Jay Jones, Virginia’s Democratic attorney general candidate, is under fire for shocking statements that expressed a desire to kill political opponents and their young “fascist” children. Despite the violent rhetoric, Democrats like Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Virginia, have stood by Jones and continue to campaign for his election. Now, however, Jones is accused of making disturbing comments about the benefit of killing a few cops as a warning to others. It is unclear whether the alleged comments were made in writing (as were earlier comments), and Jones has denied them.
Virginia has become a testing ground for rage rhetoric as Democrats stand by Jones and refuse to call for his withdrawal. Spanberger herself was criticized recently for calling on supporters to “Let your rage fuel you.”
What is notable about this latest allegation is that it is coming from the very same legislator who discussed the prior statements, which Jones admitted were true.
According to the New York Post, Republican Del. Carrie Coyner told Virginia Scope on Monday, Jones used a 2020 discussion about qualified immunity to suggest that a few dead cops might be a good thing. She recounted how Jones allegedly said, “Well, maybe if a few of them died, that they would move on, not shooting people, not killing people.”
Jones denied the new allegations: “I did not say this. I have never believed and do not believe that any harm should come to law enforcement, period.”
It is unclear whether Coyner has proof of the new alleged statements.
Jones has not threatened a defamation lawsuit over the allegation. If untrue, the statement could constitute defamation as impugning Jones’s reputation and veracity as a public figure. However, as a public official, he is subject to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard and would have to show a knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth on the part of Rep. Coyner.
*. OT
Chiles v Salazar– free speech for a therapist to use talk therapy and say anything, viewpoint as medical treatment.
Scotus made several attempts to tell the defense they’re reading the law they’ve written incorrectly.
The defense says the new law says no therapy to change sexual orientation is allowable by therapists.
Helluva deal when a kid has no one to talk to?
Anyone?
You’re all a bunch of poo poo butt faces.
More leftist violence:
Washington, D.C., police on Sunday arrested a man with hundreds of explosive devices outside a church holding a Mass in honor of the Supreme Court. The man had a [leftist] manifesto that suggested he was targeting the Supreme Court and Catholics, according to court papers obtained by The Daily Wire. Louis Geri, a 41-year-old from Arizona and New Jersey, was apprehended outside the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle on October 5, the same day the church held its annual “Red Mass” in which a cardinal prays for the high court as it embarks on a new term, and which is historically attended by justices.
More here:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/man-with-200-explosives-and-leftist-manifesto-arrested-outside-supreme-court-event-at-church-police
OT
Today, Oct 6, 2025, SCOTUS is hearing Colo case, Chiles v. Salazar, regarding conversion therapy.
*. Anyone catch Alex Cortez you tube video saying Stephen Miller had a height problem at .410 and repeated .410 twice. Miller is 5’10”. A .410 is a Shotgun caliber and used for shooting pests. She also flashed the ok hand sign for redneck repeatedly. Apparently Jesse Watters cover missed the allusions.
Was AOC charged with felony criminal threats??
Nor should she be. No should the Democrat in the House of Representatives that wanted to Beat Miller up in an elevator from thr 1st to the 5th floor. Nor should candidate Jones above.
The requirements to convict someone for a violent threat are as they should be incredibly high.
The legitimate difficulty in convicting someone for threats of violence does NOT preclude subjecting them to lessor consequences.
One should not vote for these people – Not Biden, Not Jones, not AOC not any other political candidate that suggests literal violence as the means of solving the disagreements.
But the REAL problem is NOT with the violent rhetoric of Democratic politicians – it is with the FACT that so many ordinary democrats – not just don’t care – but actually thrive and support this nonsense.
Far more conservatives are armed to the teeth with fevered visions of America descending into anarchy where they emerge victorious into the wasteland because they laid up a vast arsenal of guns and ammunition or, as I like to say, made themselves a pretty good target to be robbed.
Recall how Trump suggested bashing the heads of suspects into the roof of police cars rather than guiding their heads in? Suspects considered innocent until proven guilt?
The law is naive… speech can be used as a weapon in an organized way to produce a brainwashed person or group. Propaganda is a type, persuasive speech used on children.
The current standard is imminent threat, Immediate threat. Needs an upgrade?
*. It’s more than nonsense. It’s deadly. Kirk has been murdered. DJT two close attempts. People being murdered all day every day.
People had better get deadly serious because it is. ZERO TOLERANCE.
Unfortunately @John Say, have to agree with you. That’s the way it works whether we like it or not – specifically when acted results are used as metrics over rhetorical white washing.
A supreme court justice(or her staff with approval, we weren’t able to discern which) doxing her fellow “conservative” justices to re-balance the court from 5-3 to 4-5 “activists”(yes, Roberts only opines “conservative” when given no alternative because a 6-3 released as 5-4 decision would expose his “neutrality”, and his controller with either puppet control or blackmailing remains undisclosed. His opinions would have immediately gone “progressive” once court balance controlled with Kavanaugh’s replacement). Perhaps that SCOTUS Justice’s defense “I meant no harm and condemn his assassination” — would have been adequate and we would have accepted her reconciliation.
Just like Jay Jones – ~”I’m sorry, didn’t mean that” when advocating the murder of a Congressman and his family, or the President of the United States justifying Grand Jury perjury related to using a subordinate intern for oral sex in the Oval Office.
We live in a cultures of wrap “everyone you should hate” into a “fascist(or other negative connotative label)” categorization, and no one notices the “fascist” action is actually committed by the accuser, not the accused.
Welcome to America
No, it was well disguised. Only nutjobs looking for marching orders from utube or the car radio knew she was personally speaking to them. The man who shot John Lennon did it for Jodi Foster or did he shoot Reagan? It becomes a blur as time goes by…
Miller should up security. Cortez is unhinged.
Today, Oct 07, Blondi appears to have had a tough day on Capitol Hill. Another bimbo eruption.
I watched most of the video of her testimony – likely all the “heated moments”.
Stupid Senate Democrats asked incredibly stupid questions and got their heads handed to them.
Absolutely no one in the executive branch under a democrat or republican president is EVER going to testify about communications they have had directly with the president – because those are covered by executive privildge. Neither Bondi nor Patel is going to testify that the president asked them what flavor ice cream they like. AG Garland refused to answer such questions – despite ample and growing evidence that such Biden DID ask that Garland go after political enemies.
You are free to beleive that Biden did NOT ask anyone to go after political enemies – despite a growing body of evidence that he did, But absent a court overruling executive priviledge and a losing appeal to the supreme court – you will NOT get anyone in the executive to testify to their conversations with the president.
But what was interesting was the side to side of Bondi’s confirmation testimony and today.
Schiff asked in her nomination hearing if She would go after Jack Smith if Trump asked.
Bondi repeatedly told schiff that all investiations would be driven by the facts and the law – not politics.
Yesterday we learn that Smith engaged in a much worse that Watergate effort to spy on multiple republican congressmen including 8 Senators – several on the Judiciary committee.
Bondi had nothing to do with this – Patel released this information to Sen. Grasley in response to a request By Grassley from information he received from a Whistlelblower.
There IS likely to be a criminal investigation of Smith – there certainly is much more than reasonable suspicion that Smith engaged in a criminal abuse of power.
And Schiff stupidly brings up going after Smith again – the day after Smith gets caught red handed.
Regardless – Democrats were stupid enough to elect Schiff as a senator. They should not be surprised when he gets no respect.
Bondi did an excellent job today.
If this was your idea of a bad day on Capitol Hill for her – we need far more days like today.
Bondi is doing an excellent job of doing what an AG is supposed to do – Prosecuting REAL criminal conduct.
There is a fight on this blog over prosecuting Comey – there is a serious question regarding whether the stature of limitations has expired. I think that the evidence is compelling that based on existing Case law that is applied to criminal cases throuout the US today – it has not.
Regardless it is a valid legal question – if only there was someone on the left HERE capable of making an argument better than an IQ of 80.
What there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION ABOUT is that James Comey Perjured himself to Congress in 2017.
If a judge decides consistent with 1000’s of other statute of limitations cases that Comey can not be prosecuted — the response should be “Better 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be found guilty”
I find it extremely dfifficult to beleive that any judge following Stature os limitations law could do so – the Statute of limitations clock STARTS at with the most recent effort in furtherance of the crime – Comey’s 2020 testimoney at the very least was an effort to coverup his 2017 perjury and therefore restarts the clock.
Arguably EVERY statement Comey has made since 2017 that supports his Perjured 2017 testimony restarts the clock, But certainly statements under oath trying to hide the 2017 perjury not only restart the clock, not only are further perjury but they are also obstruction of justice.
All that aside – there is NOTHING wrong with Trump ORDERING Bondi to fire a prosecutor that refused to proceed with that case.
Those of you on the left seem to NOT grasp the difference between questions about whether a conviction is likely and whether a prosecution is constitutional.
Every US attorney if directed to do so MUST prosecute any case that can be constitutionally prosecuted.
Any US attorney MUST resign if asked to prosecute a case that is NOT constitutionally prosecutable.
The ISSUE is the Constitutionality of the case – NOT the possibility of Jury nullifaction.
Bondi closed up like a clam and ignored the law. She is one of the least transparent public officials ever and is really bad at it, including Baghdad Bob. As implied by her terrible answers I am convinced that Homan kept the $50k, did not report it on his income taxes, and took it believing it to be a bribe. But maybe Bondi could produce evidence to the contrary; if only she had any influence at the DoJ.
No one spied on anyone. Smith wanted the phone call records to find out who was talking among the Trump administration leadership during the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol building and attempted assassination of Vice President Pence, among others. Just like any other time there is a plot to overthrow the properly elected President there is an interest in who the co-conspirators were.
No phone taps were placed, no conversations recorded. The only reason to do this is that the Trump administration had and still has a tremendous problem with selective amnesia and would need to be reminded of who they talked to that day to see if they could recall what was talked about.
Clearly Jim Jordan cannot recall anything he said in the known phone calls he had with Trump; obviously nothing of note happened that particular Jan 6th.
Josh “Longlegs” Hawley similarly has no recollection of anything including his encouragement of those gathered to force their way into the Capitol building with that “go for it” fist pump. He, in fact, was demonstrating his ability to grab a house fly in mid-air, like Mr. Miyagi in the Karate Kid movie did.
John Say, so much wrong with your view of the case.
First, there is no such thing as “constitutionally prosecutable” That is not a thing. The Comey case was doomed when Trump demanded he be prosecuted and Bondi complied.
The prosecution can only proceed with the case if it has a very high chance of a conviction and that includes having evidence to ensure it. The prosecution does not have that and that is the problem.
You don’t understand how the statute of limitations works in this case. What Comey said in 2020 is not what he said in 2017. That is one of the problems. Saying that he stood by what he said in 2017 is not enough to satisfy a ‘reset’ of the statute of limitations on the comments he made in 2017. He needed to repeat what he said in 2017 in 2020 exactly or close to it. He did not do that. That’s problem No. 1. Problem No.2 is that Halligan’s appointment is illegal. She was the second appointment by Trump and the law does not allow that second appointment. Seibert and his team could not file charges against Comey because they had no evidence or probable cause. The only thing they have against him is what he said back in 2017 which cannot be used against him because the statute of limitations expired on the ability to use those comments.
Halligan was the only one who presented evidence to the grand jury and signed the indictment when nobody else, those far more experienced than her, would because they knew the evidence wasn’t there and there was no chance there would be a conviction. Even Professor Turley did not have confidence in the success of the case. Comey has a very strong case to move to dismiss because of Trump’s comments and the lack of evidence against him.
The prosecution has no probable cause and no evidence sufficient to ensure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Does size matter?
If fat aoc calls Stephen Miller short, can I call her the “pr” word, puerto rican?
I mean, all is fair in love and war, right, and this is war?
*. ^^^ All of this is a form of having children sexualized, pedophilia. Babies are now trained to play with their pee pees and butts and those of other children. Children now need psychotherapy to talk more about pee pees and butts and boobs.
After allowing talk therapy as conversion therapy it ushers in therapy for children to transition.
You’re truly ill people.
*.^^^^ the above comment is out of order. It belongs to the SCOTUS case Chile’s v. Salazar re conversion therapy. Fyi
*. I was censored on the scotus case. Must have been the use of words like pee pees and butts. Pee pee pee pee pee…
You sexualize children then bring in the witch doctors to fix it. Ha ha ha…
SCOTUS will send it back. No standing. 😂.
Butt butt butt. .