"That [Stewart Rhodes, the leader and founder of the Oath Keepers], the leading defendant, graduated from one of the country’s most élite law schools, Yale, is more than just a fun fact. He developed his views on the Constitution as a law student eighteen years ago, and won a school prize for the best paper on the Bill of Rights. His paper argued that the Bush Administration’s treatment of 'enemy-combatants' in the war on terror was unconstitutional. Rhodes wrote that 'terrorism is a vague concept,' and that 'we need to follow our Constitution’s narrow definition of war and the enemy.' The argument would have found much support in liberal legal-élite and civil-liberties circles.... [I]n order to convict the defendants of seditious conspiracy, the government will have to prove that they planned their storming of the Capitol with the purpose of opposing the lawful transfer of Presidential power.... Rhodes’s seeming belief that his plan for January 6th was resistance to an unconstitutional process may seem wholly unreasonable.... But, if the case goes to trial... [s]ome jurors may find it difficult to convict Rhodes and others of seditious conspiracy if they find that sincere views about reality informed the defendants’ purpose.... Such an outcome might have the effect of adding legal legitimacy to the big lie.... Now that talk of potential 'civil war' occurs not only among extremist groups but in the mainstream press, a public trial of alleged seditionists will showcase the central fissure that could lead us there."
Writes Jeannie Suk Gersen in "The Case Against the Oath Keepers/Members of the group face seditious-conspiracy charges for their roles in the January 6th insurrection. Can a sincere belief that the election was stolen protect them?" (The New Yorker).
Gersen highlights the risk the government is taking, forcing public attention onto the seditious conspiracy charge: Americans will put effort into understanding the defendants' arguments, some unknown segment of us will agree with them, and many more will think the government has overreached because it cannot prove that they were insincere.
Posts
57 comments:
"the government will have to prove that they planned their storming of the Capitol with the purpose of opposing the lawful transfer of Presidential power"
"Opposing" seems a little vague here. Surely she means prevent by force rather than simply argue or demonstrate against. I hope there is more clarity in the statute but am feeling too lazy to look.
But I take it her focus here is that the defendants must have an intent to oppose a lawful transfer of power, and so if the defendants believe (correctly or not) the transfer of power would be unlawful, they should get off. Can that possibly be her argument? Because that would seem to be a gigantic loophole.
Does the Government actually want this to go trial, where the defendant actually has representation and a voice?
"Do anything you want with me – roas' me, hang me, skin me, drown me – but please, Br'er Fox, don't fling me in dat brier-patch..."
-Loren
"...a jury could decide that Rhodes’s conviction that the election was stolen is reasonable enough to mean he didn’t commit seditious conspiracy. Such an outcome might have the effect of adding legal legitimacy to the big lie, and it would underscore troubling questions about the future of American democracy."
Next time we run a legitimate election, maybe it would be a good idea to conduct it in such a way that even the losers accept the fact that the contest was square. If you wanted to convince your opponents that you were stealing the thing, you would do exactly what the alleged winning party did at the end of the last election cycle. The GOP didn't cover themselves with glory, but it was left way too easy to make the case that the fix was in.
Whether by malice or incompetence, the Dem party establishment has asked for every crumb of the shit sandwich they have been served by their victory and its aftermath. I just hope they don't get us all killed to serve as a distraction from their failures.
I assume the trial will be in DC. That is a major factor working against the defendants. Venue matters.
most élite law schools
Obviously referring to the typeface, i.e. not pica.
You don't have to believe the election was stolen, only that it has not been investigated. Courts dumped the case as not their business, and the final place to look at it is this Congressional procedure, which turns out to be an automatic formality and not the investigative process made just for this eventuality that they expected.
...most élite law schools should go to Helvetica.
I spent some time thinking about why the word "elite," styled "élite" elsewhere in the text, was just plain old "elite" in the part I put in the post title. I had to check to see whether the accent was stripped out by my Blogger software, but no, it's like that in the original. I assume it's that the "elite" used in the indictment was accent-free.
I mean, I don't have to assume. Here's the indictment:
"Some members of the Oath Keepers believe that the federal government has been coopted by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights. Though the Oath Keepers will accept anyone as members, they explicitly focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement, and first-responder personnel. The organization's name alludes to the oath sworn by members of the
military and police to defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic." On their website, the "Oath Keepers declare they will not obey unconstitutional orders.""
Prof, isnt there a strong legal tradition against self-help? For instance, you don’t get to steal back chattels - just ask O.J.
And so you don’t get to resist unlawful government acts on the street. You have to wait for your (or your heirs’) day in court.
Gersen is making an argument about jury nullification, but a DC jury isn’t going to nullify, especially for a right wing white boy.
Is there any legal viability at all to the defense of “I wasn’t opposing the government, I was helping it?”
JSM
Gersen highlights the risk the government is taking, forcing public attention onto the seditious conspiracy charge:
Does that political risk explain the hesitancy with which the DOJ took so long to indict?
Rather than a well thought-out decision to indict, it did seem like rushed PR damage control in response to Ted Cruz’s questioning of the FBI under oath that provided no good answers.
You’d think a Big Lie would be obviously so. If half the country doesn’t see it that way, then it’s not big, or not a lie. Half the country objects to being flimflammed. The other half is happy to be flimflammed as long as the media and others stop haranguing the President. They hated the conflict there and just want “normal”.
"The indictment [for seditious conspiracy] describes some Oath Keepers’ belief that 'the federal government has been coopted by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights.'"
Interestingly, this is the same belief held by millions of people in other Western nations across Europe and Australia. And if you followed the discussions from Davos this past week, you'd understand clearly why this is no fringe thought. All you have to do is take these people at their word.
The phrase 'The Great Reset' was not coined by the Oath Keepers.
WTF? Statists conspire against liberty? That's whack! Statists NEVER do that!
Next step in reasoning = therefore the trials must be kept secret.
Watch as a World Economic Forum speaker tells us HOW the ELITES in every country are losing the plebs who support them.....when all they want is to do beautiful things together, but us plebs are ruining it for them...It's out in the open if you look hard enough. They hate us. https://twitter.com/i/status/1484607172591984643
It’s almost as if everyone in the national media has become obsessed with a small town bowling league…
…or perhaps they have invented this shell corp of a club in order to facilitate the invention of conflict they’ll use for political purposes. Sounds goofy I know but I’m old enough to remember when adults would recognize and dismiss blatant propaganda…
It kind of highlights that now that they have indicted some people on a truly serious charge, I realize that I have no understanding of what that charge means. Can it truly be that the difference between the noble "trying to protect a fair election" and the seditious "trying to subvert a fair election" is completely dependent on their sincerity?
Most crimes describe an action that is illegal, no? You should not need to read the person's mind.
Yes, the Dems are now trying to enjoy the expanded arbitrary powers that Bush Jr. established for "the war against terror." Goose, gander. Again I wonder why the Dems find a somewhat noisy debate, involving lots of difficult procedural issues, to be tantamount to treason.
1. The Constitution gives lots of leeway to state legislatures to cook up rules for a national election. There are going to be debates about what is fair, especially if votes that are counted in one state wouldn't be counted in another. Florida in 2000 brought a lot of this to the forefront.
2. People who say a specific election was "stolen," or there was enough fraud in swing states to determine the result, are engaging in partisan rhetoric. Granted this is potentially dangerous, and Trump may have said both too much and too little. He could have said there was too much mail-in voting, too many different dates for voting and counting, too much opportunity for fraud.
3. The idea that states should align the number of official Electors for a presidential election with the popular vote took time to establish. Of course "aligning with popular vote" doesn't necessarily mean winner take all within a state, but now it almost always means that. I'm reading a life of Andrew Jackson. When he lost in 1824, the Electoral College failed to produce a winner, so there was a "contingent election" in the House of Representatives on Feb. 9, 1825. Henry Clay, who was both Speaker and a candidate who was forced to drop out at this stage, made sure Jackson lost in the House. Representatives of Kentucky, Clay's home state, ignored the non-binding decision of the state legislature which was in favor of Jackson. Martin Van Buren, Senator for New York, bragged that he, not popular vote, would determine the Electors for that state.
4. It has been fairly common for states to have to deal with "unfaithful electors," who refuse to vote as they are "supposed" to. It has also been common for individual members of Congress to oppose the certification of the presidential ticket that has won the official result. National rules are probably not a bad idea, but the Dems now in Washington are just trying to enshrine rules that allow for a lot of "mining" of Dem votes, valid and not, in swing states.
Geez...I wonder WHY people don't believe the vote counts of the last election?? https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/did_over_100000_people_older_than_124_years_vote_in_wisconsin.html
Prosecution in support of the narrative.
The narrative is now driving the actions of the government rather just being used to influence public opinion about them.
“Does the Government actually want this to go trial, where the defendant actually has representation and a voice?”
No. It’s a loser. They know it, but don’t care. They were challenged , by the right claiming (factually) that a bunch of people had been thrown into jail, in inhumane conditions, without bail, for essentially trespassing. They had been talking so long about sedition, that they had to find some. And, yes, part of this is to punish wrongthink through the process of prosecuting them for just that. Punishment by process.
The problem is that these Oath Keepers were right. The election was blatantly stolen by the Democrats. They stole the Presidency and at least three Senate seats. Now, as the evidence of their theft mounts, the AG picked by the fraudulent victors, is using the full weight of the American law enforcement system against those most vocal about the theft. What they are doing (LawFare here with their deliberate misinterpretation of the Sedition law, as well as exploitation of judicial made exceptions to the Bill of Rights) is morally bankrupt and evil. They don’t care. They have the power, and are blatantly using it to protect themselves from accountability. It should scare everyone out there paying attention.
Lloyd, riffing off your post regarding the Electoral Vote count and especially point 4, I suspect that the effort Trump's team made under Article II Section 1 Clause 3 and the Electoral Count Act alerted the Democrats to a flaw in the plan they attempted in 2016 (and I believe would have tried again in 2020 if Trump won the EC but not the popular vote) where by the votes of Electors who appear to be improperly influenced might be objected to and then rejected by Congress. There appears to now be a movement afoot to 'fortify' the Electoral Count Act such that the votes of the Electors are unreviewable and the Electoral Vote count in AII/S1/C3 is a purely ceremonial act.
“On their website, the "Oath Keepers declare they will not obey unconstitutional orders."" That is in the indictment? For what purpose? I thought that duty was established or derived from the trials at Nuremberg regarding the I was just following orders defense.
As far as Gersen’s article takes the situation seriously, I see no problem with examining the Oath Keepers and what they believe. I believe the vast majority would welcome sunlight and answers about all the rioting looting and violence including arson visited upon our cities beyond DC, or more accurately, including all the DC riots since 1/20/2017. Why are we not discussing the oft-shouted BLM statement that we have to “burn it all down” and start over? Isn’t that quite insurrectiony at its most basic? Look at all the public and private money Democrats steer to BLM. Isn’t that proof that overthrowing our government is at least as popular among mainstream Democrats as among fringe right wing groups held up by the Fake Bureau of Investigations as public enemies?
Andrew McCarthy, who tried and won the last seditious conspiracy case in the United States (against the “blind sheikh “ in 1995), argues in National Review that the prosecution will have to prove the defendants believed they were opposing the lawful authority of the Government and here the Oath Keepers believed they were following the commands of the head of the Executive Branch, the President. I’m not sure I agree but I haven’t researched this issue. And yes, seditious conspiracy differs from sedition, which is not a crime, because the seditious conspiracy crime reaches agreements to use violence and force (“levy war”) against the Government, and sedition is just opposing the government. Sedition is lawful and constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.
The Grande Delusion of the stolen election coverage n game is just another version of the insanity defense. What's disappointing is the death penalty is off the table for these traitors.
Anyone who reads the indictment will see how far the Oathkeepers were from a conspiracy with anyone except themselves, and that their Big Day Out on January 6 was cosplay on golf carts. Particularly amusing is their disappointment that "Trump isn't doing anything." These guys talked and acted like escapees from a comic-con.
The indictment is an embarrassment to DOJ, the FBI, the Capitol Police, the Speaker of the House, and the DC police Department.
“Does the Government actually want this to go trial, where the defendant actually has representation and a voice?”
Bruce Hayden: "No. It’s a loser. They know it, but don’t care. They were challenged , by the right claiming (factually) that a bunch of people had been thrown into jail, in inhumane conditions, without bail, for essentially trespassing. They had been talking so long about sedition, that they had to find some. And, yes, part of this is to punish wrongthink through the process of prosecuting them for just that. Punishment by process."
Same sort of dynamic existed when Mueller and His Merry Marauding Menagerie of corrupted "prosecutors" thought they could indict russian individuals AND 3 businesses that were abroad and thus would never have to actually prosecute the case.
Recall that the laughably fake indictments against Concord Management and Concord Consulting were targeted because both entities were lead by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a supposed Putin crony. Of course, when those companies fought back and took the feds to court, Mueller and his team did everything in their power to DELAY the proceedings (they needed the narrative, not the actual adjudication of the case). Including the prosecutors themselves arguing that they, the prosecutors, hadn't properly served the defendants with the indictment!!
Hilariously inept! But very Weismann-ian, eh?
Those indictments were transparent political theater never meant to be tried in court...as these are. The DOJ and the corrupted judges will put the full force of the gulag conditions on the J6 defendants to try and get them to confess to these "sedition" "crimes" while always delaying any prosecutorial action on their DOJ/FBI/Other Fed Agency inside men.
I truly believe they are going to try keep these guys incommunicado and out of sight and under extreme duress until AFTER the 2024 election....and they've got just the corrupted judges to do it, not least of whom is Amy Berman Jackson.
The Oath Keepers never entered the capitol, did not convince others to do so, did not organize the protests. If they think elites have a cabal they are not delusional--the very process of arresting jan 6 protesters is suppression of the Right and political persecution. The fact that many times dems have taken over state capitols, rudely and loudly protested in congress itself (Kavenaugh hearing among many others), and Antifa fire bombers have not been arrested show that the jan 6 hearings and arrests are simply political oppression in action. There were only about 50 who got inside the capitol but they have arrested 700, most of whom probably did not even know that people got inside. They are arrested for simply protesting.
Fact of the matter is, if you lose the election process you lose the country. Be it half don't' believe they're fair, most don't believe those elected will represent the will of those who elected them, or that elections are no longer an effective political process in the redress of grievances.
Cite the Constitution and laws all you want. Several States broke election law. All those States were swing States that Biden won narrowly. The Supreme Court codified it with two sentences--we won't even look at it; you have no right to even ask us.
'But, if the case goes to trial...'
If it goes to trial in DC isn't the outcome preordained?
It's like being in a foreign country for half of Americans...
It's like being in a foreign country for half of Americans...
Great point. Corrupt, lawless shit-hole 3rd world country to be exact. The other half is perfectly fine with it.
It's important to note that the seditious conspiracy charge, which carries a 20 year sentence, is not an indictment for entering the Capitol forcefully and attempting to prevent the transfer of power.
It is an indictment for planning or "conspiring" to do so.
Sort of like what Ray Epps was doing the night before and day of Jan. 6.
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
You wouldn't have to look too far through comments at Althouse to find activity which met the elements of this absurdly overbroad law.
The people who want to take political prisoners need to ask themselves if they're on the side of Bull Connor.
“The Grande Delusion of the stolen election coverage n game is just another version of the insanity defense. What's disappointing is the death penalty is off the table for these traitors.”
C’mon, Howeeeeee. Conduct a mock trial in your basement. Just think how heroic you’ll feel!
#Jergens #Kleenex
Josephbleau said...
“On their website, the "Oath Keepers declare they will not obey unconstitutional orders."" That is in the indictment? For what purpose?
serious question:
If a member of the US Army refuses an Illegal order... Is THAT seditious conspiracy?
Or would it take THREE US Army personal refusing an Illegal order?
I get so confused! It IS ILLEGAL, to refuse an ILLEGAL order; right?
The government's case comes under the rubric of lawfare. It's not important to Biden's Stalinist DOJ to convict the Oath Keepers-- it's forcing them to defend themselves that is the penalty.
This is not going to end well. In the meantime if I were one of the accused I would argue for a change of venue since DC is a company town. Should the Republicans win the trifecta in 2024 one of the first things they should do is give the president a time limited period to fire at will any government employee and with that do a real draining of the swamp. And while they are at it other than the federal district give the rest of Dc to Maryland and Virginia.
Jeannnie Suk Geirson marries Philip K. Dick. = Jeennie suk Dick.
Nothing more annoying than seeing an American Cafe with the accent over the "e". Unless they serve French food, which they rarely do.
Fake Tough Guy Howard: "What's disappointing is the death penalty is off the table for these traitors."
LOL
Dude, you weep over pronouns. Are you still waiting on that pee tape...cuz there is one, of Biden, in London.
Enjoy!
When you have to worry about a DC jury....
"might have the effect of adding legal legitimacy to the big lie."
So much objective jurinalism.
“Sort of like what Ray Epps was doing the night before and day of Jan. 6.”
Here is the thing there - there is a judicial exception to conspiracy charges, that the plot had a chance at successes, and that their actions were material. Epps apparently did materially affect the J6 “insurrection”. These guys? Ha!
But that is why the whole thing with charging these guys is LawFare. The prosecutors know that they can’t make a case of conspiracy to commit sedition (or whatever it is), but they can, with almost straight faces, claim that what the defendants are alleged to have done falls within the four corners of the criminal statute. It is, of course, highly unethical, but the guy who lied to the FISC by changing evidence, has gotten his law license back from the DC bar.
Rumor has it a couple of these miscreants had nooses hanging from their garage doors.
Upon reflection, I think the seditious conspiracy charge against the Oath Keepers is a good one, assuming that the facts alleged in the indictment are true. They planned and prepared to use armed violence against the government. What other purpose were the contingent armed reaction forces they set up in Arlington? I don't think it matters that they sincerely believed that the election was marked by fraud and that President Trump was calling for their help. They weren't waging war against the President but against the Congress, and I don't think it matters that they thought they were the good guys. So did Jeb Stuart.
"The indictment [for seditious conspiracy] describes some Oath Keepers’ belief that 'the federal government has been coopted by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights.'"
Gosh, how could anyone imagine that a US Government that treats parents coming to a school board meeting and objecting to what they're doing as "Domestic terrorists" is "actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights"?
I mean, that's just crazy talk!
And who in the world would think that "elites" who decided to "fortify the election" to make sure their guy "won" qualifies as "the federal government has been coopted by a cabal of elites"?
Nope, I can't imagine why anyone would think that!
Douglas B. Levene said...
Upon reflection, I think the seditious conspiracy charge against the Oath Keepers is a good one, assuming that the facts alleged in the indictment are true. They planned and prepared to use armed violence against the government.
Hey, it's DL, the guy who pretends that people who block poll watchers, and block audits, didn't engage in any fraud!
Just a quick check here: how many of those Oath Keepers showed up with guns?
0?
But they were they to engage in "armed violence"?
Are you just really stupid? Or is it that you think we are all really stupid?
Here's your pro tip for today: Americans who are planning on engaging in "armed violence" show up with guns, and use them. No guns? No plans for "armed violence"
mezzrow said...
Next time we run a legitimate election, maybe it would be a good idea to conduct it in such a way that even the losers accept the fact that the contest was square. If you wanted to convince your opponents that you were stealing the thing, you would do exactly what the alleged winning party did at the end of the last election cycle. The GOP didn't cover themselves with glory, but it was left way too easy to make the case that the fix was in.
No honest vote counter works to exclude or block poll watchers from doing their jobs
No honest vote counter shuts down on election night, while there are still votes to count
Take away the votes from the counties where the Democrats did both these things, and Trump wins the election, with at least a 52 - 48 GOP Senate.
It is the job of vote counters to not only be honest, but to appear to be honest, so that everyone can trust the results. Since the Democrats decided to act in a way that appears dishonest to any honest person, the Biden* win has no legitimacy, and never will have any legitimacy.
Because once you've allowed corks access to the ballots with no supervision, there's no way to prove the results are valid, unless the people with the access still lost
@Greg: The Oath Keepers didn't bring guns into the Capitol Building, but they did have staches of weapons in hotel rooms in Arlington, ready to be used in the right circumstances. In my opinion, having guns nearby with plans to use them on a contingency basis is more than enough to satisfy the requirement that the defendants conspired to use armed force. I suppose the courts will eventually have to resolve that question, but if I were you, I wouldn't bet the mortgage money on the courts agreeing with you.
Douglas B. Levene: "@Greg: The Oath Keepers didn't bring guns into the Capitol Building, but they did have staches of weapons in hotel rooms in Arlington, ready to be used in the right circumstances."
That is no doubt an FBI created cache of weapons and perfectly follows the standard FBI entrapment ploy demonstrated conclusively with the exposed FBI Hutaree militia hoax case (which was tossed out due to FBI corruption) and the Whitmer kidnapping hoax perpetrated by the FBI.
Its the same playbook over and over again.
And that is why the Jan 5th "pipebomber" has not been identified...because he is likely a fed or a fed controlled operatve.
And that instigator Ray Epps is still just wandering around...even after the Jan 6 committee's lies about him were exposed.
But Doug Levene knows a "slam dunk"/truthy case when he sees one....you know, like Concord Management.
Douglas B. Levene: "Upon reflection, I think the seditious conspiracy charge against the Oath Keepers is a good one, assuming that the facts alleged in the indictment are true."
Its possible the FBI has developed increased competency in their corrupt entrapment schemes, but I doubt it.
Thats why these cases have to be kept in front of the corrupted DC courts (the court Harry Reid nuked the filibuster over because making the DC courts a democratical playground was necessary for these sorts of Show Trials and kafkaesque proceedings) and 98% radical democratical juries.
The video clips of the Oath Keepers I have seen are of them being over the top in their right wing messaging. The perception is they are Feds infiltrating and creating a perception for the media to point to as dangerous.
Will the Oath Keepers call President Trump as a witness to support their claim that they sincerely believed they were responding to the President’s lawful requests to invade the Capitol and forcefully compel Vice President Pence and the Congress into installing Trump as President? I doubt it. Trump would surely toss them under the bus and say that he couldn’t understand how anyone could mistake his speeches as a call for political violence. Will the prosecution call Trump to so testify? I don’t know. Such testimony would help convict the Oath Keepers and might cause a split among the Trump loyalists in the GOP, which presumably the Administration would like, but it would also severely disappointment the Maddow crowd. Well, as the sea witch said to Ariel, “Life’s full of hard choices, idn’t it?”
The video clips of the Oath Keepers I have seen are of them being over the top in their right wing messaging. The perception is they are Feds infiltrating and creating a perception for the media to point to as dangerous.
Douglas B. Levene said...
@Greg: The Oath Keepers didn't bring guns into the Capitol Building, but they did have staches of weapons in hotel rooms in Arlington, ready to be used in the right circumstances.
Ooh! They had "staches of weapons" somewhere across the river.
Seriously?
Exactly what was in this "stash" of weapons? Their personal, legally carried firearms, that they left at the hotel room so they didn't violate the law?
How many hand grenades, machine guns, and / or anti-tank weapons did they have in this "stash"? None? Just perfectly normal, street legal in normal States, weapons? The kind that anyone who has a carry permit might carry with them while traveling?
So, in Doug's world, every person with a carry permit, who uses the permit to carry weapons for self defense when legal, and leaves them in his hotel room when he's traveling with them someplace where they wouldn't be legal, is a criminal ready to overthrow the US.
Because there's no legitimate behavior, when Doug's on the job
In my opinion, having guns nearby with plans to use them on a contingency basis is more than enough to satisfy the requirement that the defendants conspired to use armed force.
In your opinion, anything that the Left needs to be true, is true. No reason or logic needed.
Douglas B. Levene said...
Will the Oath Keepers call President Trump as a witness to support their claim that they sincerely believed they were responding to the President’s lawful requests to invade the Capitol
It's amusing. I pointed out to Doug why IMAO any reasonable person would consider the 2020 election stolen, and therefore teh results illegitimate.
Apparently Doug agrees I'm right, and that it's perfectly reasonable for the Oath Keepers to sincerely believe that the election was stolen. But, not wanting to admit that he's changed his position, he's now claiming that people who sincerely believe that the election is being stolen are nevertheless completely the puppets of someone else, and therefore can't come up with any responses on their own.
Which is pretty stupid. but at least Doug's now on board that the 2020 election was stolen, so it's good to see he can learn
Post a Comment