“An Attack on One is an Attack on All’: Time for a Red-State NATO-like Alliance on Boycotts

Below is my column on recent effort to boycott states over their abortion laws, a growing push for states to punish other states with measures like travel bans. While boycotts are an important expression of free speech by citizens, it raises more difficult questions when done by states seeking to coerce other states. It can create a morass of boycotts and tit-for-tat measures. This column suggests a way to end the practice through a simple deterrent measure based on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It would be to the benefit of all states (and our federalism system as a whole) to remove state-to-state boycotts from the political arena.

Here is the column:

“An attack on one is an attack on all.” That reference to Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a virtual mantra in Washington these days as “the bedrock of peace and security in Europe for over half a century.” But the benefits of such deterrence should not be lost on another group under increasing threat for their political alliances: America’s red states.

From California to Illinois, legislators are moving to boycott any state contracts with businesses in states with anti-LGBTQ legislation or restrictive abortion laws. At the same time, many Democratic leaders are pressuring companies to boycott red states too.

This past week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called upon Hollywood production companies to stop filming in states such as Georgia or Oklahoma with strict anti-abortion laws. In Georgia, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has warned that companies will cut off ties with such states, including her own, if they do not change their laws. (Abrams previously was criticized by conservatives for fueling the boycott of her own state which led to the withdrawal of the All-Star Game from Atlanta over election reform laws.)

Such campaigns have succeeded, particularly with private companies. Indeed, in both restricting speech and boycotting states, the left has found greater success with private companies than with voters in pushing their agenda. The New York Times warned pro-life states that they risk their “competitive edge” in the market if they do not change their laws to conform with blue-state views.

The boycott threats have been growing since 2016, when North Carolina was targeted for passing a bill limiting bathroom access by biological gender.

The point of these campaigns is to pressure state officials to ignore the will of a majority of their citizens and pass laws to appeal to corporations and other states in a competitive market. Such boycotts by private citizens or groups are an important form of political speech; various state laws barring state contracts with those who support boycotts of Israel, for example, have been struck down as unconstitutional, although an appellate court recently upheld an Arkansas law.

However, states or companies engaging in such boycotts is a different matter. Many consumers do not want companies like Disney to engage in political debates over issues like transgender rights. One poll showed 67 percent opposed corporate opposition to an “anti-grooming” law, a view that appears to be impacting Disney. Consumers can vote with their pocketbooks in the “go woke, go broke” movement.

For Democratic leaders like California Attorney General Rob Bonta, official boycotts on travel are simply a case of states acting like consumers and “aligning our dollars with our values.” However, it is more than that. It is speaking as a state to isolate and punish states with opposing views on abortion, transgender rights, gun rights and other policies. In a system based on federalism principles, we embraced the model of allowing each state to reach its own conclusions on divisive questions. The result can be consensus around moderate positions that escape both parties, which often are driven by the extremes on issues like abortion.

Take this week’s vote in Kansas, which surprised many by overwhelmingly supporting the preservation of abortion rights. Although many Democrats demand unrestricted abortion rights and many Republicans demand total bans, a Harvard-Harris poll shows 72 percent of Americans would allow abortion only until the 15th week of pregnancy or a more restrictive limit. When states try to coerce other states to yield to their demands on such issues, they hinder state experimentation and expression.

The result is increasingly bizarre. California college sports teams are barred from spending money to travel to any state on the liberal “naughty list” — a problem when you are USC and UCLA and just moved from the Pac 12 to the Big Ten. They now face raising private funds to be able to play in blacklisted states.

There is a way to end this madness. It is an Article 5-like alliance.

While this would ideally be an agreement by all states, red states should pass legislation barring state business or travel with any state that engages in boycotts. The key would be that the agreement must stand on principle, allow no exceptions, and trigger immediate reciprocity: A travel ban on, say, Nebraska would result in a reciprocal ban not just from Nebraska but from every state in the alliance.

In this way, when a state like California targets a state like Utah, it will shoot itself with roughly half of the country. Eventually the administrative and competitive costs of such measures would become prohibitive.

California’s enormous economy has given leaders like Gov. Newsom a sense of impunity in targeting other states. There are now 17 states on California’s banned list under a 2016 law that automatically adds states which discriminate against or remove protections for people on the basis of sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. Imagine if those 17 states had automatic reciprocity laws — add any one of us to a boycott list, and you will be boycotted back by all.

Newsom is running ads in Florida and Texas, telling their residents that “freedom is under attack in your state” — based on a majority of voters there reaching opposing conclusions on controversial issues — and urging Floridians and Texans to move to California. They appear to have two options in Newsom’s mind: Move to California or adopt its positions, so democracy will be safe from itself.

Evan Low, a California lawmaker who authored that state’s ban, put it simply: “The current culture war is not a game.” Indeed — which is why we should look to “the most successful military alliance in history” to end reckless incursions by neighboring states.

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

404 thoughts on ““An Attack on One is an Attack on All’: Time for a Red-State NATO-like Alliance on Boycotts”

  1. This all makes one question what President Susan “Barack Obama” Rice has in store for the post-fundamental-transformation, hyphenated un-America.

  2. Republicans will fix them.

    They have Kevin McCarthy waiting in the wings.

    But wait, you say, Kevin McCarthy is a democrat.


    It happens.

  3. John “Dudley Do-Right” Dudham sure cleaned up those Deep Deep State Swampers.

  4. I can’t take credit for this since I saw someone else post it.

    If Preseident Trump knew about it, he really missed an opportunity. He should have put a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-Shirt in that safe.

  5. The raid had nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the deep state job security.

    The centerpiece
    Trump signed an executive order, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” in October 2020, which established a new employment category for federal employees. It received wide media coverage for a short period, then was largely forgotten in the mayhem and aftermath of Jan. 6 — and quickly was rescinded by President Biden.

    Sources close to Trump say that if he were elected to a second term, he would immediately reimpose it.

    Tens of thousands of civil servants who serve in roles deemed to have some influence over policy would be reassigned as “Schedule F” employees. Upon reassignment, they would lose their employment protections.

    New presidents typically get to replace more than 4,000 so-called “political” appointees to oversee the running of their administrations. But below this rotating layer of political appointees sits a mass of government workers who enjoy strong employment protections — and typically continue their service from one administration to the next, regardless of the president’s party affiliation.

    An initial estimate by the Trump official who came up with Schedule F found it could apply to as many as 50,000 federal workers — a fraction of a workforce of more than 2 million, but a segment with a profound role in shaping American life.

    Trump, in theory, could fire tens of thousands of career government officials with no recourse for appeals. He could replace them with people he believes are more loyal to him and to his “America First” agenda.

    Even if Trump did not deploy Schedule F to this extent, the very fact that such power exists could create a significant chilling effect on government employees.

    It would effectively upend the modern civil service, triggering a shock wave across the bureaucracy. The next president might then move to gut those pro-Trump ranks — and face the question of whether to replace them with her or his own loyalists, or revert to a traditional bureaucracy.

    1. Trump wants to install a deep state where none existed.

      And without having seen the warrant or warrant application, none of us has a good basis for determining the reason for the search warrant and what it covers.

      1. Anonymous:

        A Deep State didn’t distance?

        The FBI lies to get a FISA warrant against Trump.
        Russia hoax was known to be a fraudulent distraction for Hillary’s emails
        Spying on Trump and his associates and then lying about it
        IRS targeting conservatives
        NSA spring and then Clapper lying about it to Congress

        3 letter agencies have been politicized Left and weaponized for a long time. It doesn’t appear to bother you because you seem to like the result of government targeting your political opponents.

        1. And so many more such events —- such as 51 intelligence professionals signing a statement that the Hunter Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation. Such as Adam Schiff claiming he had clear evidence of Russian collusion with Trump leading up to the 2016 election. Any time Schiff claims clear evidence, the claim has to be completely discounted. And much much more —- Nancy Pelosi claims she and her husband never discuss legislative matters that could have an impact on certain publicly-traded companies….that’s NEVER……and people believe her? Really? Let’s put her and her husband under enhanced interrogation and see what we learn…shall we?

      2. A bunch of BS answered many times and by Karen. Do you like waste time?

    2. Olly,

      Like everyone who supports or defends Trump you’re looking for ANY excuse or narrative to deflect from what is really the issue. NOBODY, NOBODY knows exactly why Trump’s estate was raided by the FBI.

      As far as I can tell it’s about more documents that he took from the White House when he left office. He was supposed to have turned in All documents including classified documents to the national archives.

      Apparently he didn’t do that and it was discovered that he still had more that he either didn’t disclose or purposely kept which would be considered theft by law.

      If, IF, this is true he stands to be charged with stealing classified documents which is a serious felony. Just because he’s a former president it doesn’t give him the right to keep such documents. No president can.

      Despite all the republicans running around with their hair on fire and blaming anything they can blame for this “ injustice” they still have to contend with the facts. Let’s see how it plays out before making wild and unsubstantiated allegations and hysterics shall we?

      1. NOBODY, NOBODY knows exactly why Trump’s estate was raided by the FBI.

        Oh, I guarantee you that somebody knows. And unless they have a compelling national security reason for a raid, as opposed to a subpoena, then we have seriously crossed a line that has never been crossed before.

    3. This is true. Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone.org has also written about this. Trump and perhaps DeSantis are the only two who could deal effectively with the administrative state.

  6. Robby Starbuck
    Bruce Reinhart who helped Epstein get off and then went on to represent Epstein’s accomplices is THE JUDGE who signed off on the FBI raiding President Trump. If you wrote that into a movie script the studio would laugh at you because it’s such unbelievable corruption.
    9:05 AM · Aug 9, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

    Who is Bruce Reinhart?


    “Bruce Reinhart once quit his job as a U.S. Attorney to work for Jeffrey Epstein, the multimillionaire accused sex trafficker who was being targeted in a probe by the U.S. Attorney’s office.

    As reported in the Miami Herald on November 28, 2018:

    Epstein also hired Bruce Reinhart, then an assistant U.S. attorney in South Florida, now a U.S. magistrate.
    He left the U.S. Attorney’s Office on Jan. 1, 2008, and went to work representing Epstein’s employees on Jan. 2, 2008, court records show.

    In 2011, Reinhart was named in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act lawsuit, which accused him of violating Justice Department policies by switching sides, implying that he leveraged inside information about Epstein’s investigation to curry favor with Epstein.””

    That is the Judge who gave the FBI the green light to carry, wait for it, AR-15 rifles, to raid President Trump home

    1. Judge Bruce Reinhart was confirmed as a magistrate judge in 2018 under Trump.

      1. US magistrate judges are neither appointed by the President nor confirmed by the Senate. They are chosen by a majority of the district court judges to whom they provide assistance and serve for fixed terms. It is extraordinary that this magistrate judge elected to sign the warrant himself, rather than passing it on to a real Article III judge.

      1. Does Trump have anything info that relates to Epstein and his clients?

  7. Dissolution of the Union is closer this morning than at anytime since the Civil War. Democratic Party members, especially its leadership, and the media that serves as the Democrat Party’s propaganda outlet, are clear about what a future America looks like: It doesn’t include dissent, an opposition party, or political freedom.

    1. FBI is now serving as Biden regime’s Secret Police jackbooted Stasi going after its political opposition just like a corrupt,. lawless, ruthless 3rd world dictatorship.

      Eyes all around the world are now wide open.

    2. Dissolution of the Union is closer this morning than at anytime since the Civil War.

      Samuel, while we’re similarly divided between the America First and America Last worldview, we seem to be more along the post-7 years war timeline. I reread the list of grievances in the DoI this morning and we’re experiencing many of them today. In either case, this could get hot, real quick.

  8. So lets get this straight, trump supporters loved the FBI when days before the election they said they were investigating Hillary. And now, they are thugs and unlawfully picking on the twice impeached friend of Putin.

    1. Fishwings,

      You’re witnessing mass hysteria in real time.

      Dear leader, was …violated…..GASP!!!

      I get a kick out of the Fox News talking point. “If the FBI can do that to Trump imagine what they would do to you!”

      Well, they can do that to ANYONE who… breaks the law. Which reinforces the point that NOBODY is above the law. This is where Trump’s inflated sense of privilege has its shortcomings.

      1. “Which reinforces the point that NOBODY is above the law”

        Please list the democrats that have been not been above the law. Hilary, Biden and Nancy are above it, so you will have to dig deeper.

        1. Jim22,

          They are not above the law either. Hence the expression, “NOBODY is above the law”.

    2. FishWings:

      Hillary Clinton was supposed to use the closed State system. Instead, to avoid aging a record of all her correspondence, she kept an illegal bootleg server in her house. It contained Top Secret information. People with no clearance had access to it, including foreign nationals. She had IT upload it to the Cloud, which is like shouting the information in public. While under subpoena, she wiped it with BleachBit. She lied about it- “Do you mean, did I wipe it with a cloth?” Some of the deleted emails were recovered on the receiving end of Huma’s laptop, which was in the possession of convicted sex offender Weiner, who used it for porn.

      The FBI did not raid her house. She was never charged.

      This was precedent.

      National Archives requested Trump’s records while conducting presidential business at Mar-A-Lago. He cooperated and turned over 15 boxes in February. He didn’t use BleachBit. He didn’t lie and say the documents didn’t exist. He said, sure, here you go.

      So the same FBI that lied about Carter Page, even altering a CIA email as to his bonafides, in order to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, the same FBI that knowingly pushed Hillary’s Russia Hoax, raided Trump’s private residence like he was the mafia. The same FBI whose reputation Comey flushed down the toilet.

      If you don’t have a problem with this, then you’re part of the problem.

      This is the behavior of Lenin or the CCP. The Left is turning the US into a totalitarian nation, targeting political dissenters.

  9. The FBI’s Raid of Mar-a-Lago

    Congratulations, Democrats.

    You have turned the FBI into a Praetorian Guard. You have transformed the DOJ into a prosecutor of political “criminals.” You have further eroded Americans’ trust in the rule of law. From the schoolhouse to the White House, you have turned American institutions into enemies of Americans.

    You have committed a historic injustice against Trump and his supporters.

    And like barbarians, you snicker at the destruction you have wreaked.

    After Dobbs, I was equivocal about the midterms. Now I hope the Left gets slaughtered.

    1. Should we call for the whaaaambulance for you?

      Good grief, the hysterics remind me of that poor lady panicking in the movie “Airplane”. You know, the one being smacked around because of her hysterics.

      Republicans seem to need that kind of intervention.

    2. How could your claims possibly be justified when you haven’t read the warrant or the warrant application? You are assuming without evidence that the warrant wasn’t justified.

      1. “[Y]ou haven’t read the warrant or the warrant application?”

        Your party has an insurmountable obstacle. In such cases, it has already destroyed its credibility.

        1. Sam, you’re making claims based on pure assumption. You or anyone else has no idea what is on that warrant. Shouldn’t we wait and actually see what is really on that warrant before going all apoplectic over the raid?

          1. “Shouldn’t we wait . . .”

            Somebody needs to read more Agatha Christie. A man’s and a party’s motivation count.

            So, too, do a man’s and a party’s credibility. Your party is the Boy Who Cries Wolf. *If* there is now really a wolf, you have nobody else to blame but yourself, if people stopped listening.

            1. Sam, republicans are in hysterics and literally jumping from one conclusion to another blaming Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, or the deep state, or whatever gobbledygook evil villain from the left they can think of. They have been doing that forever, it’s their fault for “crying wolf” about these interchangeable liberal “crooks” and “cheats”. Now they just look ridiculous. Instead of furthering this embarrassing tirade of hysteria maybe they should wait and see what the actual warrant says. It will be made public at some point.

              1. Not at “some point” —it needs to be made public right now. And it must contain something much more than noncompliance with records nonsense.

    3. Absolutely Sam.

      The Complete Perversion of the Law
      But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.


  10. Professor Turley,

    It looks like there are 3 issues with this post that require corrections:

    1. You write: “However, states or companies engaging in such boycotts is a different matter. Many consumers do not want companies like Disney to engage in political debates over issues like transgender rights. One poll showed 67 percent opposed corporate opposition to an “anti-grooming” law, a view that appears to be impacting Disney. Consumers can vote with their pocketbooks in the “go woke, go broke” movement.”

    The poll you link to, however, does not ask whether respondents oppose corporate engagement in political issues. It simply asks whether the agree or disagree with Disney’s stance. Therefore, it does not show what you purport it to show. On the contrary, there are several polls that show support for corporate engagement on political issues.

    2. You write: “From California to Illinois, legislators are moving to boycott any state contracts with businesses in states with anti-LGBTQ legislation or restrictive abortion laws. At the same time, many Democratic leaders are pressuring companies to boycott red states too.”

    Yet, you do not cite to a specific law that boycotts all state contracts with businesses in certain states. The California travel ban restricts reimbursement for travel to certain states; it does not prohibit the state government from hiring a vendor based in TX. That is big distinction, especially because your proposed solution involves a complete ban on all business based in blue states.

    3. You write: “The result is increasingly bizarre. California college sports teams are barred from spending money to travel to any state on the liberal “naughty list” — a problem when you are USC and UCLA and just moved from the Pac 12 to the Big Ten. They now face raising private funds to be able to play in blacklisted states.”

    There are two issues here. First, Utah is in the PAC-12, so your reciprocal ban would affect UCLA, if it had stayed in the PAC-12 and will certainly affect Cal-Berkeley’s future contracts. Second, USC is a private institution, and therefore the travel ban in applicable.

    With (1) anti-BDS legislation, (2) retaliatory attacks on private businesses for exercising their First Amendment rights (i.e., Disney in FL), and (3) legislation in FL and TX intended to prohibit social media companies from exercising their First Amendment rights, red states are just as likely (if not more so at the moment) to infringe on corporate free speech than blue states.

  11. Assuming it is true that the raid related to allegedly classified documents still in Trump’s possession, a number of issues arise:

    1. Was Trump cooperating with the archive as he claims to resolve questions related to the status of retained documents?

    2. Was Trump preparing to destroy improperly retained documents?

    3. Why was a subpoena considered inadequate?

    4. What specific documents or categories of documents did the warrant cover and what evidence of probable cause was presented in support?

    5. Did the agents conduct their search and seizure in accordance with the warrant?

    Even regardless of technical legalities, this unprecedented action could only be justified by clear and extraordinary dangers. It is highly unlikely that those were present.

    It is more likely that this was politically motivated, to impair Trump’s candidacy.

    1. Daniel, how can you judge the likelihood without seeing the warrant application?

      1. One can’t be certain, but there is too much history on the left proving that what Daniel says has tremendous merit. The left is always hiding behind things that we are not permitted to see.

      2. Because even if the warrant was technically legal there remains the question of why adopt this procedure. As I wrote, this extraordinary action should be justified by very serious dangers. Unless there is evidence that Trump was preparing to destroy critical documents, those dangers were not present. I consider it very unlikely that evidence of that exists. So I conclude that is is more likely to have been politically motivated.

    2. Perhaps we should wait until we get some answers to Daniel’s great questions before we draw any conclusions.

      1. “. . . we should wait . . .”

        With respect, if you need to wait, then you haven’t been paying attention the last six years.

    3. Trump is well known to have a habit of destroying important documents. Even in the White House. If he didn’t turn over all the documents he was supposed to when it was learned that he illegally took classified documents with him. He may be liable for felony charges of theft of classified documents.

      The archives must have notified the FBI that Trump still had documents that he was supposed fo turn over. Raiding the estate would indicate that his continued retaining of such documents is now a crime and is a felony under the law.

    1. He went there! Turley was set up to discuss Hunter Biden as predicted.

      He is hedging with his opinion while at the same time sowing doubt about the FBI. Again predictable.

      It seems his forthcoming column will be a rehash of his interview and use last FBI screwups as a means to create doubt that this raid is just another botched attempt, however he doesn’t know the reason behind the raid as is everyone else. He’s going to me jumping conclusions and feed the rage of his followers here with insinuations and of course…more Hunter Biden chum.

      1. “Turley was set up to discuss Hunter Biden as predicted.”

        Typical leftist way of attacking the truth. Burn the messenger. A troll, A paid troll, doesn’t matter. Svelaz is merely an input from the left to provide false information to the gullible.

        1. Svelaz was watching reruns of RuPaul drag wars. He couldnt handle a lawyer academic discussing cerebral topics

        2. Well, I watched the Fox News interview with Turley, and lo and behold. Turley DID bring up Hunter Biden. I wasn’t wrong.

  12. We wait with anticipation as Turley is furiously typing up another Hunter Biden column and possibly toss in some Hillary for good measure to desperately deflect from the FBI raid on mar a lago.

    Republicans are already losing their minds and blaming everything under the sun for this supposed insult or “attack”.

    Even Trump supporters have congregated at their messiah’s residence to bears witness to the “injustice” of being “invaded” by “deep state lizard people” and their woke agenda. So much wailing and gnashing of teeth or tooth if you’re from the south will ensue. Making more popcorn brb.

      1. Turley has represented several politicians before Congress and US Federal courts. He dislikes Trump immensely but he lives to defend the rule of law. Watch him represent Trump in Court or Congress against DOJ

        Question: will you and your Marxist brownshirts go after Turley just like you went after SCOTUS Justices?
        asking for 300+ million Americans


        1. I suspect Turley will be the one being denigrated by his fellow fans here. He’s not going to condemn the FBI without proof that they did anything wrong according to the law. If the FBI raided Trump’s residence and the contents of his safe it’s pretty clear they must have had a very, very good reason to do so. But republicans are already in mind losing hysteria trying to blame everything and demand impeachment of everyone involved without hearing the reason for the raid. It seems more like they are panicking because the FBI may have gotten evidence of THEY were involved in planning the Jan 6 insurrection. The reaction certainly implies they have something to hide or are terrified of being exposed. That is of course speculation on my part, but it’s far more rational than the republicans hysterically losin their minds over this.

          1. Svelaz, why would we be panicking? We have the 2A, the hunting gear, ammo, and know how to hunt “deer in headlights” type targets. You can always toss your green tea, avocado spread and vegan chips to defend yourself. though one suspects your mommy has a fabulous home in a white pristine neighborhood where you live in her basement, miles and miles away from blacks, homeless and immigrants. just a guess

          2. “If the FBI raided Trump’s residence and the contents of his safe it’s pretty clear they must have had a very, very good reason to do so.”

            Your bootlicking is revolting.

            1. Anonymous,

              “ Svelaz, why would we be panicking? We have the 2A, the hunting gear, ammo, and know how to hunt “deer in headlights” type targets.”

              How would that help trump avoid felony charges? Lazy hunters aren’t real hunters. Based on what you said you “hunt” paper targets and wild watermelons lurking in the forest. Good luck with that. You’re making real hunters look bad.

      2. You don’t raid a president’s home to go fishing for evidence in America. You do that in 3rd world dictatorships.

        1. I doubt that they’re “fishing.” They had enough evidence to convince a federal magistrate judge to sign the warrant. Why do you assume s/he did so inappropriately? 1/3 of the West Palm Beach magistrate judges were even appointed by Trump.

          1. A judge signed a warrant for Carter Page too. The FBI lies and fabricates evidence. We know this. They get no benefit of doubt.

      3. You don’t approve an FBI raid to ransack a president’s home and private office because of suspected noncompliance with the Presidential Records Act. Not in America.

        1. No you don’t, but you DO raid a president’s home and office when there is evidence of a violation and the judge certainly was shown evidence, strong enough to approve the warrant.

          1. Svelaz, now or in the end, it will not matter what the facts are, trump supporters will believe what they want to believe.

            1. You mean like no federal judge would have signed off on spying on the Trump campaign based on a fabricated dossier?

            2. Remember when Hillary had a private server with classified State Department materials on it? Remember when Hillary destroyed subpoenaed digital files with Bleachbit? Remember when Hillary hid subpoenaed documents from Whitewater in the residence closet of the White House? of course you don’t. There was no armed FBI raid!

              Remember when Hillary looted the White House to furnish her new mansion and got caught and then and had to bring her moving van full of WH furniture and furnishings back? No FBI raid searching her house(s). She simply said ‘oops sorry I thought we could take whatever WH furnishings we wanted in order to furnish our new mansions!’

            3. Fishwings, they are already in denial mode. Hard core denial. Nothing will convince them, even if the cold hard truth was staring them in the face. That’s how cult leaders keep a tight grip on their follower’s minds.

Comments are closed.