Stay Tuned: Cheney Declares J6 Holding “Much More” Evidence of Possible Crimes

For weeks, critics of the J6 Committee have noted that the committee members promised to present compelling evidence to support criminal charges, but it has not yet presented that case after nine hearings. Even some Democratic figures, including former prosecutor and former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), do not believe a strong case has been made for an indictment.  Now, Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) is making the same claim that there is “much more” undisclosed evidence but says that the Committee will not release the evidence (including possible criminal referrals) until the Fall — just before the midterm elections.

At the start of the hearings, committee members promised they had the long-sought smoking-gun evidence — new material that would close the circle on Trump. Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) indicated he thought there was now “credible evidence” to support a variety of criminal charges. His colleague, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), said the committee would show that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021.

No sooner had the hearings begun when many in the media declared that the criminal case had been conclusively proven — even though most of what was being presented was already generally known.

Looking objectively at the evidence, the committee never supplied “credible” proof of crimes. That is not to say the evidence is not shocking. Indeed, it is like a series of “jump scares” involving Trump and others raising unfounded or unconstitutional courses of conduct.

Now, on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” Cheney said

“The committee has been, I think, very thorough and laying out much of what we know. There’s much more that we have not yet shared in hearings, and we anticipate we will share in the fall. We will also make decisions about criminal referrals, and ultimately the decision about prosecutions is up to the Justice Department, but I would anticipate the committee will have an opinion on that.”

CNN Chief national affairs analyst Kasie Hunt did not ask about why the Congress would wait to disclose the information. Instead, she responded “You obviously have a lot more information than the general public does in your head about what happened that day. But when you started these hearings earlier this year, did you have any idea how much you would know by this point?” Spoiler alert: Cheney said no.

In reality, some of us have written that the J6 Committee has released a great deal of new details and accounts, but that information has largely amplified known allegations rather than add new material evidence in a criminal case against Trump.

The obvious unasked question would raise the fact that the delay of any new releases would coincide with the midterm elections. Cheney has been criticized by critics for participating in a one-sided series of hearings devoid of alternative or dissenting views. Some have called it a “show trial” with members reading off teleprompters in tightly scripted and controlled hearings. As if to fulfill that show trial portrayal, Cheney ended the last hearing by calling for more officials to come forward and noting that Trump family members and former officials have now come forward with their own public “confessions.”

At the same time, Cheney and the Committee Chair have repeatedly stressed that voters cannot allow Trump to return to power and made repeated references to the upcoming election. The lack of any balance in the scope of examinations or presentation of evidence only magnifies the appearance of an investigation tailored to political rather than investigative priorities.

So now Cheney is saying “stay tuned” once again like a sequel that never quite ends. Of course, the members know that their control will end if the midterms result (as expected) in the GOP retaking the House. The Republicans have stated an intention to conduct their own investigation into why the House was unprepared for the riot despite warnings of possible violence.

The Jan. 6 committee has made a case against Trump personally and politically. It has not done so criminally. Timing further releases to coincide with the election will do little in establishing an interest in building a criminal rather than a political case.

214 thoughts on “Stay Tuned: Cheney Declares J6 Holding “Much More” Evidence of Possible Crimes”

  1. Justice in Florida gets served to law breaking Soros puppet DA Andrew Warren

    DeSantis Didn’t Just Suspend Soros-Funded Prosecutor, He Sent the Police to Evict Him from Office

    Meanwhile, when a similarly Soros-funded prosecutor in Florida — Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren — announced he wasn’t going to be enforcing the law, GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis didn’t just yank him from office, he had the police evict him.

    What a difference a party makes.

    On Thursday, DeSantis signed an executive order suspending Warren, whose county encompasses Tampa, citing “neglect of duty” and “incompetence.”

    In his executive order, DeSantis noted the state attorney had enacted policies in which he would not prosecute “certain criminal violations, including trespassing at a business location, disorderly conduct, disorderly intoxication and prostitution.”

    And not only that, DeSantis dispatched law enforcement to evict the prosecutor.

    the watch the meltdown by a Soros DA puppet: priceless. To make it sweeter, all of the victims of BLM ANTIFA Anarchists who lost homes, businesses, jobs and monies bc Ex-DA Warren refused to prosecute those insurrectionists, should get a chance to find his home and do to him what ProAborts are doing to SCOTUS Justices in VA and MD.

    For all of the dictatorial machinations of Biden’s handlers and coward AG Merrick Garland, it is hysterical to see Democrats accuse Ron DeSantis to being a dictator. Karma baby, gotta love it

    1. Estovir,

      I meant to post this comment on something you posted the other day:

      Someone commented that the Roman Empire lasted around a 1000 Years before it Failed.

      The USA is just short of 250 Yrs., but we’ve got Wifi! LOL;)

      Always look on the bright side of life! LOL.

      1. “The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long – and you have burned so very, very brightly, USA. ”

        -Paraphrased from Blade Runner.

      2. The USA is just short of 250 Yrs., but we’ve got Wifi! LOL

        I think we have peaked as a country, which is not something we considered, as immigrants, would ever happen to America. It has been very concerning for me. So I have decided to take control, unplug and use a GIGO strategy.

        At home we disconnect the router at evening time and reconnect at breakfast. I noticed a few months ago when I woke at night on my way to the bathroom, that the router in my office, was flashing a great deal, indicating ISP activity. The problem was that no one was awake using the internet; all of our electronic devices are shut down completely at night. I change the password to the router routinely so it wasnt the neighbors piggybacking on our router. Being the suspecting type, I yanked the electrical plug to the router. It is a regular task now upon bedtime. Frankly Im all for going back to land lines, no texting/smart phones and breaking bread with strangers.

        1. “I think we have peaked as a country” as we knew it. Your statement has been made many times over the century and the US still exists but I have a tendency to agree with you if we include ‘as we knew it’.

          I think the US will survive as a superpower long into the future, or at least as long as the majority of this blog are still alive, but I think our individualism will be compromised.

          1. but I have a tendency to agree with you if we include ‘as we knew it’.

            I dont know if your spouse still has family or any contact with the former country. I have family in Cuba, have an uncle who travels back and forth to Havana, and calls me regularly. Everytime I hang up, my mind has to process this topic. So the question stays in my head: will there be a day soon in my future when I will have to leave America for a country where Marxists arent running the show? That is my benchline. Most Americans are oblivious but I see the situation all too clearly

            so it goes

            1. Estovir, you understand, most do not. My wife always wants some money in non-USA banks. She knows what it is to leave a country with only her shirt on her back. What she did to leave was near crazy but desperation does that to people.

              No, she has no family in her home country or anywhere nearby. All others there were murdered.

              I always keep one eye on the door because Marxist revolutionaries never stop.

              I have more than one home. One is in midtown Manhattan. I haven’t been back and now consider not returning because of the politics existing in that city. So in a way I have already left my home permanently.

        2. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death from 5-6 G Cell Towers everywhere in the big cities

          I will fear no evil,

          for Lord God Jesus is with me;

          Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me, but still I’m intend on holding my foot firmly on the throttle & getting the hell out of there as fast as I legally can. LOL;)

          I still have some stuff hardwired.

  2. Republicans Politicizing State Treasurers To Stymie Action On Climate Change

    Nearly two dozen Republican state treasurers around the country are working to thwart climate action on state and federal levels, fighting regulations that would make clear the economic risks posed by a warming world, lobbying against climate-minded nominees to key federal posts and using the tax dollars they control to punish companies that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Last week, Riley Moore, the treasurer of West Virginia, announced that several major banks would be barred from government contracts with his state because they are reducing their investments in coal.

    Mr. Moore and the treasurers of Louisiana and Arkansas have pulled more than $700 million out of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, over objections that the firm is too focused on environmental issues. At the same time, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are pressuring the private sector to drop climate action and other causes they label as “woke.”

    And treasurers from Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma joined a larger campaign to thwart the nominations of federal regulators who wanted to require that banks, funds and companies disclose the financial risks posed by a warming planet.

    Edited From:

    Yesterday The Washington Post ran a piece concerning the spike in natural disasters across the United States exceeding $1 billion in costs. Here’s an excerpt from that piece:


    The United States has experienced an average of 7.7 billion-dollar disasters annually over the past four decades. But in the past five years, that average has jumped to nearly 18 events each year.

    2020 and 2021 saw the highest number of such disasters on record, with 22 and 20, respectively.

    Edited From:

    1. Talking about the last 4 decades is weather and not climate. compare the last 400 years to the last 10,000 yeqrs is climate.

      Its the lies the govt tells to scare the ignorant.

      There is no climate problem, because we are not totally nuclear.

    2. “Republicans Politicizing State Treasurers To Stymie Action On Climate Change”

      Good for them.

      They’re slowing the suicidal policy of destroying the energy producers, industrialization, and a comfortable climate for humans.

  3. On a related note:

    Days of Our Lives’ moving off air, will only be streamed on Peacock

    The 56-year-old soap “Days of Our Lives” won’t be broadcast on network television anymore, NBC announced Wednesday

    No wonder Liz dropped her snewz on CNN. She intends to bludgeon keep Americans in soap box hell forevermore.

    Heard in the background, Paul Harvey: “Now you know the rest of the story”


  4. Professor Turley Writes:

    “The obvious unasked question would raise the fact that the delay of any new releases would coincide with the midterm elections”.

    This article from Thursday’s “The Hill” reminds us how many election deniers have won nominations for the midterm general election.


    In Michigan, Tudor Dixon, who was considered the establishment candidate in the race, won the Republican gubernatorial primary days after she declined to say in a “Fox News Sunday” interview whether the 2020 election was stolen.

    In Arizona, Kari Lake, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the 2020 election results, has won the gubernatorial primary, while Abe Hamadeh, who has also questioned the election results, is projected to win the state’s GOP primary for attorney general.

    But perhaps no state-level position has more say over elections than secretary of state, and in Arizona, Mark Finchem, a prominent election denier who attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol last year, won the Republican nomination for the role.

    Pennsylvania Republican gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano centered much of his primary campaign around claims of election fraud, and he and North Carolina congressional nominee Sandy Smith were in Washington on Jan. 6.

    Edited From:

    Professor Turley, who’s often featured as a ‘Constitutional Scholar”, sees no reason to remind midterm voters of January 6th despite the raft of election deniers running in November. Instead Turley believes Liz Cheny is a shameless opportunist for wanting the public informed.

    This raises again the question: “Is Johnathan Turley a competent academic?”

    1. Tudor Dixon, in every practical sense of the word endorsement, was endorsed by Betsy Devos from the very beginning. not Donald Trump, who pseudo-indorsed her days before the election when it was obvious she was going to beat election deniers by huge margins.

      Betsy Devos was on Trump’s cabinet, and resigned after January 6th, due to his conduct. For that reason, Dixon might, just might, be competitive against Whitmer.

    2. And these people are winning elections – because guess what – in some polls 52% of people think 2020 was likely stolen.

      Whether you like it or not, the left has FAILED to make the case that the 2020 election should be trusted.

      We should always distrust lawless elections.

    3. “This raises again the question: ‘Is Johnathan Turley a competent academic?’”

      Which raises, again, the questions:

      What’s behind the smear campaign against Turley? What tyrannical policy is the Left pushing, this time? And why does it regard Turley as such a threat to their lust for power?

      (If you have an argument, make it. Smear via innuendo is the nadir of dishonesty.)

  5. Is Liz a duplicate or just duplicitous in her own right? They used to call such mongrels’ Turn Coats or in more modern parlance Two Faced. We’ll see if the citizens of Wyoming want other representation, or if wool covers their eyes to her dereliction representing her constituents.

    Mark Twain wrote in Following the Equator:
    “Let us be thankful for fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed.”

    And “It takes your enemy and your friend, working together, to hurt you to the heart: the one to slander you and the other to get the news to you.”

  6. On the blog we heard leftists trying to call Orban, Hungary’s leader, a Nazi and a racist using their left-wing nonsensical slime and ignorance. I think it only fair that we listen to what Orban has to say. He leads a sovereign nation and states that Biden placed Europe under “ideologic pressure.”

    “I want to be clear, We respect the government of the United States. We are guests here and we need to behave decently with the current administration as well. But there is another side of the coin, which I cannot ignore. Your administration has put Europe and especially Brussels, under ideological pressure. This is not good for us. It’s bad.”

    “The Obama administration tried to force us to change the fundamental law of Hungary and delete Christian and national values from it. Do you get it? The leading power of the free world wanted to force us to change our constitution according to the globalist liberal concept …How bizarre. This came as a surprise and caused us a lot of pain.”

    “I can already see tomorrow’s headlines, …Far right, European racist, and anti-semite, the Trojan horse of Putin comes to conservative conference. But I don’t want to give them any ideas.”

    “They know best how to write fake news… Instead, I tell you the truth. In Hungary, we introduced a zero tolerance policy on racism and anti-semitism. So accusing us is fake news and those who make those claims are simply idiots. They are the industrial fake news corporation.”

    “In my view, the globalist leaders’ strategy escalates and prolongs war and decreases the chance of peace,… Without American and Russian talks, there will never be peace in Ukraine. More and more people will die and suffer. And our economies will come to the brink of collapse.” Victor Orban

    Orban stands with his people and their culture while looking for peace. I wish we could say the same about Biden.

    1. Alan, Orban is an apologist for Putin. And what nonsense he talks!

      Putin has no intention of engaging in sincere negotiations with Ukraine. Not unless Ukraine is willing to kiss-off all the territory Putin currently occupies (about 20% of the country).

      Orban is a total creep for giving legitimacy to Putin’s invasion. And any American who praises Orban is a creep.

      1. You don’t know what you are talking about. Instead, you put half-baked ideas together thinking your rhetoric represents genius when it represents a fool. Orban, like other eastern European countries worries about its eastern borders.

        Hungary is a beautiful country with good people. I like traveling there and know many American Hungarians who, after living in the US for many years, desire to retire there.

        The Ukraine fiasco is an Obama/ Biden and Biden/ Harris fiasco caused by stupid people that ran our foreign policy. Take note that both Russian incursions into Ukraine occurred under leftist leadership, while none occurred under Trump. There is no reason for this present war, but Biden’s ignorance. Your knowledge of world affairs is abysmal.

        You sounded more intelligent under your original name. I know it is hard to believe, but it is true.

        1. Yeah, Alan, Trump would’ve condemned Ukraine for trying to stop Putin’s invasion.

          1. Pure Stupidity. Note how Trump opposed Putin with force and Putin didn’t advance against US interests. Putin advanced twice under Biden.

            Kurds, I think you were one that wanted us to go to war. Trump didn’t. He moved some troops minimally, protected the oil fields and there was no war and the problems disappeared

            Syria: Trump prevented further Russian advancement.

            Look at Afghanistan, the Taliban went against US interests, and Trump did his thing. No more American lives lost, and the Taliban ceased their actions. Under Biden Americans were killed, tens of billions worth of military machinery left behind, number of Americans left behind unknown but considerable.

            Israel: Trump put the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and despite the fears of war, there was peace and the Abraham accords.

            US southern border. Was being sealed with a phenomenal drop in illegals and drugs. Biden has opened the gates to illegals, whether they carry disease or not, MI-13, terrorists, drug cartel members, drugs, deaths of those heading for the American border, slavery and deaths from drug overdoses rapidly rising.

            How much more of a fool are you today than yesterday? A lot.

      2. “Orban is a total creep for giving legitimacy to Putin’s invasion.”

        “Together with our European Union and NATO allies, we condemn Russia’s military attack,” Orbán said.

        To date, Hungary has accepted some 1.3 million Ukrainian refugees.

        In what universe do those facts give “legitimacy” to Russia’s invasion?

    2. “We are guests here and we need to behave decently . . .”

      Some commenters here should heed that advice.

  7. How many dollars have been spent of taxpayer’s money ( you know, the 50% of the country that pay income taxes, not the other 1/2 that don’t ) by this January 6th Committee, in total.
    How much legislative work has gone undone by the committee members because they’ve been mired for well over a year with these committee goings on? Mueller investigation was at least 40 million dollars — Two impeachment trials initiated by Nancy Pelosi have a still undetermined total taxpayer funded cost (millions for sure). And now this committee, Nancy’s last attempt at successfully spitting on Trump — and she’s counting on spineless Attorney General Garland to find a bullet-proof case —- and feckless Joe Biden and spineless Merrick Garland may very well realize it’s a chess game to Trump and they could very well lose. Pelosi travels to Taiwan to bolster her failing legacy — could start a nuclear war —

  8. OT



    The Supreme Court must strike down the Inflation Reduction Act, as Congress has no power to tax for that purpose.

    Congress has the power to tax only “…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;…”

    Congress passes tax bill which would also invest a total of $433 billion:

    $369 billion from a suite of energy and climate-related programs

    $64 billion from extending an expanded Affordable Care Act program for three years, through 2025

    – CNBC

    Article 1, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

  9. Did Cheney just say she would “release the Kraken” this fall? Or am I thinking of someone else?

  10. “US VP Dick Cheney says Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and will use them.”

    – AP Archive

  11. Jonathan: You are still at it: the J. 6 Committee has offered no evidence of any “crimes” committed by Trump. Looks like the DOJ didn’t get your memo because they already have at least 2 grand juries looking into the evidence revealed so far by the hearings plus their own independent investigation. It looks like we are looking at a very warm fall in DC.

    We already have some inkling of what kind of “investigations” the House GOP will start if they take back control of the House in November. As you indicate probably a strained attempt to show how “unprepared” Nancy Pelosi was by the insurrection on Jan. 6 that tried to topple the government– only the second time this has happened in American history. Sure, Pelosi should have anticipated the insurrection? There will be a lot of laughs from that inquiry. Then, of course, the GOP controlled House will want to investigate “corruption” in the Biden WH. You know, the Hunter Biden “scandal” that has yet to turn up any “crimes” but you have been pushing for months. This will, no doubt, play well on Fox News where you will wax eloquent about all the “crimes” the Biden family has committed. “Stay tuned” for that dog and pony show!

    But if you want to see some real crimes “stay tuned” to what is going on in Fulton County Georgia. The AG Fani Willis there is ramping up her investigation of Trump’s crimes of unlawfully interfering in the 2020 election results. Willis actually has the “smoking gun”–the over 1 hour audiotape of Trump threatening Georgia election officials, trying to get them to change the vote count. We have there violations of both federal and state election laws. No small potatoes. Trump knows this is the case that places him in the most legal jeopardy. That is why he is working with his supporters in Georgia to gin up a Willis recall campaign. Trump calls the Willis investigation a “witch hunt”, the same empty claim he makes about the J.6 investigation. No, the real upcoming action will be in Fulton County Georgia. “Stay tuned”, it could get real wild!

    1. @Dennis McIntyre,

      Good post.

      But I have to wonder.
      If a prosecutor has ex-culpable evidence, meaning that he knows no crime was committed… yet doesn’t present that to the grand jury… would that be prosecutorial misconduct?

      Meaning if he played an edited version of Trump’s speech, and stops before he said peaceful so that he could imply that Trump encouraged the criminal trespass… would he be allowed to do that?

      The DC police are looking for their own prosecutor. They want to indict Trump at all costs.


      1. Ian Michael Gumby: Thx for the compliment. I’m not a criminal attorney. But as I understand it in a grand jury setting the prosecutor puts on his/her best case for an indictment. If the grand jury issues an indictment and the case goes to trial the prosecutor must turn over any exculpatory evidence. In my comment I addressed two different cases, i.e., the J.6 investigation and the one involving the possible prosecution of Trump for election fraud in Fulton County, Georgia. In the former the J.6 Committee is acting much like a grand jury–not a trial jury. It puts on its best case and then decides whether there is sufficient evidence to refer to the DOJ for prosecution. It can decide not to make a referral because its main function and charge is to prevent another Jan. 6. It does not act as both a judge and jury. This is where Turley has tried to confuse the issue by claiming the J.6 Committee has not allowed the introduction of “countervailing evidence” or allowed Stewart Rhodes to testify. A special committee of the House decides what evidence to present and who is allowed to testify. You may claim this is not “fair” but the procedure for appointment of special committees is set out in long-standing House rules. It would be no different if/when the GOP takes back control of the House in November and decides to appoint a special committee to investigate possible “crimes” by Joe Biden. The GOP would get to decide the composition of any such committee and what evidence to present. The Dems could object but, in the end, they would lose the argument. Right now the DOJ is conducting its own independent investigation of Trump’s actions before and on Jan. 6. There are, I think, at least two grand juries hearing evidence. The DOJ can ultimately decide there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Trump and that will be the end of it. The role of the J.6 Committee will be one of trying to show how one man tried to manipulate the existing system to stay in power. It almost worked and why Congress is now discussing the flawed Electoral College System and whether it is even necessary. Personally, I think the Electoral College should be abolished. It’s a relic of the past. The popular vote should decide elections as it does in almost all other counties. If the J.6 Committee only accomplishes that change it will have performed a valuable function–whether Trump is ever prosecuted or not.

        The real action right now is taking place down in Fulton County, Georgia where the local AG is presenting evidence to a grand jury of election fraud by Trump. The AG has a real “smoking gun” in the form of the over 1 hour audiotape of Trump pressuring election officials to overturn the election. I have listened to that tape. Have you? It’s pretty incriminating with nothing in the way of exculpatory evidence. Trump is clearly caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Trump knows he is serious legal trouble in that case. That is why he is trying to get his supporters in Georgia to phony up a petition to try to recall the AG. It’s about his only chance to delay or avoid prosecution. Notice that Turley doesn’t discuss this case because he knows Trump is in serious legal trouble there. While Turley tries to get us to focus only on the J.6 Investigation “stayed tuned” to the case in Georgia. That is going to be where the real action takes place this fall. Well, that’s my prediction for what it’s worth.

  12. I find it shameful that Cheney, ostensibly still a Republican (she’s running in the Republican primary in Wyoming) would agree to time the additional, damning evidence against Trump, till just before the fall elections – which cannot be interpreted as anything other than an effort to lend support to the Democrats. But then again, she jumped at the chance to participate in a kangaroo court and has given her all to see it through to its preordained conclusion. (And now her Dad has thrown his support behind her. Jeez, what a family.)

  13. Tune in next time for our ongoing saga…

    Same Bat Time,
    Same Batty Panel.

    1. LOL;) Since it’s Friday, I’ve just one short question for the J6 Committee & some of the leaders a top of the US intel outfits regarding J6:

        1. Thks! 🙂

          I”m a whole lot to cautious to get to ecstatic as I am now, but my reading of this week’s events is that even if a lot of Americans don’t understand what happened it was likely a Massive Non-Violent Win for Liberty/Freedom, Mom, Apple Pie & American. ‘Merica! Pk Yeah!

          Next week who knows?, But there will likely be far less of them then there were earlier this week.


          1. Typo: Next week who knows?, But there will likely be far less of American Hating Azzholes then there were earlier this week.

  14. I’m glad that the good professor has been around the block a few times and has seen similar rodeos. I am hopeful that more Americans will catch up and do the same…soon…

  15. The same standard is so blatantly not being applied to Democrats who encouraged, enabled, and in some cases, literally bailed out of jail, BLM and Antifa rioters who destroyed and burned America for a year.

    1. There is no comparison between the typical crimes you refer to, many of which have been prosecuted, and an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power via Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote, including a President who was derelict in his duty to immediately call for the rioters to leave.

      If Democrats ever attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power via Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote, and if a Democratic President is ever derelict in his duty to immediately call for rioters in the halls off the Capitol to leave, I will call for the same standard to be applied.

        1. including a President who was derelict in his duty to immediately call for the rioters to leave.

          Thats the worst you got.

          Now name the legislative correction. That is the only constituional power the Jan 6 committee has.

      1. Yet you support elections that are lawless. That is all anyone has to know to recognize that you are an ideologue who doesn’t believe in the rule of law.

      2. “. . . the typical crimes you refer to . . .”

        Mass rioting, widespread looting, torching countless cities are “*typical* crimes?!” (Emphasis added)

        It is hard to imagine that a person could be that dishonest, and that much of an apologist for rioters who terrorized an entire country.

  16. Yeah, whatever. I am done with this. Trump is no longer POTUS and this is beating a dead horse that was dead long ago for a tiny handful of people. I honestly could care less. Liz Cheney will get destroyed in her state, and that same tiny handful of people may watch her on MSNBC or CNN when that inevitably happens. She is aristocracy, and you better believe that is alive and well in America. She is one of the types, that is turning voters against dems, that thinks she is right simply due to that fact that she was born. Yawn. Let me know when our federal government is prepared to talk about crime, homelessness, illegal immigration, underemployment, meth/fentaynyl, inflation, recession verging on depression, or under education. This doesn’t even address the damage done by Dem lockdowns. All are a very direct result of their policies. Double yawn. Not voting for Dems in November, and again, I am an Independent. Straight red ticket. They may regret their digital or mail-in voting procedures that allow that, straight ticket voting. Impossible to take seriously, and I am not ‘white’ or over 50. Those statistics are just plain wrong.

    For the past number of decades, American Democrats have been planting land mines that they are now stepping on, and seemingly with glee. Their money and public exposure don’t matter.

  17. Turley begins his piece with the usual Fox spin on the facts:: that the J6 Committee “promised to present compelling evidence to support criminal charges,” No, Jon, the J6 Committee has stated that its purpose is to investigate the insurrection at the Capitol in order to determine the root causes and prevent this from happening again. A couple of members–Schiff and Raskin– have opined that they believe the evidence they’ve seen would support criminal charges, but that is neither the purpose nor goal of the J6 Committee. And, BTW, they are not alone in concluding that there’s already enough to charge Trump. But, as a Fox employee, your purpose and goal is to downplay the Committee’s work, to portray it as biased or unfair, and to generally undermine the revelations that have been forthcoming. And, of course, you just HAD to get in some licks at CNN and non-Trump media. All red meat for the disciples.

    Turley only grudgingly acknowledges the implications of a President refusing to accept the will of the American people, of spreading the Big Lie, of doing everything possible to try to hang onto power, including standing by while his VP is being hunted by an armed mob when he admits that the Committee: “has made a case against Trump personally and politically.” What does this mean? Trump still won’t stop lying, the disciples still won’t stop adoring him, and the Republicans still won’t condemn what he did. In fact, some election deniers won their primaries by campaigning on the Big Lie. So, Turley is admitting that Trump knew he lied and started the insurrection because he refused to relinquish power. And yet, he uses his platform to criticize some Democrats who believe that a criminal case has been made against Trump.

    1. You begin your piece with the usual Natasha spin on the facts. Few of us even read past your first two sentences. As James says, yawn….

      1. If you think she said something false, then cite it and provide evidence that it’s false.

        If all you’re doing is saying that you have different opinions than Natacha but agree on the facts, OK.

        1. Natacha doesn’t respond to argument or fact. The best she does is rant some more.

        2. Dear Anonymous who said, “If you think she said something false, then cite it and provide evidence that it’s false.” I see you have reverted to your pseudo-legal fallback of demanding citations and evidence (when the comment was not even addressed to you), which methinks you do not quite comprehend/understand…
          Therefore, for your edification and understanding, “spin” (which Natacha accused JT of, and I accuse her of) is NOT synonymous with “false.” Please cite your alter-ego and provide evidence of capability for substantive commentary.

        3. Facts? She be devoid of any such morsels… drivel, putrid leftover decaying Soros meat be her daily consumption… regurgitated and then again consumed with immunity…

        4. Ok, Anonymous, here goes: she says of Professor Turley, “But, as a Fox employee, your purpose and goal is [sic] to downplay the Committee’s work…” I invite you or her to prove that mindreading as a fact.
          Another bon mot from Natacha: “Turley only grudgingly acknowledges the implications of a President refusing to accept the will of the American people.” I’ve read repeatedly Dr. Turley criticizing Trump’s view of the election on more than one occasion and on more than one site. “Grudging” is her opinion, and as an opinion, it is unprovable.
          Another broadside from Natacha: “Trump still won’t stop lying, the disciples still won’t stop adoring him, and the Republicans still won’t condemn what he did.” Patently false as some Republicans have publicly criticized Trump for a number of things (not just Cheney).
          Natacha, again: “So, Turley is admitting that Trump knew he lied and started the insurrection because he refused to relinquish power.” Professor Turley never suggested he knew what was in Trump’s mind or that Trump deliberately started an insurrection. Professor Turley has been very specific about what he thought Trump did wrong on J6, and Natacha’s statement is a blatant misreading. Prove me wrong.
          Since Natacha is in the business of making unsupportable statements, allow me to make one unsupportable statement. Lin is right, IMHO, about you, Anonymous: “I see you have reverted to your pseudo-legal fallback of demanding citations and evidence.” Yea, i kind of think that nails you.

          1. Diogenes ,

            Again: people can have whatever opinions they want. We agree that “as an opinion, it is unprovable,” as opinions are not T/F claims. That’s the key feature that distinguishes them from facts.

            I agree that Natacha’s claim “Republicans still won’t condemn what he did” is a false overgeneralization. Commenters here frequently overgeneralize about both Republicans and Democrats. Cheney is a counterexample to Natacha’s false overgeneralization. That said, if Natacha had instead said “Many Republicans still won’t condemn what he did,” it would be true.

            As for your opinion of me, I don’t really care what you think of me, and as a factual matter, evidence and citations aren’t “pseudo-legal.” I worked in a STEMM field for decades, and both evidence and citations are central to all research in both STEMM fields and social sciences. I’ve said this to lin before, but her mind is closed to learning. I doubt that you’ll admit that the “pseudo-legal” is factually false either.

            “Prove me wrong.”

            Not my job. The person who makes the claim is the one who has the burden of proof, and attempting to shift the burden of proof onto someone else is a common fallacy (

            1. “. . . opinions are not T/F claims.”

              You are under they widespread, mistaken notion that opinions are fact- and reason-free — that they are not subject to the principles of logic. If an opinion you hold (e.g., the earth is flat) contradicts the facts of reality, then that opinion is *false*. If an opinion you hold squares with reality, then that opinion is “true*.

              Your view of “opinion” is the absurd notion that: I can get away with making any type of bizarre claim, so long as I label it “opinion.”

              1. Sam, “the earth is flat” is not an opinion. It’s a false T/F claim. Opinions are not T/F. Don’t confuse them with false claims, or with true claims. Not all claims are T/F. Opinions fall in the set that’s the mathematical complement of T/F claims.

                1. “Don’t confuse them with false claims, or with true claims.”

                  It is you who is confused.

                  *Every* proposition (or declarative sentence), including those used in expressing an opinion, is either true or false. “That’s just an opinion” does not excuse one from the laws of logic.

                  1. Sam, your claim that “*Every* proposition (or declarative sentence), including those used in expressing an opinion, is either true or false” is false.

                    Many declarative sentences express claims that are T/F. And many declarative sentences express claims that are NOT T/F.

                    Many of the sentences in the second set are opinions, where one simply shares the view or not. An example: “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time.” Some people share that view, and others do not, but it isn’t not a T/F claim, as there is no agreed-on set of characteristics and weightings for determining the single best composer. Ditto for all sorts of other value-based opinions: “this is an interesting book,” “Person X is a good teacher,” “This work of art is beautiful,” “food Z is the best-tasting food in the world,” etc.

                    One can often modify non-T/F claims to make them T/F. For example “I think that Mozart is the greatest composer of all time” is T/F. But that doesn’t make “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time” itself T/F. It isn’t.

                    Given your claim to have taught philosophy, you should also be familiar with self-referential sentences that cannot be either true or false, such as “This sentence is false.” That’s an example of a sentence that is neither true nor false but also isn’t an opinion.

                    1. “. . . *agreed-on* set of characteristics . . .” (Emphasis added)

                      There’s your fundamental error. Logic and truth are not a function of agreement — no matter who they are or how many they are. (Try Aristotle, instead of Hume and Kant.)

                    2. No, it’s not an error on my part.

                      You are, in fact, underscoring my point. I agree that the truth-value of a T/F claim is not a function of agreement. But claims like “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time” ARE a matter of agreement.

                      For goodness sake, you can’t even bring yourself to admit that the claim “This sentence is false” is neither true nor false.

                    3. So many words and so little to say.

                      T/F substantially depends on context. My piano teacher said that Mozart was the greatest composer. When being tested, there was no question as to who the greatest composer was, Mozart. Of course my other piano teacher said Bach, so to that teacher I answered Bach. It all depended on person, time, place and context.

                    4. “But claims like “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time” ARE a matter of agreement.”

                      Only if you sever facts from values, as Hume did.

                    5. Sam,

                      Go ahead and prove — as a fact — that “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time” is T/F. Go ahead and test your conjecture that it’s a factual claim.

                    6. “Go ahead and prove — as a fact — that “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time” is T/F. Go ahead and test your conjecture that it’s a factual claim.”

                      Typical Sophist move: That you can’t run a 4 min. mile means it can’t be done.

                      And typical deflection. I never said anything about Mozart. I merely pointed out an obvious philosophic point: The view that opinions cannot be evaluated as true or false is premised on the (false) notion that value-judgments are fact-free (which comes from Hume).

                    7. Sam,

                      You claimed “*Every* proposition (or declarative sentence), including those used in expressing an opinion, is either true or false.”

                      In response to “But claims like “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time” ARE a matter of agreement,” you also said “Only if you sever facts from values,” so I said to prove it, since you were already talking about the opinion “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time,” and it’s an example of a “proposition, … including those used in expressing an opinion” that you claim “is either true or false.” But if you don’t want to use the opinion about Mozart as an example, take some other opinion of your choosing and prove whether it’s true versus false.

                      “I never said anything about Mozart”

                      You said something about the claim “Mozart is the greatest composer of all time,” which I just quoted.

                      Again, you can’t even bring yourself to admit that the claim “This sentence is false” is neither true nor false, so I don’t expect that you can admit that you’re wrong.

                      As for “The view that opinions cannot be evaluated as true or false is premised on the (false) notion that value-judgments are fact-free (which comes from Hume),” no, I absolutely accept that opinions often consider facts. I don’t assert that they are fact-free. What I’m asserting is that the opinion itself is not a fact. Do you understand the difference?

            2. Anonymous: My term “pseudo-legal” refers to application, not substantive meaning. Apparently, that went right over your head.

              1. lin, apparently it went over your head that I wasn’t applying it in “pseudo-legal” way.

            3. Anonymous: “The person who makes the claim is the one who has the burden of proof.”

              I agree, but here’s my challenge: Natacha wrote, “So, Turley is admitting that Trump knew he lied and started the insurrection because he refused to relinquish power.” I call BS on that, but in this instance, I can’t prove a negative. I can’t prove JT never admitted what Natacha claims. He certainly didn’t make such a claim about Trump’s state of mind in today’s blog.

              It would be far more reasonable for Natacha, the original claimant, to cite even just one instance of JT admitting Trump deliberately lied about the election. I doubt that ever occurred, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you doubted JT wrote it, too.

              I withdraw my description of you as being “pseudo-legal, etc.” I regret that.

              1. Diogenes, when it comes to factual claims, it’s not your responsibility to prove Natacha wrong. It’s her responsibility to prove herself correct. All you should have to do is ask her for evidence of her claim.

                If she’s simply voicing her opinion and not making a T/F assertion, then there’s nothing for her to prove, but it seems to me that “Turley is admitting that Trump knew he lied and started the insurrection because he refused to relinquish power” is a T/F claim, not an opinion, and unless Natacha can quote where Turley admits that, then she’s inferring something that he didn’t say or imply.

                1. RE:”If she’s simply voicing her opinion and not making a T/F assertion,…” Natacha pontificates and opinionates as if she’s drawing from a reliable source of truths which can neither be negated nor rebutted. She railed against a report attributed to Biden and countered that the agent of the action was the WHO. She subsequently made a disparaging remark about FOX and those who follow it. I posted the same report, couched in precisely the same language, only it was from CNN and it specifically referenced Biden as the actor. I personally, am a creature of outcomes. There have been occasions enough when public figures have taken firm positions, only to have outcomes make them look like fools. To the disadvantage of the rest of us, they who deal it are not obliged to smell it, nor walk behind the elephant in the room with a broom. Just damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.

    2. My responses to other posters haven’t been posting lately, but you just aren’t fooling anyone anymore, Natacha. I almost have to admire your tenacity. Which leads me absolutely, 100%, to the notion that you are paid to do it. Nobody agrees with you here, in spite of their political leanings, not even our declared classical liberal hosts. At some point the troll farms will realize they are flushing money down the toilet. And at this point I have seen you and a few others post the *exact same* drivel for years. Years. You haven’t convinced a single soul here. If anybody needs to wave the white flag, it’s you, and those like you. Your methods simply do not work. Money and loudness are not the determining factors in a free society, and I fear you and your handlers are about to learn that lesson the hard way.

      1. In fact his leftist Neo Marxist drivel has moved those in the middle and many of my liberal friends far to their right… thanks be to him, who though so lost to the truth has yet made others see it yet so clearly !!!
        Reagan quote I believe 😉

      2. The depth of Trump Discipleship never ceases to amaze me. Read what I wrote: Turley claims that the J6 Committee promised to prove criminal charges against Trump but, in his opinion, hadn’t made their case–I pointed out that this was NOT their mission, although a couple of committee members believed there was enough to charge Trump criminally. Then, I pointed out that Turley only grudgingly acknowledged that the Committee had proved its case against Trump civilly and personally, but didn’t expound on the massive implications of someone willing to lie, cheat, and even start an insurrection to keep power, including failing to call off his armed followers knowing they were hunting down the VP. I also commented on Turley using every possible opportunity to criticize Democrats and non-Trump media while disregarding the serious threat Trump posed to our democracy and will of the American people. What I said was accurate factually, but as it evident from reading this blog, Trump Disciples are immune to facts. They believe whatever alt right media tells them and attack anyone who has the temerity to post the truth.

        And, BTW, no one is paying me. I am a patriotic citizen who is willing to defend the democracy my ancestors fought for.

        1. Your ancestors did not fight for a democracy. They fought for a constitutional republic.

            1. Why the link?

              Because the poster doesn’t have a good understanding of the word democracy and all its meanings. He doesn’t understand democracy in its pure form can take liberties away from people merely because they are a minority. That is why we have a Constitution.

              The opposite of totalitarian is not democracy. It is individual freedom, something not well understood by this poster.

              One can link to whatever idea they wish to push, but such an action is meaningless in the context of lin’s statement.

              Our founders understood what a democracy could do to the minority voice. ATS does not.

              1. RE:”Because the poster doesn’t have a good understanding of the word democracy…” “The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves. The word is generally employed abroad in the world incorrectly. The potentially negative impact of majority rule is never realized or considered. Perhaps a more comprehensive teaching of Civics in the public school systems would be of use going forward.

                1. “Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” __James Madison

                  “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” __Alexander Hamilton


            Turnout in 1788 was 11.6% by design.

            Vote criteria were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.

            “the people are nothing but a great beast…

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

            – Alexander Hamilton

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

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

            – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

            The governmental structure in China is nearly the same as that of the American Framers.

            The difference is the absolute dominion and supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

            “Crazy Abe” Lincoln destroyed all that and commenced the incremental implementation of the principles of the Communist Manifesto.

            Lincoln must have never denied fully constitutional secession, started a war, or failed to compassionately repatriated freed slaves per extant contemporary immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1802.

            1. A response to lin’s “Your ancestors did not fight for a democracy. They fought for a constitutional republic.”

            2. RE:”“THE POOR IN SO MEAN A SITUATION AS TO HAVE NO WILL OF THEIR OWN”…” Ya win some, ya lose some, George. Such is the nature of a Constitutional Republic. We yet but continue to turn the pages.

              1. What you mean to say is that the law should lose.

                That anti-Constitution, anti-American attitude is precisely why and how America lost its Constitution, and was compelled to incrementally implement the principles of the Communist Manifesto.

                Sometimes people have to recover something lost.


                The U.S. Constitution shall not lose in the American restricted-vote republic.

                Do write us from the Gulag, comrade.

                1. RE:”Blasphemer!” Take a sedative, George! We’ve already had our Joe McCarthy moment. Curfew has yet to ring!!

        2. Natacha: “I am a patriotic citizen who is willing to defend the democracy my ancestors fought for.”

          Question, Natacha, if America is systemically racist, why would you fight for her? I would not fight for her if that were the case.

          But if what CRT says about America is wildly unfair–especially to white people–but CRT’s advocates now control the party that controls America’s media, academia, corporations, and federal government? Again, why would anyone fight for such a malign leadership?

          I suggest that explains why military recruitment sucks right now. It’s the internal contradiction of the party that has America by the throat.

          1. Diogenes: fist of all, CRT advocates do NOT CONTROL any political party. That’s more alt-right lying. Secondly, CRT is only taught at the university level, despite the endless lying about this on Fox. The Democrat party does NOT control “America’s media, academia, corporations, and federal government” either. Do you think Democrats are controlling Oral Roberts University or state universities in red states like Alabama, Florida or Louisiana? The line about Democrats “controlling” media, academia, etc. comes straight from Fox, and it is used as a recruitment tool for disciples like you and Karen S., who’ve been indoctrinated into believing the Big Lie and the slop served up by Hannity, Tucker and Ingraham makes you some kind of smart, savvy maverick that is bucking “the system”. They do this to get you to distrust educated people.

            1. RE:” They do this to get you to distrust educated people…” ”You’re entitled to your very broad and diverse opinions which is mostly what you expound” Consistently tiresome to say the least.

            2. Natacha, CRT advocates control most of the Democrat Party, most of media, and almost of all of academia and the federal bureaucracy. I can’t prove it by myself, but many sources have alleged it’s true, not just Fox, so I give it a lot of credence.

              Let me ask you this: do you believe America is systemically racist?

    3. On January 6, 2021, there was an incident at the Capitol building which turned into an attempt by certain individuals to gain entry into the building, there was violence, a lot of it…..some at the time labeled it chaos, a riot of sorts, mob violence. But only certain partisan Democrats and their ilk began using the legal word insurrection. By any definition, it wasn’t one. And the French word ‘coup’ was thrown around quite a bit as well, but it wasn’t that either. So Turley isn’t wrong in his opening dialogue in this piece about Liz cheney, which is what you claim. So Natacha……you write at this site quite often…….If Turley is a Fox News mouthpiece, what shall we label you? Do you also have a regular blog?

      1. January 6th was a planned, coordinated effort to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory so that Trump could buy time and get state legislatures to award him the presidency. If you watched the J6 Committee hearings, you would have heard the testimony of a British reporter who was embedded with the Proud Boys and who went with them on a reconnaissance mission before J6 to calculate the various potential points of entry into the Capitol building,. They split up into groups. They planned to have one group divert the Capitol Police at one location in order to make a secondary location more-vulnerable so that they could breach the building. You would also have seen the photos of the collection of weapons in a motel across the Potomac, waiting for Trump to give the command to storm Congress. He promised to lead them, but the Secret Service wouldn’t let him out of the limousine. One of the rioters testified that he went to the Capitol because he believed the Big Lie and was following Trump’s command to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”. In fact, Trump fans only left after he told them to, and he told them that he “loved them”. Trump only called off the mob, after more than 3 hours, when it was clear that Pence wouldn’t leave the Capitol, so his little plot failed.

        Trump knew the mob was hunting for Pence, that they had erected a gallows and were shouting “hang Pence” and instead of stopping them, he tweeted that Pence had “let them down”, which Cassidy Hutchinson and Pat Cipolline testified was like pouring gas on a fire. Trump also had slates of fake electors in swing states who created false certification documents saying he had won when he hadn’t. Creation of these false vote certifications is a felony, and these people will probably go to jail because of Trump. At minimum, they’ll have a criminal record. He thought that if he delayed certification and created enough confusion, Congress would reject the certified votes and that somehow state legislatures could let him win anyway. This hare-brained plot came from John Eastman, and has no basis in law. Also, Mike Pence, who was ushered out of the upstairs at the Capitol and taken to a loading dock where there was a limousine waiting, refused to leave. He knew who he was dealing with and what he was capable of, and determined that no one was going to stop him from accepting the certified votes proving Biden won. That was after a pressure campaign by Trump to try to bully Pence into refusing to accept certified votes, despite all evidence proving Trump had lost.

        Everything i’ve written about J6 came directly from the sworn testimony of witnesses who had direct first-hand knowledge of what went down. And, there’s more to come. You can play all of the little word games you want to, but Jan 6th was far more than “an incident…which turned into an attempt to gain entry into the building”. That’s Fox rhetoric, and it’s not true. It was well-planned long before Jan 6th, a date that will live in infamy. Interfering with Congress is a criminal offense, as is conspiring to create false election certificates.

        1. “January 6th was a planned, coordinated effort to stop the certification”

          If that were true – it would have succeeded.

          1. Nonsense. That something is planned and coordinated by a subset of the participants does not guarantee that it succeeds.

            1. “Nonsense. That something is planned and coordinated by a subset of the participants does not guarantee that it succeeds.”

              So many errors. In any large civil action there are small subsets with goals different from the whole.

              You and the left are not seeking to condem some tiny portion of those at J6, but the whole.

              Further the “planning” of the “subsets” that you rant about was to occupy the capital and demand a new election.
              They were not going to get that.
              Regardless that is NOT a planned insurrection.

              Next, it is a tautology that “planned” means “planned” – if you plan an insurrection – you bring guns – lots of them.

              Your claim is much like the collusion delusion.

              Not in theory impossible, but requiring incredible stupidity on the part of people who are obviously not stupid.
              And requiring people to act against their own interests.

              It was not in Putin’s interest to have Trump as president. That should be obvious.

              Putin has invaded a neighbor during every presidency since he gained power – EXCEPT TRUMP.

              Putin’s power stems from oil and Gas, Trump’s energy policy diminished Putin’s power.

              Yet, millions of Americans – lead through the nose by Hillary Clinton believed that Putin would behave absolutely stupidly regarding his own power and country.

              We now know this was a Clinton concocted HOAX. But it was ALWAYS a stupid claim that only those incapable of more than the most shallow thought would buy. And yet this stupidity was beleived by the majority of people with advanced college degrees.

              This country is in deep $hit if our most educated people are that stupid.

              And we see a version of the same thing with J6.

              The entire country knew that Trump supporters were converging on the capital on J6. Just as Clinton supporters did in 2017.

              Unlike Clinton supporters Trump supporters have a justifiable reason to be pissed.
              The 2020 election was Obviously lawless and corrupt. It was also rife with fraud. There is ample reason to doubt the results.
              The courts failed in their duty to enforce the law before the election and to enguire into allegations of fraud after.

              Again the same idiots who in many case STILL believe Trump and Russia conspired in 2016, also believe the 2020 election was “perfect”,
              and that court decisions ducking their responsibility to enforce the law and to examine challenges to election integrity were proof of anything except the failure of the courts.

              No one – not those challenging the election, not your J6 conspirators sought to unilaterally declare Trump the president.
              The court challenges asked for inquiry into credible allegations of fraud – not a whitewash.

              The very conspirators you rant about were demanding a new election.

              Some Republican Senators and congressmen were planning to object – seeking an election commission to look into allegations of fraud.

              Trump sought to get Pence and Congress to reject electors from contested states, and throw the election to the House.

              All these actions were “hail Mary’s”. None was going to succeed. But none were illegitimate.

              The primary illegitimate acts were:

              Using Covid to ignore election laws and state constitutional election requirements.
              The courts giving their impramatur to this lawlessness.
              Locking down the capital to thwart just about every single provision of the first amendment.
              The murder of Alishi Babbit. The likely murder of Boylan.

              What many of us wonder is why it was not much worse.

              Why these protestors did not come with hundreds of AR-15’s ?
              They certainly owned them.

              That would be an actual insurection would look like.

              Accross the country we are seeing people who through molotov cocktails at police, who blinded them with lasers, or who poured gasoline on police and lit them on fire, who burned down police stations, who bombed police stations, who burned down their neighborhoods, who looted stores,
              and who repeeatedly tried to burn down a federal courthouse – all get off with little or no consequences.

              While protestors exercising their legitimate rights to free speech, to free assembly to petition government are being persecuted an jailed for decades.

              The most violent protestor at J6 is far less culpable than the officer who murdered Alishi Babbit or the lawyers who threw molotov cocktails into occupied police cars or who used lasers to blind police officers.

              Last, why is it that the rest of us should beleive that the people who were actively rioting, looting and engaged in Mayhem all summer in 2020, would not commit election fraud in the fall ?

              The most important reason the election results are STILL not trusted is because the people telling us to trust them are liars and thugs.

              1. None of that word vomit changes the fact that just because something is planned and coordinated by a subset of the participants, that does not guarantee that it succeeds.

                1. “None of that word vomit changes the fact that just because something is planned and coordinated by a subset of the participants, that does not guarantee that it succeeds.”

                  That is correct – but we are not talking about planned and coordinated by left wing nut idiots who do not know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.

                  We are talking about people – who it i OBVIOUS have the weapons and the skill to use them, as well as the intelligence to plan an ACTUAL insurrection – and yet they did not.

                  The FBI investigation, the texts and emails that have so far been made public – and the J6 committee hemorages anything that they can spin as the lest bit derogatory – do NOT support the claim there as an insurrection. Or that one was planned.

                  The HUGE problem with the who Leftist idiocy on J6 is that it all rests on criminalizing LEGAL actions.

                  Whether you like it or not – it is LEGAL to protest elections. It is LEGAL to seek to overturn them – by legal and constitutional means.

                  It is LEGAL to enter the capital while congress is in session to protest government, To protest elections.

                  It is even LEGAL to be wrong about the election. And it is certainly LEGAL to be right.

                  The 2020 election was massively lawless, an much of that lawlessness continues today.

                  I would further note the who nonsense that there was no fraud is STUPID.

                  Either the left will continue the same fraudulent nonsense that the did in 2020, in 2022 and beyond and they WILL eventually get caught big time.
                  And after that you will be beleived about nothing.

                  Or the left will STOP – and they will get wiped out.

                  1. Before I go back to gardening work here tonight:

                    2 Years later same ole 2020 Commie/Nazis attacking the USA’s Voting System. Attn: Bill Barr, etc….


                    Top Detroit Election Official Says Satellite Voting Centers “Don’t Tabulate” Votes… If True, Why Were Tabulators Delivered to This Detroit Satellite Voting Center In 2020? [VIDEO]
                    By Patty McMurray
                    Published August 6, 2022 at 2:50pm

                    1. There is a problem with the lies.

                      But it is far preferable not to have central counting centers.

                      Count the votes at the precincts – in public with, and eliminate the central facilities entirely.

                      Ballots should not be transported at all until after the election is over and the counting is done.

                      Every process associated with voting should be as simple and decentralized as possible.

                      Complexity and centralization increase the opportunity for organized fraud, decrease the odds of catching it, and decrease the number of people that need to participate in that fraud.

  18. I’m planning on a mother load of evidence about November 1st. Then we’ll get that waskalley Ole Donald Trump.

    1. -And he may even cry out, “Oh, Br’er Schiff, Sista Cheney, pweeze, pweeze don’ throw me in that ole briar patch!….

Comments are closed.