Calling it “one on a huge list of priorities,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to disqualify not just Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office.
The alternative, it appears, is unthinkable: allowing the public to choose their next president and representatives in Congress. It appears that the last thing Democrats want is for the unanimous decision to actually lead to an outbreak of democracy. Where the Court expressly warned of “chaos” in elections, Raskin and others appear eager to be agents of chaos in Congress.
Soon after the decision, Raskin went on the air at CNN to assure people that he and his colleagues would not stand by and allow the right to vote be restored to citizens in the upcoming election. He pledged to offer a prior bill that would declare Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and that those involved “engaged in insurrection.”
I previously wrote about these “ballot cleansing” efforts because it would not just disqualify Trump but potentially dozens of sitting Republican members of Congress. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) sought to bar 126 members of Congress under the same theory. Similar legislation offered by Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) to disqualify members got 63 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
Raskin’s participation in this effort is crushingly ironic. In 2016, he sought to block certification of the 2016 election under the very same law as violent protests were occurring before the inauguration.
The prior bills were sweeping and included members who did not engage in any violent acts (no member has been charged with such violence or even incitement) but merely opposed certification.
Raskin recently offered a particularly Orwellian argument for the disqualification of Trump and his colleagues in Congress: “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”
In other words, preventing voters from voting is “the most democratic” because these people choose to oppose certification . . . as he did in 2016.
After the ruling, Raskin added the curious claim that the justices “didn’t exactly disagree with [the disqualification theory]. They just said that they’re not the ones to figure it out. It’s not going to be a matter for judicial resolution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it’s up to Congress to enforce it.”
That was sharply different from the pre-decision Raskin who insisted that there was no real question legally and that the case before the justices was “their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.”
Well, they did act as “real Supreme Court justices” by unanimously opposing what the Court described as the “chaos” that would unfold with such state disqualification efforts. Raskin, however, is seeking a new avenue for chaos through Congress.
Raskin’s statement is also bizarre in claiming that somehow the justices agreed with him and the others pushing disqualification. No one, not even the Trump team, questioned that Congress could act to bar people from office. It is expressly stated in the Constitution. It is not an “argument” but a fact.
Of course, the Democrats would need to craft the legislation correctly to satisfy the standard and secure the support of both houses. Neither appears likely at this point.
However, Raskin is succeeding in one respect. He and his colleagues have bulldozed any moral high ground after January 6th. Most of us condemned the riot on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process. Yet, the Democrats have responded with the most anti-democratic efforts to prevent voters from exercising their rights in the upcoming election.
For these members, citizens cannot be trusted with this power as Trump tops national polls as the leading choice for the presidency. It is the political version of the Big Gulp law, voters like consumers have to be protected against their own unhealthy choices.
Raskin has continued to accuse the nine justices of being cowards in not supporting ballot cleansing. He told CNN that the court “doesn’t like the ultimate and inescapable implications of just enforcing the Constitution, as written.” In other words, all nine justices, including the three liberals justices, are disregarding clear constitutional mandates to protect Trump.
It is the same delusional view echoed by other liberals who were enraged by the decision. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared that “the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”
After all, nothing says democracy like ballot cleansing and dissolving courts before a national election.
With the resumption of efforts to disqualify Republicans from running on ballots, Raskin and his colleagues seem to be channeling the spirit of former Mayor Dick Daley in the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.
With allegations of abuse by the police in cracking down on protests, Daley declared “the policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.” With Democrats preparing to return to Chicago for their convention this year, Raskin and others appear to be responding to the Court that “the party isn’t there to create chaos, the party is there to preserve chaos.”
This column also ran on Fox.com.
Right out of the Marxist playbook. The banana republics down south practice this all the time. Venezuela, as an example did just this. Once accomplished. they rewrote the constitution. That would be next under this commy.
If Raskin & co. refuse to accept the unanimous ruling of the SCOTUS or the result of Trump’s J6 impeachment in congress .. . well, that sounds suspiciously like an ‘insurrection.’
*in the traditional sense ‘an uprising against an authority or government.’
The ruling said only Congress can disqualify Trump. So they are following the ruling.
Oh, so now you are good with following the ruling of the SC the Constitution and rule of law?
wrt J6. Congress has already impeached Trump. .. are you (Raskin et al) suggesting congress impeach Trump again!
*3rd time charm?
I have no doubt in my mind, they are already planning on another impeachment the day after this election.
I have no doubt the articles [of impeachment] are already written and awaiting final authorization – i.e. in case Trump wins the election.
To be clear; thought they impeached the wrong guy in Ukraine (over the sins of Joe Biden) but the J6 impeachment had at least a fig-leaf of legitimacy .. . although it did not rise to the level of conviction or removal, imo.
Which, I guess, is kinda like Putin saying he would ‘prefer Biden’ .. . but he’s willing to work with ANYBODY!
*unfortunately, the lights are off @WH .. . and nobody is home.
Upstate, you are correct. That is one reason of many that we need to close down today’s Democrat Party. No one should vote for any Democrat for any position. In fact, everyone should vote Republican so that even the numbers demonstrate a failed Democrat Party. That way, reform can occur, and then the Democrat Party can resurrect itself.
I wouldn’t say I like either party, but we have to end the fascist movement of the Democrat Party.
And their chances of getting a 2/3 vote is as weak as impeachment attempts. When will Congress get around to doing its job instead of trying to disqualify each other?
garyesq2k2 said: “When will Congress get around to doing its job instead of trying to disqualify each other?”
Congress writ large considers its “job” to be spending unimaginably vast sums of money that doesn’t yet exist on ridiculous and unneeded projects that directly benefit themselves, but nearly no taxpayers. Frankly, if preoccupation with the removal of elected politicians that are doomed to fail (as annoying as those may be) distracts those buffoons from spending even more money, I don’t strongly object.
It was the only decision that could be reached. CJ Roberts was facing his Brown v. Board of Education moment. He needed a unanimous decision and got it, and the people needed a unanimous decision and got it.
How we got here is purely political election interference by the party in control. We know this because the Supreme Court left the door open to Congress, not the courts. So, we immediately see Democrats readying a bill to remove Trump. It’ll, of course, fail. The ramifications of such a law would doom presidential elections for years to come. Just getting on the ballot would be a political odyssey.
It comes as no surprise, though. Clearly, impeachment was in the works before Trump’s inauguration. Some would say it dates back to 2015. While people don’t receive all of the news but a biased account from their “trusted news source, one thing is becoming clear, democrats fear Trump.
If democrats didn’t fear him in an election, they would work so hard to keep him off the ballot, and the so-called legacy media would churn out a barrage of negative news daily. many will take notice and want Trump, the person they are being told they can’t have, and the polls indicate it.
The Democrats fear Trump, to some degree. But I think the more prevalent emotion is HATE. The Democrats hate Trump, because if Trump wins, that means most of the country believes him, and not them, and Das Democrat Narrative. That threatens their very identity as Democrats. Even in the face of massive disconfirmation, they cling to Das Narrative. I had some drug addict clients, back when I practiced, and I asked one them, why she hated her husband. She said, “Because he is not on drugs, and that means that I don’t have to be either. And I can’t stand that.”
I think that it is the same thing with Trump.
Floyd,
One thing I have noted is the Democrat party has become the party of hate.
We note how the Democrats try to destroy anything they oppose. Take Fox news. At one time they tried to get Fox canceled from network providers. What normal, sane people do is switch the channel.
Not Democrats.
They want to control or destroy.
The SCOTUS rules against them, they scream the court is now rouge, needs to be dissolved, then try to do the un-Constitutional thing and pass a law just to “Get Trump.”
I am a democrat. I live in a heavily democratic county. I am a mrmtofvthe local Democratic Party. I am a precinct captain for the party.
We do not hate trump. We do not fear trump. What we can’t do is figure out why any one would support a con man, snake oil salesman and crook like trump.
Are you serious? I look at it like this. Trump was a private side entrepreneur. If his dealings were criminal he would be in jail. If he got the upper hand in his dealings it is part of making money. Now, on the other hand you completely ignore Biden, Clinton, Obama and every politician I can just about consider. They are paid off of our tax dollars, the commodity they deal with is our Nation. The three mentioned are the most corrupt dishonest criminals ever to be elected. Trump has stolen nothing from you or me whereas Biden has stolen millions and evaded millions in taxes, I ask you, who is the huckster?!
“But I think the more prevalent emotion is HATE.”
You are right, Floyd, and that is why today when Democrats are asked who they are voting for, they respond, not Trump, yet they cannot justify their hate.
Desperado. Why don’t you come to your senses.
Well, well, well. It wasn’t long ago that we were told that the nation shouldn’t be run by six people in black robes. Now that the liberal Justice on the court have agreed with the conservative members of the court they too are now being called traitors to their nation by their fellow leftists. I am very much enjoying the squealing of the Sus scrofa domesticus here on this blog, in Congress and in our glorious Main Stream Media. When push comes shove they eat their own.
How are any of these people legally allowed to be in Congress: Raskin, Wasserman Schultz, and Eric Swalwell?
Swallwell has many concussions and trysts with CCP spys and Schultz is a crook that simply acts as a money handler between the dnc and the dual citizenry crowd.
“How are any of these people legally allowed to be in Congress” Because do-nothing republicans allow for it. If we want to save this nation, then we need get serious about starting the fumigation process to disinfect our governments at all levels and then proceed to our media/education industries.
Not so long ago, some of the people went to Washington D.C., from all corners of the nation, to make their voices heard… So far, 1300 of them have been charged, arrested and convicted for doing so after they were attacked by Capitol Hill and Metro D.C. police. Even more are being hunted down by the FBI as you read this…
But it might, perhaps, all come to a head on the first Wednesday in November…
These guys never learn. Regardless if Raskin and his bunch are right or wrong, they are setting themselves up for a fail in the long run. Does Congressman Raskin believe he will try to pull this stunt and not have return fire in the future? Seriously?
Think about it this way, the Democrats rid the filibuster for Judicial nominations and the Republicans took that and ran with it. Now the Democrats scream it is not fair when they lose two Supreme Court seats when they set up the situation to start.
I expect this effort to fail, but I also expect Republicans to at least talk about returning the favor in the future. I can hear the statement now, it was an attempted attack on Democracy when the Democrats tried to remove Republicans for no other reason than politics. We need to remove these Democrats for the sake of Democracy.
The Democrats shoot themselves in the foot and then to prove their injuries, they shoot themselves in the other foot.
“Never learning’, and denial of reality are their only constants.
Raskin will tilt at windmills as long as it takes ’til the U.S. becomes a one-party state and he and his cohorts can rule (and become wealthy) forever.
Dear Prof Turley,
Raskin & co. no longer have a pot to pee in, nor a window to throw it out of, afaict. Congress acted after J6: They [snap] impeached Trump. Again.
The ‘lingering questions’ left ‘unsettled’ (see e.g. Tribe et al) by SCOTUS’ unanimous ruling seem to revolve around 1. congress shall determine what constitutes ‘insurrection’ (not states) and 2. that congress, as final arbitrator, provides the ‘remedy’ for presidents, in particular, accused of insurrection.
In both cases, these questions were asked and answered. .. Raskin & co. simply will not take ‘no’ for an answer.
*btw in 2016, Raskin & co did a lot more to contest the ‘certification’ of Trump than hold a ‘stop the steal’ protest (as stupid as that was.). .. “the intelligence community has six ways from Sunday” in the NYT.
The hypocrisy of the liberals is maddening. Raskin, who started his career by voting to not seat Trump, Swalwell, who was sleeping with a spy sent from our greatest enemy and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was so toxic Clinton had to jettison her from the campaign deeming that they have the power to unseat elected members of the House as well as an elected president is a new level of shamelessness.
Swalwell, Raskin and Debbie are 3 of the most loathsome people in a body of people that is quite loathsome.
Admittedly, as a MA Bay descendant with parents of Puritan descent on both sides (still thoroughly Puritan even some 400 years later!) I have considered that such things as honesty, integrity, pride and self-respect, or even the value of community consensus and democratic election, are possibly just accidents of genetics here, but, still, what amazes me is how so many are so willing to so thoroughly prostitute themselves for the party. How is it that inconsistency, contradictory statements and ideological positions, even the impression that one is perhaps “stark raveningly mad” (Raskin, Adam Schiff, etc) is so completely meaningless to these people?
Raskin proves the aphorism that the “apple does not fall far from the tree.” His father was a shill for the Soviet Union, a veritable 5th column who was an apologist for every Soviet dictator and an opponent of every American President who tried to contain them. He is no better but more slippery; perhaps a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is a despicable leftist hater of constructional democracies and is a evil as his father. I wish he would follow his son’s footsteps into oblivion, he would make American a better place!
I meant constitutional democracies!
Raskin, Debbie “Was a Man” Schultz and Eric Swallowswell are hardly paragons of democracy much less of virtue and are no position to “cast stones.” If they think they are promoting “democracy” they should read the entire opinion in the Court’s recent decision on the Colorado case.
Exactly. the dnc simply takes reps in uncontested districts and shoves a mic in front of them and says, “make a complete ass out of yourself, what are they gonna do about it?”
JT’s daily posts started out as independent-minded legal analysis. I see his format has become oppo-branding, an almost exact copy of the Fox News story format which always stars a Democrat or left-leaning demon figure. It’s boring. I was expecting JT to break down what yesterday’s written decision means for future cases. I’m getting less and less useful information here.
My read of the opinion is that the SCOTUS 5 want case-by-case power to decide each of these these 14A(3) disqualifications — rather than laying down such a clear process that each case can be decided with finality by a jury in a Federal Court. I’m seeing SCOTUS wanting to wrest that power for themselves. That’s scary to contemplate, given the possibility that progressives could hold the court majority 25 years from now.
The “it needs authorization from Congress” dictum is confusing. Does an enabling legislation have to passed for each case of insurrection? Does it have to name specific individuals? If not, why or why not is the Insurrection Act of 1871 not already sufficient as enabling legislation?
Andy McCarthy interprets Anderson v. Colorado to mean successful prosecution in Federal Court with a jury as finders-of-fact and final decisionmaking fully effective for disqualification under current (1871-signed) law. JT, do you agree with Andy?
Then there is the issue of timing in an election year. SCOTUS has ignored the timing issue, which practically out of respect for voters means disqualifications take place before the first primary ballots are cast. They’ve left it open to terrible disruption, going even past Inauguration.
To have basic questions about the disqualification process remain unanswered indicates sloppy, mediocre work from SCOTUS. But then, if they want to personally decide each disqualification, it makes perfect sense to litter the path with unanswered legal questions.
My read of the opinion is that the SCOTUS 5 want case-by-case power to decide each of these these 14A(3) disqualifications
SCOTUS clearly aligns with the word and intent of the 14 amendment. Congress may enact legislation of enforce this amendment.
Explain what “Congress may enact legislation of enforce this amendment” means in practical terms.
Is what Raskin and Swalwell planning to do what SCOTUS intended?
And, WHEN can Congress enforce 14A(3)?….just before Inauguration?….after Inauguration?
I don’t think SCOTUS could run a bingo tournament.
“I don’t think SCOTUS could run a bingo tournament.”
PbinCA, isn’t this another demonstration of misinformation that you wish to control?
For factual information, read Iowan’s comment: “. Congress may enact legislation of enforce this amendment.” Apparently, the court can run a bingo Tournament. If you disagree, do so with specifics and demonstrate why section 5 is wrong.
Timing is on the part of a handful of powerful Democrats by disrupting an opponents chances of being on the ballot. SCOTUS is doing it’s job of reading the laws as written in the timely manner *forced upon them* by that mere handful of hateful people.
The 2nd Amendment is the Remedy for Tyranny.
Question: How are angry people who write terse, shallow sentences like the one above and wield guns as their form of political competition going to build a government after the revolution? That takes just the opposite mentality — calm, reflective, dispassionate, articulate, steeped in history and law. Why not just skip over the paroxysm of violence, and take up the task which is inevitable (unless the revolutionaries want a totalitarian United States run by a dictatorial clique): learn how to resolve conflict peacefully, which means sharing power with those whom you disagree with to decide policy.
Try to think beyond the current emotional impulse. Game it out a decade or two using the other parts of the brain.
It’s simple really — we have the unenviable task of opposing revolutionaries (Democrats) who want a totalitarian United States.
I agree that such fanatical leftists exist in this country, and they are tactically smart, but they do not have sufficient numbers to take over (reach a level of unchallengeable power). They can be marginalized by dividing and conquering Democrats into centrist moderates vs. crazed zealots. You can easily distinguish these two groupings by whether they believe “the ends justify the means”.
The way to isolate the unhinged zealots on the left is NOT to reflect back their bad karma by taking up arms.
That would further radicalize moderate Dems to join with their radical fringe. Then you have a bigger problem….you’ve made things worse and foreclosed your options.
In other words, we conservatives can win the culture wars by being the stalwart defenders of the rule-of-law (which requires marginalizing extra-legal ideation on the right).
The side that can disempower its radical fringe is the side that will win over moderate centrists, win elections, win policy, and win the culture wars. Your talk of taking up arms to win the culture wars only STRENGTHENS and EMBOLDENS the leftist ideologues.
You must consider how the opposition will interpret your verbal militancy. If you think it will scare them, and make them back down, that is only one of two possibilities. It could do the opposite of that. When’s the last time you put yourself in their shoes?
“I agree that such fanatical leftists exist in this country, and they aråçe tactically smart, but they do not have sufficient numbers to take over (reach a level of unchallengeable power).”
If that is the case, why are our immigration laws not being followed? Why has this group flown in migrants from other countries? Why is the border left open so that in the future, we will see terrorism that makes 9/11 look insignificant? We had a border that was being secured, and the illegal crossings were falling in number under Trump, but anti-American leftists threw away all those things that worked.
“we conservatives can win the culture wars by being the stalwart defenders of the rule-of-law”
You do not sound like a conservative, but perhaps you are more conservative than most Democrats and leftists. We need to defend our borders now! We don’t need to import terrorists, drugs killing over 100,000 people a year, disease, prostitution, slavery etc. We are not obligated to take in criminals and mentally ill from the world.
Deal with the facts on the table directly. Swimming around them solves nothing.
“We are not obligated to take in criminals and mentally ill from the world.” Correct. That’s Australia’s job.
You don’t get rid of a cancer by rubbing dirt on it.
I refuse to share power with the likes of rasking, wassserman shultz, swallowwell, the EU, soros, obamma, lindsey graham, beto, or any other of the clowns paraded by that want nothing more than to gain personal power at the expense of the people.
You want to “game it out over the next decade?” We have a $35T debt. We’re spending about $12T in interest over the next 10 years – that’s $36k/citizen or over $70k per taxpayer. For What? How do you game that out – by making it way worse.
You go run along and play nice and hope good things happen to you.
Time for some serious chemotherapy/radiation treatment. Raskin? Wasserman Shultz? Swallwell? These are the people that you think should continue leading 350M people? Are you out of your mind? Sure, they make obamma look smart, but that’s it and obamma is a moron.
To offer just 3 of George Washington’s many thoughts on the importance of the 2nd Amendment:
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined,
but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence
from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
George Washington
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference –
they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.
George Washington
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
PbinCA, I am puzzled at your immediate response to anyone who wishes to protect the Second Amendment. That is a right given in the Bill of Rights to all Americans. You have no right to take it away unless you pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Sorry, PbinCA, my computer failed, and the post went out without a name or the rest of the post.
Since we have a way to handle differences of opinion regarding the Second Amendment, why is it you wish for a more revolutionary way of management immediately calling those who disagree with you “angry”? That is a type of slander and misinformation.
I am not a big gun person, but I see why some object to those who wish to subvert the Constitution for their personal means.
What a load of crock. Trump spearheaded an attempted coup with the support of the Republicans, and the Democrats are the ones who are against democracy? Hell no. And it is appropriate for the Democrats to take this to Congress. Get the Republicans on formal record saying that they don’t care about the Constitution and are ok with an insurrectionist to be President.
“. . . they don’t care about the Constitution . . .”
Your lawfare activists lost Sotomayor.
Let that sink in.
There was no attempted coup.
You keep repeating that lie.
The intent of all the J6 nonsense was to keep the person that lost an election in power. That is the very definition of an insurrection. Its failure does not change the intent of what they hoped to happen. They lost an election, they were doing everything they can to stay in power. Insurrection.
That was not the intent of Jan6th.
They held a rally, that then was a protest, that then became a low level riot as the recent released video shows us. Not the cherry picked video the Jan6th Committee used and then tried to keep all the other video from public view. Why? That would under mind their narrative.
So, no it was not an attempted coup or an insurrection.
The only attempted coup was by the Deep State, Obama and Hillary when they started spying and lying about Trump. Don’t worry. That will be fixed when Trump gets the White House back from the installed dementia patient they used to get away with their corruption.
The problem with Turley’s argument is that Raskin is doing exactly what SCOTUS said is one way to enforce 14:3. SCOTUS never said Trump didn’t engage in insurrection either which means democrats can call his actions insurrectionist and create legislation barring Trump from taking office AFTER being elected. It is after all exactly what the constitution according to SCOTUS says Congress can do. If democrats gain control of the house and retain control of the senate then they will have the constitutional authority to do it. Provided they have sufficient majorities in both houses.
People will still be able to vote for Trump. But Congress can still disqualify him prior to taking office.
Anonymous, I know it is a long shot but what if Biden wins and the Republicans take the Senate and the House? Would it be ok in your world for them to deny Biden from holding office since he not only allowed in 10 million illegals but he encouraged it? Would it be ok for them to deny Tlaib her seat? Schiff? Omar? Bowman? Harris, for her support of bail for Antifa and BLM?
Think Harry Reid and the nuclear option, try to imagine yourself dealing with your own insane fascist ideas.
The present day Democratic Party has no fear of retaliation from the other side. This is because they have total control of the Media Narrative, and they behave like their own core base – hysterical women who never think of long term consequences.
I agree but they have far more than just hysterical women, they have incompetent public officials, of all ilk and an army of welfare recipients, illegals who will be allowed to vote – one way or another – and the totally brainwashed system of academia and every pumped-up minor grievance groups. That is a grand horde of radicals that have infested this nation.
Since the Electoral Count Act was enacted, Congress was able to disqualify electoral votes with a majority of both houses, and Congress can by majority vote refuse to seat a member, although some attempts to do this were overturned in court.
And they accused Trump of trying to overturn an election!!!
This replies to Anonymous comment above starting “The problem with”
What stands out for the modern Democratic Party is their total and unified commitment to securing
our rights, freedoms, democracytheir political power. And their formula to that end is uncomplicated; determine what concerns the majority of voters the most, and then manufacture a narrative that accuses Republicans of being the villains. As that fails, drop the charade and do anything and everything necessary to win the election.I’m pretty sure losing abortion rights, the ability to teach black studies in school, the banning of books in school, the striping of voting rights has all been a Republican thing.
And I also understand that right now, republicans are fact challenged, seems they can only mutter the same incoherent thoughts of their leader. Sad. So sad
Anonymous, you mean having abortion up to birth, unlike any law anywhere in the world, teaching black studies that says blacks are currently oppressed and whites little kids are oppressing them, teaching 1st grade kids that they may be the wrong gender, and actually having voter ID so that illegals can’t vote and people can’t cheat?
There, I think I helped make your point for you.
I’m pretty sure losing abortion rights, the ability to teach black studies in school, the banning of books in school, the striping of voting rights has all been a Republican thing.
SCOTUS has ruled the States, not the President, have soul jurisdiction over the right to life.
All the School topics, are topics because of Affluent, White, Liberal Women, being outraged about the deviancy being pushed on their babies.
The Dems coalitions are disintegrating. Trump is up to 20% of the Black vote. Blacks are upset the life long promises of Democrat politicians, are finally being delivered . . . . to Illegal aliens, sucking up what few crumbs Dems had allowed Blacks.
Hispanics too are upset with the deviancy promoted in schools, pushing out nuclear families and discriminating against God, Hispanics focus their lives around.
Dems are doing a lousy job of reading the room
Perverts want to show grammar school kids pornography. Looks like we know who the perv is here…..
The core of freedom is the ability to select your leaders, and Trump tried to disregard the will of the votes and install himself as dictator. That is the biggest threat to freedom then anything else we are facing.
The core of freedom is the ability to select your leaders, and so that’s why Democrats are doing everything imaginable to disable voters from selecting their preferred leader.
Well done Sammy. You just provided proof my comment was spot on.
OLLY,
And clearly, it is the Democrats who are, by their actions, behaving as dictators.
So Sammy, why did Trump leave office? Why didn’t he call in the army? How is it that he left the WH?
A failed attempted coup is still serious.
Trump’s (failed) plan depended totally on the VP acting to declare the Biden Electoral Votes invalid. The clownish J6 riots were actually organized by the Deep State to disrupt Trump’s plan by temporarily shutting down the proceedings. When Pence refused to play along, the whole thing fell apart, and the Democrats acted to blame the J6 riots on Trump as their backup so they could disqualify him from running again. Their best attempt to do this failed when they didn’t get 2/3 of the Senate for conviction.
Take the tin foil hat off. There is no “deep state” running the show. trump said he was going to march to the capitol with them. He told through crowd that if Pence did the right thing he would be a hero, if he didn’t well, you guys take care of him. trump supporters were calling for Mike Pence to be hung, trump supporters were calling for Nancy Pelosi to be brought out.
A failed coup is still a coup. Fortunately for our country, trump supporters are a not so bright bunch.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are good examples of a “deep state.”
The CIA working with Five Eyes intelligence agencies in other countries to spy on Trump and associates is a good example of a “deep state.”
Just to name two off the top of my head.
It was not a coup. It was not a insurrection. It was a rally, a protest that became a low level riot based off the recently released video much more peaceful than the cherry picked video the Jan6th committee used. Note, the Jan6th committee and later Democrats did everything they could to keep those videos from being released. They did not want the public to see them. Why? It under minded the coup and insurrection narrative.
It was not a attempted coup.
That is a lie you have to keep holding on to.
Sammy, are you paid by the word to reiterate such bilge or are these lame excuses for the prog/left your own creations?
Nothing says “Saving our democracy” like outlawing the opposition party.
Yup. Worked for National Socialists on July 14, 1933. Of course, they had already engaged in activities that locked out and demonized their opposition Communists. Amazing how the 1930s are upon us again.