Rep. Goldman Calls for Trump to be “Eliminated” After Decrying his “Inflammatory Rhetoric”

Even in his freshman year, Democratic New York Rep. Dan Goldman has proven one of the most controversial members in Congress from attacking witnesses to inadvertently undermining the Biden defenses. The latest controversy involves a call to “eliminate” Donald Trump after accusing him of using “inflammatory rhetoric.” He has since apologized for his own language. Despite being one of the many past targets of Goldman’s wrath, I do not believe that Goldman was calling for violence. It was what I call “rage rhetoric” in my book The Indispensable Right. However, the incident shows the perils of criminalizing political speech.

Goldman remains a favorite on MSNBC where he rarely fails to disappoint viewers with his brand of smash-mouth politics and rhetoric. It was, therefore, somewhat ironic for Jen Psaki to interview him on the inflammatory rhetoric in this election on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki.”

Goldman responded:

“rhetoric is really getting dangerous, more and more dangerous, and we saw what happened on Jan. 6, when he uses inflammatory rhetoric. It is just unquestionable at this point that that man cannot see public office again. He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy and he has to be eliminated.”

Some have called for Goldman to be investigated by the Secret Service. Others have called for a censure resolution. I do not agree. It was clearly reckless rhetoric and not a true threat.

Yet, the incident shows how inflammatory terms are often used in politics. In the very same sentence in which Goldman denounced “dangerous” rhetoric, he proceeded to use dangerous rhetoric.

Rep. Goldman has been one of the most vocal voices for prosecuting incitement based on such language. In an interview with NPR, Goldman (who was counsel in the Trump impeachment) defended the use of such rhetoric as the basis for impeachment or prosecution:

“there’s all sorts of speech that is criminalized. You can’t – you know, you can’t use hate speech. You – people – in all sorts of crimes. You can’t send death threats across, you know, the Internet. There are so many criminal laws that do criminalize speech, and so the notion that the president of the United States somehow has a First Amendment right to be protected by the government for his speech doesn’t make any sense. It’s a backwards argument, and it’s a loser.”

As a threshold observation, the interview shows how dangerously ill-informed Goldman is on the First Amendment. He claims, as have other Democratic members, that “you can’t use hate speech.” That is demonstrably and completely wrong. Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. You cannot commit hate crimes.

Indeed, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving “violent speech,” the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct. It supported the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization. Likewise, in RAV v. City of St. Paul in 2011, it struck down a ban on any symbol that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.

I have previously criticized the calls to criminalize Trump’s Jan. 6th speech as inimical to free speech. On Jan. 6, I was contributing to the coverage and denounced Trump’s speech while he was still giving it. I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric as well as similar rhetoric coming from the left. However, the calls for criminal charges ignore the danger to free speech.

While Trump used language like going to “fight” for his cause in the protest on the Hill, he never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

If Trump called to “eliminate” Pence or Pelosi, it would have no doubt been added to calls for prosecution. Indeed, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe even declared Trump guilty of the attempted murder of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021. Even though no prosecutor has ever suggested such a charge, Tribe assured CNN that the crime was already established “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.” Others have suggested premeditated murder charges in his unhinged environment.

I am glad that Rep. Goldman apologized and I wish Trump would have retracted some of his prior language. However, rage rhetoric is a reality in our contemporary politics. We need to continue to denounce it on both sides, but it will produce even greater costs if we cross the Rubicon into criminalizing political speech.

189 thoughts on “Rep. Goldman Calls for Trump to be “Eliminated” After Decrying his “Inflammatory Rhetoric””

  1. Professor Turley, if you read these comments how about posting an assessment of Musk’s / X’s lawsuit against Media Matters. Does their legal argument have legs?

  2. How ironic. Isn’t he the same elected official whose offices were smeared with anti-semitic graffiti? Perhaps he should be be looking towards his own prog/left cultists to see just where incendiary speech can lead. I am growing tired of observing prog/left wilfull hypocrisy.

  3. No, it exemplifies the hypocrisy in condemning the opposing political parties speech with even worse speech. Time to 1. look in the mirror, 2. play back the tape, and any other cliche that offers the opportunity save your glass house.

  4. Biden’s polling very poorly, even with Democrats.
    His snowjob, gaslighting Bidenomics was a complete failure. They keep trying to tell us how great things really are, when in reality, Americans are not doing well financially we know and feel it at the pump, the grocery store and other things.
    The pro-Palestine, pro-cease fire, anti-Israel types are saying Biden is engaging in genocide. Even people in the State Department signed a letter to that effect. Will they vote for Biden in 2024?
    Biden has lost support from the Black, the Hispanic, and the Asian communities.
    One has to wonder how the Jewish community feels about Biden’s push for a cease fire?

    So, why not roll out Goldman to make some outrageous claims about Trump? Need a distraction some place from all the Biden fails. Just ratchet up the “threat to democracy!” rhetoric again. That always works, right?

  5. Goldman remains a favorite on MSNBC…

    Of course he is. Goldman is too stupid to realize he’s being used as a sacrifice to the Leftist message. It wouldn’t surprise me to see him on Gavin’s short list for a cabinet position.

  6. Dan Goldman should be Censored and expelled from all the committees he serves on. He is a Left Wing Nut case trying to score points with the DEMS. The Dems have gone nuts since 2015. They are Necons/Tyrants/Control freaks and simply out of control. What is needed is the DEMS to lose badly in 2024 and need to clean house. If Trump is elected the DEMS will really go Nuts.

  7. I do not believe that Goldman was calling for violence.

    But his words clearly were, and you have given no basis to believe he didn’t mean what he said. For my part, I am skeptical of timing coincidences; in that respect, I believe it is no accident this rhetoric came shortly after the election returns in Argentina. Check out this video:

    The defenders of the ever-burgeoning central government and all its multiplicative agencies are scared. They really do want both Milei and Trump gone from the scene even if that requires violence.

    1. Of course Goldman was calling for violence — or planting a seed from which he hoped violence would grow in other people’s “minds” (for lack of a better word), which is the same thing. More so even than authors, lawyers are trained in the proper way to use words. That’s what legal briefs are — carefully constructed arrangements of words with intent to convey a specific meaning.

      Only another lawyer would say something as dishonest as “I do not believe that Goldman was calling for violence.” A grownup would have to have the naivete of a child — and not a particularly bright child — to think that Goldman didn’t mean to say exactly what he said.

    2. “even if that requires violence.”

      We know Democrat violence is real. Look at the George Floyd riots, BLM, Antifa, the universities, Democrat violence for Hamas terrorists, etc.

      Democrats have no shame or compunction not to use violence. The only thing stopping them is fear of the public and guns.

      1. S Meyer, I believe one of the effects of leaking the draft Dobbs opinion was to increase the prospect of the assassination of one or more of the “conservative” Justices. Such an assassination would not only have preserved Roe but also would have given Biden the right to appoint new Justices, to do the work that court packing would have accomplished. Whether that was a motive for the leak remains unknown.

        1. S. Meyer and Daniel,
          Well said.
          Democrats have no problem with fanning the flames of violence if it helps their cause and then shrikes in horror if anyone else does.

        2. Except Alito is widely suspected of being the leaker…, and it’s easy to see why. The SCOTUS knew overturning Roe would be huge, but at the same time the newer RW justices were hired and groomed to overturn it. The leak was an attempt to soften the potential outrage that would occur on the day of formal announcement. The RW contingent was trying to break up the news of their abhorrent behavior into pieces.

            1. As is obvious by the level of your commentary. Never enough stupid for you. You build a shrine to stupid in your living quarters no doubt.

          1. Except Alito is widely suspected of being the leaker

            Suspected by whom? Only a complete idiot would suspect that. The leak put his life in great danger. Maybe the people who think Putin blew up his own pipeline think Alito leaked his own opinion. Morons all.

            1. I respect your firsthand knowledge of all things moronic, old fart. Thing is, Alito has a track record of leaking decisions ahead of time and in the same post you clipped from I explained why.

              1. He does not have a track record; this leak was unprecedented. You supply no evidence because there is none. Your purported rationale for why he would want to leak makes no sense at all. There is no reason to believe that the leak would soften the blow. The only predictable thing coming form a leak – which in fact did materialize – is an assassination attempt on the lives of a conservative Justice.

                Judges and Justices don’t want their lives and homes to be attacked. That’s why SCOTUS makes it a practice to issue the most politically sensitive cases on the last day of the term by which time they’ve flown off to a vacation or speaking destination.

                1. Old Fart: Not only does Alito have a track record of leaking decisions ahead of time, he’s got a track record of leaking abortion related decisions ahead of time in 2014.

                  It’s interesting how you realize the charged atmosphere behind the prospect of reversing Roe but appear utterly oblivious to a method of doing something to try to preempt that outrage. In other words, you’re not making any sense. It doesn’t matter that Alito’s planned leak was stupid…, Alito himself is a few fries short of a happy meal.

                  As you yourself appear to be.

                  1. Again you supply no evidence for a patently absurd assertion. I guess people can come on here and say anything they want no matter how ridiculous. Enjoy your holiday.

                    1. Google machine, bud.

                      Type in Alito leak 2014….

                      Obviously you think I just make stuff up…, hey, I’m a screenwriter so you’re not entirely wrong. But at least I don’t work for Fox where things are made up all the time.

                    2. Nice try. Rob Schenk alleged that Alito kinda sorta said something at a meal that he (Rob) interpreted as a leak. Like that’s the same as someone actually leaking a draft opinion to the press. Like that somehow proves Alito would knowingly put his life at risk, as well as the lives of his fellow conservatives justices, as well as the ability to issue the opinion. Sheesh, you really are desperate.

                      FWIW, I know the Schenks. I’ve had numerous personal interactions with both Rob and his brother Paul. Suffice it to say Rob’s fidelity to the truth is, shall we say, highly attenuated (Paul is far more respectable).

                    3. P.S. I don’t work for Fox either, or even watch Fox. So I don’t know what the f*ck you’re talking about. And I guess you don’t have to have an IQ above 85 to be a screenwriter these days. Maybe that’s why the content is so pathetically bad.

          2. The RW contingent was trying to break up the news of their abhorrent behavior into pieces.

            Yes, following the Constitution is abhorrent to leftists, Thank for reminding us all.

              1. No right was reversed. A decision was reversed and this issue was returned to the states where it belongs. That’s called federalism. You know, constitutionalism.

                1. A right was reversed at the federal level ostensibly to be referred to the states.

                  As expected, any state that actually puts abortion rights on the ballot has those rights affirmed, which of course enrages the right to the point they seek to ignore the results of the initiative and scheme to have a federal abortion ban instituted if they’re ever able to get control of enough power to pull it off…

                  Like the anti democracy forces they truly are.

                  1. Like the anti democracy forces they truly are.

                    LOL! You need to make up your mind where you want the goalposts. Was it constitutional? Absolutely. The rest of your tripe is merely projection.

                  2. You’re accusing people of being anti-democratic if they want to achieve a result through the democratic process?

                    No, the only anti-democratic thing is using the courts to overturn the results of the democratic process. That’s what the Left did with Roe, and that’s what the Right reversed — thus returning the issue to the democratic process — with Dobbs.

                    1. You’re accusing people of being anti-democratic if they want to achieve a result through the democratic process?

                      Good comment oldman. The reality is the allegation of being anti-democratic is all about people being anti-democratic party. Democrats hate everyday Americans that do not toe the line of the Democratic party. Whenever they assert electing anyone other than a Democrat is a threat to our democracy, they’re talking about only one thing: the Democrat party’s power…period.

                    2. Olly – true. I feel like puking whenever I hear that hackneyed phrase “our democracy”

              2. Since before the inception of the Nation, abortion was handled at a local level, evolved to some states setting standards.
                The Constitution specifically states that those things not mentioned in the Constitution (the document controlling the federal govt, including the Supreme Court) shall be left to the people or the States.

                Again, nice for the left admitting they abhor the Constitution. Their actions left any doubt, but admitting it, is a nice change.

            1. Iowan2 thinks having a right removed exhibits anti democracy in the group who had the right removed…

              Sun comes up in the west right bud?

              1. Sun comes up in the west right bud?

                Power. The People have delegated their sovereign Power.
                Your cute little tantrums never address exactly where the FEDs have the power over abortion. Because the People never delegated that power to the FEDs

        3. Dan, I agree. I would like to interview the person who tried to kill Kavanaugh. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was prompted to do so prior to his actions.

          1. Meyer – Roske told police he was upset about the pending decision on abortion. The context was: there was a leak of the opinion, and the Women’s March had called for a summer of rage. Prior to that, there was the incitement by Senator Schumer.


            Because, of course, when it comes to political violence in the United States today, here’s a maxim you can always rely on: If the victim or likely victim is on the right, the perpetrator is simply a lone wolf. But if the victim or likely victim is on the left, the perpetrator was fueled by dangerous rhetoric.

            1. “Roske told police he was upset about the pending decision on abortion. “

              Yes, but I am looking for names and something obtainable from people like him in casual talk. Just like we traced other violence directed at people on the right, many times, Democrat operatives are leaders in their localities and are violent.

  8. What a disappointment! A man that has a background that includes not only being a Jew but a graduate of Stanford Law School, Yale University and sits as a representative in the Congress of the United States of America…..and he calls for ANY other person to be “eliminated”?

    Either Rep. Dan Goldman is insensitive to the point that his integrity is highly questionable or he is nothing more than a dunderhead that has bought his way into his current position. Given the state of Stanford, Yale and the Congress a combination of both possibilities exists.

  9. It would appear from his explosive anti-Trump rhetoric that little freshman Danny Goldman is giving that other New York City gem, Ms. Alexandria Casio-Cortez, a little competition for the bright lights ? Just sayin…..

  10. Let’s remove the names, which would be the most inflammatory and dangerous?

    “Peacefully and Patriotically’ March to the Capitol?”
    “he is destructive to our democracy and he has to be eliminated.”

    1. Margaret – Professor Turley (or whoever writes these editorials) reflexively thinks in both-sides-ism terms – as in this little excerpt: We need to continue to denounce it on both sides

      That is lazy thinking . . . but it’s hard to cure, even with facts, logic, and evidence.

  11. Look at Democrat pundits and politicians rhetoric since 2015 and since Trump’s first term of office. Democrats are driven and motivated by hate. This is not surprising from a Democrat member of congress.

    1. Dan,
      I have to agree with you about them and their rhetoric since 2015. Every article from every left leaning MSM outlet was a breathtaking piece of how, just any day now, Trump will do . . . something. And all these other things will happen. White supremacists are around every corner.
      None of that happened.
      But it will if Trump is re-elected!
      Hillary Clinton, who still claims the election was stolen from her, says democracy will end if Trump is re-elected.

      1. Hillary Clinton, who still claims the election was stolen from her, says democracy will end if Trump is re-elected.

        Good comment Upstate. To them, it’s not just any democracy. Notice how they will say our democracy. That’s not country possessive, it’s party possessive. And by party, that means Regime. Trump is a threat to the Regimes majority control of our nation’s future.

      2. Upstatefarmer,

        “Hillary Clinton, who still claims the election was stolen from her, says democracy will end if Trump is re-elected.

        Hillary Clinton does not claim the election was stolen from her. She’s never claimed it was stolen. She conceded shortly after the election. Lying doesn’t suit you upstatefarmer.

        1. “I think it’s also critical to understand that, as I’ve been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,”
          – H Clinton, May 5, 2019

          Get bent you worthless POS.
          You are evil of the worst kind with your attempts to justify grooming children.
          You and your kind need to be fought against at every turn for the evil you are.

          1. Good post Upstate including putting Svelaz where he belongs. Only one criticism, a POS has more intelligence than this flunky. We should all respond in a derogatory manner. He smells and is polluting the blog.

            1. S. Meyer, falsely accusing someone of being a “groomer” because they disagree in an argument is being dishonest and petty.

              It’s funny that all you have is petty insults and name calling rather than engage in discussion that has some semblance of substance and honesty. I don’t go out of my way to insult you or others because I disagree with their points of view. Small minds always resort to insults and pettiness.

              1. You are what you are. One can only judge who you are by what you say. To date, you have done an excellent job of placing yourself among the groomers. I didn’t do that. You did.

                I no longer bother providing you with facts because you insult me with your lies while pretending the information others provided was never sent. You should be treated in the worst fashion possible.

          2. Upastatefarmer, your accusations are getting out of hand. You seem to be overly emotional and paranoid for sure.

            Clinton wasn’t claiming the election was stolen from her. She was making a rhetorical statement. Your atrocious reading comprehension skills are clearly evident.

            I don’t justify grooming kids, period. That kind of defamation is the kind of thing republicans with no argument resort to on a daily basis. I get that. You’re upset, but you’re upset because you can’t grasp the concept of basic reading comprehension and context. Getting all emotional and paranoid over something I’ve never said or supported is your problem, not mine. You’re accusations are without merit and completely baseless. Get a grip man.

            1. Sleezevez,
              She said it. Twist it anyway you want to, but she said it.
              You have tried to justify the sexualization and grooming of children in the past by your own words. You call it having a different point of view to justify your sick and twisted mind. That is not emotional or paranoid. Just pointing out the facts. I see it. Others on this blog have seen it. We all know it.
              And no, I am not going to get a grip as long as sick, twisted, vile and evil people like you exist. If we were, evil succeeds and goodness fails. We must stand up to you and your kind to protect the innocence of children everywhere.

      3. Upstate, Clinton said: You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.

        This gives snakes wiggle room to assert she never said she had the election stolen from her. Of course those snakes know that statement was in reference to her 2016 failure. The beautiful irony is she, the Democratic party and the Regime all failed to steal the 2016 election from Trump.

        1. Nor even tried to. She conceded the day after the election and noticeably didn’t encourage her supporters to attack the Capitol as the last resort in a coup attempt.

        2. Upstatefarmer was being disingenuous with that quote or was just showing a complete lack of reading comprehension.

          She never claimed the election was stolen from her. Saying she “still” claims it was stolen from her by using a statement completely out of context. She was warning democrats of the possibility that the next election could be stolen from them. Not that her election was stolen from her which is what upstatefarmer was falsely trying to claim.

          This is where he got that quote from,

          That statement was made after she lost the election after she conceded. She doesn’t “still” claim the election was stolen from her. She implied at the time that it could be stolen in the future, it was a warning. It’s not a claim that she still makes. Which makes upstatefarmer’s claim a lie.

            1. Olly, hide? I’ve been posting in the open and expressing my point of view or opinions for everyone to see. No hiding here.

              Hillary Clinton is not a narcissist. A narcissist would never concede, like Trump. As usual reading comprehension skills are absent. She was warning others of what could happen if they were not vigilant. She wasn’t claiming her election was stolen. Upstatefarmer falsely claimed she “still” claims that. That’s not true.

              People will applaud their candidate no matter what they say. It’s their candidate.

              1. You attempt to hide the fact you are a groomer.
                We all know the truth by your own words.
                You are a vile, evil worthless human being with no redeeming qualities.
                You and your kind must be called out and fought against to protect the innocence of children.

  12. Your “New York Rep. Dan Goldman” is a Californian[.] a San Franciscan Levi Strauss Heir
    He’s very good buddies with Gavin Newsom and Newsom’s Wife Jennifer Siebel.
    He is one of the wealthiest Congress Members and Adam Schiff & Company have Big Plans for this Golden-State-Boy.

    Like Hillary Clinton (Fmr. U.S. Senate in 2000), He’s is a 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐘𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐍𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 [𝐍𝐘•𝐍𝐎]

  13. Between this rigid threat along with those on the steps of the Supreme Court towards justices its not difficult to see rhetoric evolving into a very dangerous game of hyperbole-semantics. We are witnessing this speech on a daily basis from media for all directions. Reminds me so much of the boy who cried wolf …when we eventually have someone that’s a clear danger to our country, people will no longer take the warnings seriously. Also reminiscent of that bad movie with Leo. the Earth was going to end from a asteroid etc…the media and public took his warnings with a grain of salt, then skipped right into the following story (weather, sports, etc) our society is at war…a fifty fifty split that will not end well for anyone. I can completely foresee another civil war of sorts based upon these perceived threats – when our 33trillion debt explodes (sooner than later) reeking havoc on our economy, then this political nonsense battle wouldn’t be out of bounds for reality …I genuinely fear a permanent destruction of our current way-of-life…IE…the congressman from New York isn’t helping matters, although legal – it is morally horrendous.

    1. BTW I’m randy from fort worth…not one of the many anon posters or the cynics that frequent these responses solely to antagonize with no connection to reality…they have gotten so bad over the years…I’ve been a T fan for years and although I don’t always agree with his political views, I believe he represents an unbiased truth that most in our current media/educational sys is poorly lacking…he does need to move on from this age of rage stuff…it was interesting with his first 50 reports, but now it’s simply beating a dead horse….While I was writing that i realized that my deafness to these age-of-rage comments might just be because I’ve heard it so many times previously that it’s no longer important….self fulfilling prophesy

      1. I hate to tell you, Gomer from Fort Worth (yes, names of cities are capitalized when speaking English — they teach people that in grade school), but my real name isn’t Anonymous, either. Unfortunately, this crapsite blocks me when I try to post comments under my real name because years ago I pointed out that Turley’s good buddy, former student, and fellow Trump-hater, Michael Avenatti, happened at that time to be a yet-to-be-prosecuted multiple felon. Obviously, people get banned on social media for posting FACTS, so now if I want to comment here, I have to post as Anonymous, even though some of the other jokers think that making up a fake screen name is somehow different than posting comments anonymously.

        But you’re right about Turley needing to “move on from this age of rage stuff.” A rhyme like that might work once — maybe twice — but it gets really old after the 10,000th time. Good writers know one timeless rule, which is to not fall in love with their own “clever” words and beat them to death with repetition. It’s not good writing, and it’s not smart. Just imagine Thomas Jefferson sticking the phrase “We hold these Truths to be self-evident” into every other thing he ever wrote. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but some people find ways to insulate themselves from CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

  14. Goldman is very disrespectful and he is in need of an attitude
    adjustment. His problem is easily solved by a punch in the mouth. Such an event especially occurring during a hearing would go a long way to adjusting his attitude and perhaps adjusting the attitude of other members as well.

  15. Bubba, this posting is about the Democrats lying to their little ignorant followers.

    Concerning the Gallow erected on Capital Grounds. The one that had a sign, saying “this is art”?

    You may want to think just a few minutes about the facts. Video, shows this started to be erected (On Capital Grounds) about 6:30 in the morning.
    How far do you think anyone would get erecting anything in DC before a cop would show up set to arrest you. Well, you are I wouldn’t get far. But someone sent by Pelosi . . .? Yep they would get the stage prop set up in time for the curtain call, kicking off this bit of scripted theater.

    Bubba, you are being played.

    1. True enough – and that is why the DC case against Trump is so bogus – it depends on proving – beyond a reasonable doubt – a state of mind and a specific belief or non-belief, which no-one but Trump himself (and possibly not even he for certain) can know.

  16. Democrats have established the Rules of Political discourse.

    Do we really have to go back to the Judge Bork hearings? Clarence Thomas hearings?

    Senator Schumer sent assassins after Judge Kavanaugh.

    Trumps statements, taken in context, rarely are as bad as the trolls around here claim.

    Democrats use the fiction of George Orwell, as a how to book of governance.

    1. And he’s way up in your head, which is awesome. Telling the truth to a brainwashed section of the populace is never an easy thing to do.

    1. And you know that because someone in the media said it, right? And it was everyone at the rally wanting to hang Mike Pence, not just some lone nutbucket who may or may not have been an FBI agent disquised as a Trump supporter, right? — because FBI agents would NEVER impersonate Trump supporters, because that would be unethical and probably illegal, and the FBI would NEVER break the law, right?

    2. And Biden supporters want to hang Trump AND his supporters and YOU are in favor of that. You are a joke.

    3. Do you have evidence that could be submitted in a court of law to prove your assertion?
      Or are you just spreading more misinformation, disinformation and malinformation?
      It is okay to say so, you are just spreading more hate and division. Some the left aspires to.

    4. Apparently, it’s easier for dems to simply lie to themselves and not confront reality, I suppose it keeps them off the roof.

      What isn’t so apparent is which part of that is the worst.

Leave a Reply