Spot on and the incompetence of the Democratic Party leadership is showing. We have been through some of the darkest times in my lifetime. But with voices like yours bringing sanity to the world we will be alright 🙏❤️
Oh come on, Aayan. I am no way a woke liberal but it’s Trump who’s been shouting by far the loudest about the illegitimacy of elections over the last few years
True. But Aayan is referring to the four years before that, when nearly every leading Democrat and the media joined the shouting against Trump. In total they were louder, despite the fact that Trump on his own is very loud indeed.
But not about demonizing opponents by calling them Hitler, saying it’s the end of democracy, your rights will be taken away, etc. The Left Democrats own this assassination attempt with their inflammatory rhetoric.
"and for eight years of smearing Donald Trump as a Nazi?". but the impactful aspect of this? is having for 8 years called 1/2 the nation brown shirts, and the such. While the vast majority of us have our whole lives defended every citizen's rights, upheld fair play, constitutional governance, rule of law, and the like, etc., they do exactly the opposite all the while calling us the bad guys.
I was convinced before last night that the American Public was preparing to deliver a strong verdict against the Democrats as a result of having Biden run, given how he appeared at the first debate with Trump. I think that last night’s assassination attempt—which appears to have been the combination of a lunatic and very poor security—will solidify a considerable victory for President Trump, including the popular vote.
America is a providential nation. When voters go to the ballot box here, they tend to act in that spirit. Trump has now become a providential leader. That is my belief anyway, and I feel that I am a typical American in this regard.
100% - Last night’s shooting long was and indeed is a predictable result of the tsunami of “Trump = Hitler” incitement from the Dem leadership and its media allies. The social science and historical evidence on this is abundant, as my 2021 book on terrorism prevention documents. What’s infuriating is, that same dangerous incitement comes from the party that insists “words are violence,” and leaves no stone unturned to censor “bad words” about their pet projects (eg, COVID, ballot integrity, & etc true “Disinfo”).. So indeed, Dems need a long hard look in the mirror on this. https://www.amazon.com/War-Hate-Genocide-Terrorism-Freedom/dp/1793627606
Following American policies from a distance I find many policies championed by the Biden/Harris administration worrying.
However, I think the article wrongly puts the blame of the polarization exclusively on Trump's opponents. Seeing the "second amendment people" as s potential rescue to the devastating harm. of Hilary Clinton presidency while having his followers chant to "lock her up" for mishandling classified materials contributed to the polarization as well.
What irritates me most is the outright dismissal of Trump having attempted an auto-coup. There's no formal obligation of conceding to the winner of an election, yet a concession speech is an important sign of respect towards the institutions ensuring the lawfulness of the elections. Not delivering such a speech weakens these institutions, the legitimacy of the state and with them the rule of law. If a government tries to stay in power despite having lost the elections this goes one step further to simply not conceding and constitutes an attempted auto-coup. Could a more successful January 6 protest, maybe if a police unit had joined the march to the capitol, or if Pence would have followed Trump's demands have impeded the peaceful transfer of power? Maybe not. But what else was Trump trying to achieve? And what about the phone calls such as the one leading to the indictment in Atlanta?
Reading Jack Smith's indictment I was impressed by the many (republican) state officials that proved to be loyal to the constitution and their job to uphold democracy. People who put the constitution above their party affiliation are the silent heroes that preserve democracy.
Look, this polarization began decades ago. I decided after the Republican senators got booed by Democrats at the 2002 funeral of Democratic senator Pall Wellstone that it was here, that if we could not acknowledge a common humanity in death then we were truly polarized.
Regarding 'lock her up', the fact remains that the law under which Clinton, Biden and Trump might be prosecuted does not allow for a mens rea defense, that is, intent is no defense. Many people including a CIA director have been convicted of it for 'innocent' mishandling of classified documents. So when FBI director Comey told the public in the summer of 2016 that Clinton could not be prosecuted because she had no criminal intent, he lied. And in terms of both volume of classified documents and access (a server vs boxes in homes and garages) Clinton was the worst offender of the three. The fact that she got off while justice still [and fairly] pursues Trump is a scandal of major proportions; 'lock her up' is an acknowledgement of the scandal.
Oh, and while we are at it, let's recall Comey's involvement in the Russiagate scandal. Trump was now president, Comey testified behind closed doors to Congress that there was no evidence to support any secret Russian involvement with Trump, Trump was informed of this testimony (likely by a Republican congressman), Trump then ordered Comey to publicly state what he had told Congress, Comey refused and said the Russiagate investigation would continue despite the absence of probable cause, Trump fired him, and everyone painted Trump as the bad guy.
I’m struck by the information that is or appears to be available to Mr. Davis about “Comey testimony behind closed doors” etc. One cannot continue such discussions without being in possession of the same facts. Similarly,the Mueller Report documents extensively the strength of relationships between Trump’s colleagues and Russian influencers. Similarly the writer’s suggestion that January 6th events were simply “a riot” is misleading when Trump placed at risk the lives of two Congressional colleagues ( his vice president being one) and enabled the attack to continue without calling for military support , resulting in the death of a Capitol policeman; and extensive property damage .the January 6th report of testimony supports the above statements as well.
1) Nearly everything I wrote was originally published by former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in National Review
2) Wikipedia actually describes Comey's Congressional testimony:
U.S. representative Chris Stewart (R-UT) asked Comey in the [March 20th] hearing: "Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. We did not conclude any evidence in our report and when I say 'our report,' that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence said anything – any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians, there was no evidence of that in our report. Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?" Comey responded: "I think he's right about characterizing the report which you all have read."
So, I conclude that under those circumstances the investigation continued for the purpose of hobbling Trump's administration and to create 'process crimes' among those interviewed, which it did. Trump as usual was stupid: he should have called a press conference with Comey and Stewart, and after Stewart told the story of what happened Trump should have confronted Comey in front of the cameras as to why the investigation should continue. The legal concept of probable cause requires evidence to continue an investigation, and Comey admitted on March 20th there was none.
3) There is zero evidence that Russia despite all attempts actually influenced U.S. elections in any way. IMO our tech giants shouldn't play wack-a-mole with Russian disinformation pages, they should provide complete index pages so we can have a laugh. Also, all the hullabaloo over Russia fails to remember that a) we are really no longer adversaries but merely competitors (not to downplay the seriousness of the competition) and b) most other countries have their favorite sides in U.S. elections as well. IMO the Russiagate fears were a moral panic, aside from those who cynically created it.
4) IMO insurrections have objectives. Did the Jan 6 rioters have any serious objectives? No. Suppose they had succeeded in stopping the certification of the election that day. Pence and the Members of Congress would have met again in a day or two and finished their duty.
5) I would like to point out that people are killed and threatened with bodily harm or threats of death in riots all the time, so the standard given here is a false measure of what is or is not a riot or insurrection.
6) Finally, just to clear the air a bit, IMO Trump should have been impeached and removed from office the day after the riot, and Pence made a caretaker president for the next 14 days.
Funny, I think Comey actually helped Trump win by sending a letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the email probe on Oct. 28, 2016. That's one of those October surprises.
Yes, it is easy to come to that conclusion. But all the other events show he had no intention of helping Trump. His Oct 28 surprise was, I believe, simply an act of CYA. He was afraid of future accusations that he had hindered an investigation. With Comey the rule always seemed to be: When in doubt, investigate. And when are there no doubts?
Fair question Thomas. My point is simply that many Trump supporters excoriate Comey (fairly or not) but I believe his announcement so close to the election swayed some voters (remember, Trump won three key states by only 100,000 votes out of 14.8m cast).
Did Comey cause 300,000 votes to swap across 3 states? That statistically would have meant a couple million swaps nationwide. Did it? It's certainly possible, but I do think it was unlikely: most people had their minds made up by then.
I see this as Clinton's "We was robbed" meme that Trump would echo four years later.
I guess we'll never really know, eh? As Rumsfeld once said "there are unknown unknowns" :)
As for Clinton, she felt it was a fait accompli for sure and felt she was "owed". Terrible choice by the party (and yeah, it was the party, not the D voters who made sure she was nominated).
What the Democrats really need to do is review their campaign platform and appropriate what suits them from Trump’s campaign. They need to shift the centre towards populism. That is how democracy is supposed to work.
Instead, they have bought into an increasingly rigid ideology of globalism, infused with wokeism.
Democrats version of democracy is " The voters have spoken. It doesn't matter." This essay shows exactly why it does matter and why ignoring voter concerns only deepens the spiral into illiberalism.
Lady Ferguson argues fairly for rebalancing the political goals of the voters and by criticizing the excesses of some media leaders; however, my reading diverse sources indicates that Trump and colleagues supported the January 6 attack and did not oppose it; but whether Trump’s liability amounted to violations of criminal law remains to be seen, in court. Some Trump colleagues have already entered pleas which support the significance of the January 6th “coup”. Biden’s team’s achievements in four years of a challenging Congress are remarkable and many but that does not prove that the same man should continue as leader through age 85.
The use of an accounting SOX compliance law to call Jan 6 an insurrection just like using OSHA to make Covid jabs mandatory. Now we see language change to a constitutional amendment Title IX without 2/3 vote of Congress or states. Biden is a flat of dictator! Yes Jan 6 who entered capital should be charged with trespassing.
January 6th was a riot, nothing more. And another example of legal craziness is the claim that the U.S. Supreme Court just made presidents into dictators. Nothing is further from the truth. Trump's legal team claimed he could not be prosecuted for his acts on January 6th because they were official acts. The prosecutors disagreed but failed to disagree that Trump's inflammatory speech that day was an official act (to be fair, they were hamstrung by then-current precedent - it would have been better had they invented the same reasoning that the Court did). All the Court did was preserve standing precedent on official acts, and left open prosecutions for unofficial acts (I'm simplifying a bit). If the prosecutors prove Trump had no official basis in law (constitutional or statutory) to incite that crowd then he can be prosecuted. The Court basically ruled correctly, and the Court's critics are simply political hacks who are continuing their assault on the rule of law.
The real problem for the prosecution in this case is that they are Federal and so can only indict on violations of Federal law. Federal election law is weak in this case. IMO the only thing that might stick is incitement, but that depends on statutory wordings. Most laws regulating elections are state laws, and so of all Trump's legal woes the Georgia election law case is his biggest threat. The NY cases are all specious lawfare and almost certainly will be overturned.
I'm a non-affiliated voter who is done with the sclerotic duopoly of power that runs our country and won't vote for either of these candidates but to connect the shooting of a presidential candidate with the rhetoric of the Democratic party and the media without any recognition of the rhetoric that Trump has spewed from day one ("When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.") is ridiculous.
Do comments like "We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country" and "In 2016, I declared: I am your voice. Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution." sound like unifying or dividing statements? Does denying election results because he didn't win and inciting a crowd (sorry folks, he incited the crowd) to storm the Capitol, count as leadership?
So if you want to call out the rhetoric of the D's and the media, fair enough, have at it. But to pretend the divisive, negative rhetoric Trump has used since day one of his candidacy doesn't have an impact is pure fantasy. Either words and rhetoric matter for everyone or they don't.
Finally when you try to connect a deranged shooter to the oppositions' rhetoric without evidence of what motivated him to do so (maybe he wanted to impress a Hollywood actress like Hinckley Jr.) you begin to sound more like the Dems who deny that Biden is unfit for office.
Couldn’t be said better.
Spot on and the incompetence of the Democratic Party leadership is showing. We have been through some of the darkest times in my lifetime. But with voices like yours bringing sanity to the world we will be alright 🙏❤️
Oh come on, Aayan. I am no way a woke liberal but it’s Trump who’s been shouting by far the loudest about the illegitimacy of elections over the last few years
True. But Aayan is referring to the four years before that, when nearly every leading Democrat and the media joined the shouting against Trump. In total they were louder, despite the fact that Trump on his own is very loud indeed.
But not about demonizing opponents by calling them Hitler, saying it’s the end of democracy, your rights will be taken away, etc. The Left Democrats own this assassination attempt with their inflammatory rhetoric.
"and for eight years of smearing Donald Trump as a Nazi?". but the impactful aspect of this? is having for 8 years called 1/2 the nation brown shirts, and the such. While the vast majority of us have our whole lives defended every citizen's rights, upheld fair play, constitutional governance, rule of law, and the like, etc., they do exactly the opposite all the while calling us the bad guys.
Yet another insightful contribution from Hirsi Ali. What a wonderful writer.
Clear, accurate, direct. Every thing the MSM has lacked.
I was convinced before last night that the American Public was preparing to deliver a strong verdict against the Democrats as a result of having Biden run, given how he appeared at the first debate with Trump. I think that last night’s assassination attempt—which appears to have been the combination of a lunatic and very poor security—will solidify a considerable victory for President Trump, including the popular vote.
America is a providential nation. When voters go to the ballot box here, they tend to act in that spirit. Trump has now become a providential leader. That is my belief anyway, and I feel that I am a typical American in this regard.
Winston Churchill's reaction upon hearing of the bombing of Pearl Harbor was "We've won the war"
The same impression from seeing President Trump pumping his fists in the air defiantly in the air after being shot.
100% - Last night’s shooting long was and indeed is a predictable result of the tsunami of “Trump = Hitler” incitement from the Dem leadership and its media allies. The social science and historical evidence on this is abundant, as my 2021 book on terrorism prevention documents. What’s infuriating is, that same dangerous incitement comes from the party that insists “words are violence,” and leaves no stone unturned to censor “bad words” about their pet projects (eg, COVID, ballot integrity, & etc true “Disinfo”).. So indeed, Dems need a long hard look in the mirror on this. https://www.amazon.com/War-Hate-Genocide-Terrorism-Freedom/dp/1793627606
Brava, Aayan!
Following American policies from a distance I find many policies championed by the Biden/Harris administration worrying.
However, I think the article wrongly puts the blame of the polarization exclusively on Trump's opponents. Seeing the "second amendment people" as s potential rescue to the devastating harm. of Hilary Clinton presidency while having his followers chant to "lock her up" for mishandling classified materials contributed to the polarization as well.
What irritates me most is the outright dismissal of Trump having attempted an auto-coup. There's no formal obligation of conceding to the winner of an election, yet a concession speech is an important sign of respect towards the institutions ensuring the lawfulness of the elections. Not delivering such a speech weakens these institutions, the legitimacy of the state and with them the rule of law. If a government tries to stay in power despite having lost the elections this goes one step further to simply not conceding and constitutes an attempted auto-coup. Could a more successful January 6 protest, maybe if a police unit had joined the march to the capitol, or if Pence would have followed Trump's demands have impeded the peaceful transfer of power? Maybe not. But what else was Trump trying to achieve? And what about the phone calls such as the one leading to the indictment in Atlanta?
Reading Jack Smith's indictment I was impressed by the many (republican) state officials that proved to be loyal to the constitution and their job to uphold democracy. People who put the constitution above their party affiliation are the silent heroes that preserve democracy.
Look, this polarization began decades ago. I decided after the Republican senators got booed by Democrats at the 2002 funeral of Democratic senator Pall Wellstone that it was here, that if we could not acknowledge a common humanity in death then we were truly polarized.
Regarding 'lock her up', the fact remains that the law under which Clinton, Biden and Trump might be prosecuted does not allow for a mens rea defense, that is, intent is no defense. Many people including a CIA director have been convicted of it for 'innocent' mishandling of classified documents. So when FBI director Comey told the public in the summer of 2016 that Clinton could not be prosecuted because she had no criminal intent, he lied. And in terms of both volume of classified documents and access (a server vs boxes in homes and garages) Clinton was the worst offender of the three. The fact that she got off while justice still [and fairly] pursues Trump is a scandal of major proportions; 'lock her up' is an acknowledgement of the scandal.
Oh, and while we are at it, let's recall Comey's involvement in the Russiagate scandal. Trump was now president, Comey testified behind closed doors to Congress that there was no evidence to support any secret Russian involvement with Trump, Trump was informed of this testimony (likely by a Republican congressman), Trump then ordered Comey to publicly state what he had told Congress, Comey refused and said the Russiagate investigation would continue despite the absence of probable cause, Trump fired him, and everyone painted Trump as the bad guy.
I’m struck by the information that is or appears to be available to Mr. Davis about “Comey testimony behind closed doors” etc. One cannot continue such discussions without being in possession of the same facts. Similarly,the Mueller Report documents extensively the strength of relationships between Trump’s colleagues and Russian influencers. Similarly the writer’s suggestion that January 6th events were simply “a riot” is misleading when Trump placed at risk the lives of two Congressional colleagues ( his vice president being one) and enabled the attack to continue without calling for military support , resulting in the death of a Capitol policeman; and extensive property damage .the January 6th report of testimony supports the above statements as well.
1) Nearly everything I wrote was originally published by former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in National Review
2) Wikipedia actually describes Comey's Congressional testimony:
U.S. representative Chris Stewart (R-UT) asked Comey in the [March 20th] hearing: "Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. We did not conclude any evidence in our report and when I say 'our report,' that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence said anything – any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians, there was no evidence of that in our report. Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?" Comey responded: "I think he's right about characterizing the report which you all have read."
So, I conclude that under those circumstances the investigation continued for the purpose of hobbling Trump's administration and to create 'process crimes' among those interviewed, which it did. Trump as usual was stupid: he should have called a press conference with Comey and Stewart, and after Stewart told the story of what happened Trump should have confronted Comey in front of the cameras as to why the investigation should continue. The legal concept of probable cause requires evidence to continue an investigation, and Comey admitted on March 20th there was none.
3) There is zero evidence that Russia despite all attempts actually influenced U.S. elections in any way. IMO our tech giants shouldn't play wack-a-mole with Russian disinformation pages, they should provide complete index pages so we can have a laugh. Also, all the hullabaloo over Russia fails to remember that a) we are really no longer adversaries but merely competitors (not to downplay the seriousness of the competition) and b) most other countries have their favorite sides in U.S. elections as well. IMO the Russiagate fears were a moral panic, aside from those who cynically created it.
4) IMO insurrections have objectives. Did the Jan 6 rioters have any serious objectives? No. Suppose they had succeeded in stopping the certification of the election that day. Pence and the Members of Congress would have met again in a day or two and finished their duty.
5) I would like to point out that people are killed and threatened with bodily harm or threats of death in riots all the time, so the standard given here is a false measure of what is or is not a riot or insurrection.
6) Finally, just to clear the air a bit, IMO Trump should have been impeached and removed from office the day after the riot, and Pence made a caretaker president for the next 14 days.
Funny, I think Comey actually helped Trump win by sending a letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the email probe on Oct. 28, 2016. That's one of those October surprises.
Yes, it is easy to come to that conclusion. But all the other events show he had no intention of helping Trump. His Oct 28 surprise was, I believe, simply an act of CYA. He was afraid of future accusations that he had hindered an investigation. With Comey the rule always seemed to be: When in doubt, investigate. And when are there no doubts?
Fair question Thomas. My point is simply that many Trump supporters excoriate Comey (fairly or not) but I believe his announcement so close to the election swayed some voters (remember, Trump won three key states by only 100,000 votes out of 14.8m cast).
Did Comey cause 300,000 votes to swap across 3 states? That statistically would have meant a couple million swaps nationwide. Did it? It's certainly possible, but I do think it was unlikely: most people had their minds made up by then.
I see this as Clinton's "We was robbed" meme that Trump would echo four years later.
I guess we'll never really know, eh? As Rumsfeld once said "there are unknown unknowns" :)
As for Clinton, she felt it was a fait accompli for sure and felt she was "owed". Terrible choice by the party (and yeah, it was the party, not the D voters who made sure she was nominated).
My take on January 6th: https://www.restorationbulletin.com/p/trump-derangement-syndrome-draws/comment/62016857?r=bbwgp&utm_medium=ios
And your deep political commentary is … this is on the Dems? A slightly refined version of what any bot on twitter is saying?
What the Democrats really need to do is review their campaign platform and appropriate what suits them from Trump’s campaign. They need to shift the centre towards populism. That is how democracy is supposed to work.
Instead, they have bought into an increasingly rigid ideology of globalism, infused with wokeism.
What an insightful essay!
Democrats version of democracy is " The voters have spoken. It doesn't matter." This essay shows exactly why it does matter and why ignoring voter concerns only deepens the spiral into illiberalism.
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/a-last-hurrah-for-the-brahmin-left
Lady Ferguson argues fairly for rebalancing the political goals of the voters and by criticizing the excesses of some media leaders; however, my reading diverse sources indicates that Trump and colleagues supported the January 6 attack and did not oppose it; but whether Trump’s liability amounted to violations of criminal law remains to be seen, in court. Some Trump colleagues have already entered pleas which support the significance of the January 6th “coup”. Biden’s team’s achievements in four years of a challenging Congress are remarkable and many but that does not prove that the same man should continue as leader through age 85.
The use of an accounting SOX compliance law to call Jan 6 an insurrection just like using OSHA to make Covid jabs mandatory. Now we see language change to a constitutional amendment Title IX without 2/3 vote of Congress or states. Biden is a flat of dictator! Yes Jan 6 who entered capital should be charged with trespassing.
January 6th was a riot, nothing more. And another example of legal craziness is the claim that the U.S. Supreme Court just made presidents into dictators. Nothing is further from the truth. Trump's legal team claimed he could not be prosecuted for his acts on January 6th because they were official acts. The prosecutors disagreed but failed to disagree that Trump's inflammatory speech that day was an official act (to be fair, they were hamstrung by then-current precedent - it would have been better had they invented the same reasoning that the Court did). All the Court did was preserve standing precedent on official acts, and left open prosecutions for unofficial acts (I'm simplifying a bit). If the prosecutors prove Trump had no official basis in law (constitutional or statutory) to incite that crowd then he can be prosecuted. The Court basically ruled correctly, and the Court's critics are simply political hacks who are continuing their assault on the rule of law.
The real problem for the prosecution in this case is that they are Federal and so can only indict on violations of Federal law. Federal election law is weak in this case. IMO the only thing that might stick is incitement, but that depends on statutory wordings. Most laws regulating elections are state laws, and so of all Trump's legal woes the Georgia election law case is his biggest threat. The NY cases are all specious lawfare and almost certainly will be overturned.
100%. Thank you!
I'm a non-affiliated voter who is done with the sclerotic duopoly of power that runs our country and won't vote for either of these candidates but to connect the shooting of a presidential candidate with the rhetoric of the Democratic party and the media without any recognition of the rhetoric that Trump has spewed from day one ("When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.") is ridiculous.
Do comments like "We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country" and "In 2016, I declared: I am your voice. Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution." sound like unifying or dividing statements? Does denying election results because he didn't win and inciting a crowd (sorry folks, he incited the crowd) to storm the Capitol, count as leadership?
So if you want to call out the rhetoric of the D's and the media, fair enough, have at it. But to pretend the divisive, negative rhetoric Trump has used since day one of his candidacy doesn't have an impact is pure fantasy. Either words and rhetoric matter for everyone or they don't.
Finally when you try to connect a deranged shooter to the oppositions' rhetoric without evidence of what motivated him to do so (maybe he wanted to impress a Hollywood actress like Hinckley Jr.) you begin to sound more like the Dems who deny that Biden is unfit for office.