adams was also responsible for the Alien and Sedition laws that violated the first amendment and sought to use the power of the federal government to persecute political enemies.

            Adam’s is a great man – but his feet too are made of clay.
            Just like Thomas Jeffersons.

            All that is different is that YOU care more about Jefferson’s hypocracy than Adam’s.

            Jefferson has atleast the forgiving attribute that he recognized slavery as immoral at a time when nearly all of the world did not.

      1. I sincerely appreciate that you would not remove Lincoln from the public square. Thank you. As for a broader and more nuanced conversation about Lincoln, let’s talk. Perhaps even more so than Malcolm X, Lincoln personified an American ideal of leadership and courage from unexpected places. Patience, kindness, and humility. Ability to change when faced with new facts. An acute genius for balancing politics, humanity, and the greater good. Greatness of soul. Why is Lincoln considered one of the three “great presidents”? He saved the United States of America from committing suicide even as he presided over the systematic unravelling of slavery. Union, Emancipation, and Magnanimity in Victory. As F. Douglass would say in 1877, Lincoln the Statesman achieved what no zealot could have imagined.

      2. “I do wish a more complete conversation about Lincoln was told. Lincoln wanted to ship those freed slaves off to Liberia or Central America. Those famous Lincoln/ Douglas debates, you never see them televised because America doesn’t want to really hear their conversation, they were competing to say how much they didn’t want to get rid of slavery.”
        So? Believe it or not a lot of people don’t make opposition or promotion of slavery a litmus test of every person’s worth. Slavery was perfectly legal, religiously sanctioned and thinly distributed among the white Americans of the time. They may not have liked having human beasts of burden but they were hardly alone in the practice as slavery raged in Africa, Europe and the Far East at the time. There were black slave owners in America who loved the institution as well. In fact, the “Noble Redman” of the American Great Plains were the largest slave-holding class on the continent. So spare us the sanctimony as though only white Americans owned or trafficked in slaves. BTW, if you want an industry leader look to the Dutch.

        Folks like enigma wield slavery like a cudgel beating anyone and anything that doesn’t meet their morality test. Funny thing, is that were other people to do that with say black-on-white crime stats, enigma would immediately perceive racism. Enigma is a prig and a one trick pony one at that. You wanna throw a guilt trip on folks who never owned slaves (and never will own slaves) and find alot to admire in Lincoln despite his imperfections, please proceed. I’ll dutiful ignore it but remember as you go about your Slave Morality Play, no one is perfect; no one is morally pure and folks have the right to admire anyone they darn well please.

        1. I don’t use it as a litmus test. I’ve often praised John Jay who was a slave owner yet did better than most of his compatriots. You’re right it was religiously sanctioned but that says more about the religion than the practice. I do resent praising those men as heroes and distorting the facts as to who they were and what they did. There are those today who utilize or benefit from slave labor while people look the other way.

          On a separate note, your willingness to consider new information will be tested after today’s January 6th Committee hearings. Of course, you could always go with the Trump version of, “I barely knew her.”

          1. “I do resent praising those men as heroes”

            And Adam;s who obliterated the first amendment as president – you see him as a hero ?

            What about JFK or MLK, or RFK, or Clinton or Biden or ……

            I can hardly think of anyone who anyone thinks of as a hero that does not have clay feet.

            You clearly use a single value litmus test.

    3. Mespo, I’m looking in the Constitution to find where secession is prohibited but I don’t see it. Most certainly slavery should have been stopped by advocacy, boycott, divestiture, and any and all other licit, legal and constitutional means. George Washington freed his slaves before and in his will, as did others. Certainly, Franklin’s “Republic” would be worth saving but Lincoln abolished that. The “Union” Lincoln saved ain’t lookin’ so good either lately, Biden further demonstrates that corruption has set in pervasively.

      1. George, buy a dozen eggs plus one. Number them from one to thirteen. Now crack all the eggs and mix them together. That being done we can rewrite the Constitution thusly, We the Eggs of the United Omelet, in order to form a more perfect Union-Egg, so that it can easily be fit in the oven, establish this Constitution for the Eggs of America.

        Now George, I would like you to separate Eggs number 1,5, and 7 from the omelet. Almost everyone else will say that is impossible so I leave it to you George to tell us how. 🙂


          Go back in time and repeal, retroactively, Karl Marx’s unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments,” and the hysterical and incoherent 19th Amendment (what sane person rants, slavering, foaming at the mouth, and spitting in the air out in the street, her desire to kill her baby in her womb, what idiots listen to that idiocy?).

          Now go remake the omelette with the conditions corrected to the way the American Founders and Framers held as “original intent.”

          You’ll go back to the future of 1789, the way America was designed, engineered, and produced, before Lincoln held the country hostage with a gun to its head ending the life of free America, and before a ridiculous 19th Amendment was improperly ratified, ending defined and accepted roles, and a fertility rate, sufficient to grow and defend a nation, was vitiated into a “death spiral.”

          Of note: The Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect in 1863, requiring immediate compassionate repatriation of those who held no visas, could not naturalize, or become citizens.


          Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx’s “…earnest of the epoch to come…” who led the country toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world…,” espoused Marx’s communist principles and pejorative, “capitalism” in or before 1837.

          “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. “Now go remake the omelette with the conditions corrected to the way the American Founders and Framers held as “original intent.”

            George, you want to pretend “Back to the Future” is real. That was fiction. We have an Omelet and cannot separate the eggs from it. We have to deal with what we have. Do you want your Omelet with bacon or sausage?

        1. So true. But that would not have been legal or constitutional. Something akin to what the Supreme Court recently resolved by overturning the Roe “decision.”

          I’m afraid that the scales of justice tilt toward the prosecution of the South being unconstitutional, and that subsequent activities by Lincoln et al. are similarly worthy of being overturned; at least that which remains, namely the “Reconstruction Amendments.”

          If the Supreme Court does not find for that action and overturn those unconstitutional amendments, which were improperly ratified under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation, it will prove itself to be hypocritical, and without the law and fundamental law.

          America, unlike the Biden family and many other unsavory political actors, is a society of laws, and it must obey those laws absolutely.

Comments are closed.