August 31, 2025

"The submarine sandwich’s... phallic yet floppy nature can also be seen in this context as a mocking reflection of the administration’s strutting, performative, hollow machismo...."

"'He thought it was funny. Well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today,' declared Ms. Pirro, playing the nation’s sputtering high school vice principal sick of all these disrespectful kids, in a video announcing that Mr. Dunn would be charged with felony assault.... Attorney General Pam Bondi... condemned him as 'an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months.' That seems like a lot of firepower brought to bear on a single sandwich-throwing paralegal...."

Writes Bruce Handy, author of "Hollywood High: A Totally Epic, Way Opinionated History of Teen Movies," in "I’ll Have My Resistance on a Roll. Hold the Mayo" (NYT).

As you may have noticed, the prosecutor failed to get an indictment, disproving at long last "that grand juries aren’t in fact willing to indict ham sandwiches."

By the way, what's the origin of that old joke? Let's read Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities":
The grand-jury rooms in the island fortress were not like regular courtrooms. They were like small amphitheaters. The members of the grand jury looked down on the table and chair where the witnesses sat. Off to one side was the clerk’s table. There was no judge in a grand-jury proceeding. The prosecutor sat his witnesses down in the chair and questioned them, and the grand jury decided either that the case was strong enough to put the defendant on trial or that it wasn’t and threw the case out. The concept, which had originated in England in 1681, was that the grand jury would protect the citizenry against unscrupulous prosecutors. That was the concept, and the concept had become a joke. If a defendant wanted to testify before the grand jury, he could bring his lawyer into the grand-jury room. If he was (a) perplexed or (b) petrified or (c) grievously abused by the prosecutor’s questions, he could leave the room and confer with a lawyer outside in the hall—and thereby look like someone who was (b) petrified, a defendant with something to hide. Not many defendants took the chance. Grand-jury hearings had become a show run by the prosecutor. With rare exceptions, a grand jury did whatever a prosecutor indicated he wanted them to do. Ninety-nine percent of the time he wanted them to indict the defendant, and they obliged without a blink. They were generally law-and-order folk anyway. They were chosen from longtime residents of the community. Every now and then, when political considerations demanded it, a prosecutor wanted to have a charge thrown out. No problem; he merely had to couch his presentation in a certain way, give a few verbal winks, as it were, and the grand jury would catch on immediately. But mainly you used the grand jury to indict people, and in the famous phrase of Sol Wachtler, chief judge of the State Court of Appeals, a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich,” if that’s what you wanted.

ADDED: Maybe the prosecutor in sandwich guy's case gave a few of those verbal winks Wolfe was talking about.

189 comments:

gilbar said...

it just shows, that in blue cities: Dems can do NO WRONG.

compare/contrast with charges for being invited into a government building by a government officer

n.n said...

Leftists are known to spike delis with IEDs. Don't underestimate the abortive intention of a spam sandwich.

rhhardin said...

It's not phallic if nobody's eating it. Advice for women.

Enigma said...

I tuned out at "phallic yet floppy." To generate a quasi-AI Sigmund Freud response:

"Sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich. Sometimes a sandwich is made on square bread and doesn't resemble a human penis at all, yet it's still floppy."

Peachy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Begley said...

Tom Wolfe popularized and created many terms still used today.

Peachy said...

"RESIST" is leftist code for non-stop insurrection... no-stop tantrum... non-stop whining... & non-stop authoritarian leftism. Plus the ever important - non-stop leftist lecture.

Jupiter said...

Perhaps they would have been willing to charge him with littering?

Mason G said...

Right: Walk through the Capitol taking selfies? Years in prison.
Left: Hit a federal officer with a thrown object? Free to go.

Sounds about right.

Peachy said...

How did he get thru the system so fast?

Jan 6th people, who did nothing wrong - were tossed in jail without due process. It was all very Soviet - Much like the Democratic-Chi-Com Covid Virus.

hombre said...

This is important stuff for the NYT to focus on./s As usual the NYT correspondent missed the point. For the sane among us, the DC grand jury’s refusal to indict simply confirms that the DC criminal justice system is broken and that Democrats are partisan scofflaws. DOJ’s likely intent was to have the GJ show DC’s true colors before charging the sandwich man with a misdemeanor.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

A submarine sandwich is never floppy although it might be drippy.

n.n said...

Penis for progressive. Confused gender? Is Handy transphobic? Homophobic?

Lazarus said...

Why isn't it a "mocking reflection of the protests' strutting, performative, hollow" pomposity? It is, but normal people don't talk or write or "analyze" like that. Sandwich guy beclowned and lampooned himself, not anyone or anything else.

rehajm said...

What happens when you hit his judge with a hoagie? we all know…

Achilles said...


Mason G said...

Right: Walk through the Capitol taking selfies? Years in prison.
Left: Hit a federal officer with a thrown object? Free to go.

Sounds about right.


It hasn't been about Right vs. Left for a long time.

It has been about Illegitimate Ruled vs the Ruled.

The average person in Washington DC does not think the laws apply to them. It only applies to the ruled.

Dr Weevil said...

Nothing can be "phallic yet floppy": writing those words in that order shows a gross ignorance of lexicography. Something that is phallic in some circumstances will continue to be penile when it's floppy, but it's only phallic as long as it is stiff, i.e. non-floppy.

It is odd that 'penile' sounds more obscene than 'phallic', though the organ referred to is far more obscene when it's an erect phallus than when it's a mere dangling penis. In movies, it's the difference between an X rating and an R - maybe even a PG, if the penility is only seen on marble statues in museums.

n.n said...

Trump Delicatessen Syndrome

Lem Vibe Bandit said...

"That seems like a lot of firepower brought to bear on a single sandwich-throwing paralegal...."

Similar incident in California: Man attacks another man and the LAPD refuses to arrest him because they “aren’t allowed to” in California.

Trump's idea of sending troops to crime riddled cities is not all bad.

Biff said...

I'm a law and order kind of guy, and I'm willing to believe that there is a technicality that allows one to define throwing a sub sandwich at a federal officer wearing a tactical vest as a felony assault, but it does seem excessive to me. Sure, the assailant was supremely annoying, but I think the grand jury reached an appropriate decision.

I don't want to live in a country where hurling a sandwich at a federal officer is a felony offense.

n.n said...

With a phallic prerogative, is Handy a trans/homosexual, or an aggrieved simulant? Watch your six.

Biff said...

PS. The double standard in punishment based on the politics of the offender is, however, noted and deplored.

Randomizer said...

Washington DC shouldn't have it's own federal district court. Put it under the Maryland or Virginia district court to get a wider pool of people for a grand jury.

Yancey Ward said...

While I think the grand jury got this one right in regards to charging a felony, it is pretty obvious that had the guy been a conservative and charged with tossing a felony sandwich at Nancy Pelosi he would have been indicted and convicted eventually.

Danno said...

n.n said..."Trump Delicatessen Syndrome"

Subway is a delicatessen? Who knew?

Howard said...

Another example of Trump winning against clueless libturds. It's as if the guest opinion writer thinks that the sandwich hurler is brave like the Chinese student whom stood in front of the People's Liberation Army tank

Achilles said...

hombre said...

This is important stuff for the NYT to focus on./s As usual the NYT correspondent missed the point. For the sane among us, the DC grand jury’s refusal to indict simply confirms that the DC criminal justice system is broken and that Democrats are partisan scofflaws. DOJ’s likely intent was to have the GJ show DC’s true colors before charging the sandwich man with a misdemeanor.

Letitia James helped her niece Shamice Thompson-Hairston buy a house in North Carolina by cosigning a mortgage and declaring that she would primarily reside at that house while being legally required to live in New York. Typically banks give you .5-.75% lower interest rates if you are the primary resident.

Definition of mortgage fraud.

Shamice Thompson-Hairston has a daughter who is a fugitive skipping out on probation hearings. Neighbors have seen Shamice and her family including Nikia Monique Thompson
at the house that Letitia James has declared her primary residence.

Definition of harboring a fugitive.

This is a rulers vs. ruled situation. It has been for a long time.

Danno said...

Randomizer said..."Washington DC shouldn't have it's own federal district court. Put it under the Maryland or Virginia district court to get a wider pool of people for a grand jury."

Better yet, give the remaining DC east of the Potomac back to Maryland. The DC folks would have a state and the courts issue would be solved. A twofer!

Howard said...

If the sammich was PB&J and the officer had a peanut allergy, they could allege assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.

Achilles said...

Howard said...

Another example of Trump winning against clueless libturds. It's as if the guest opinion writer thinks that the sandwich hurler is brave like the Chinese student whom stood in front of the People's Liberation Army tank

They aren't really liberal.

Original Sandwich tosser video.

They are more like inbred French Courtesans in 1789.

RCOCEAN II said...

Hate if a minority or a Democrat is the victim. A laughable prank when the victim is a white or a Left-hate object. DC juries convicted every J6er on every charge. Without exception. They let McCabe and others off.

The Democrats don't care about the law or justice. We need to move trials outside of DC whenever possible.

FullMoon said...

"Howard said...
If the sammich was PB&J and the officer had a peanut allergy, they could allege assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.

8/31/25, 11:16 AM"

Allergy or not, crunchy Skippy could put an eye out.

William said...

Well, he lost his job. That's something. I suppose though that he'll be hired by some sympathetic law firm and get a pay raise out of it.......I wonder if subway sandwiches will replace the custard pie as the culinary weapon of choice in our armories. Such weapons have been used in the past. The pie throwers were charged with misdemeanours and the worst offenders received thirty day sentences. I would classify a subway sandwich as less of an offense than a custard pie, but tastes vary.

n.n said...

The Nazis operated submarines to sandwich allied assets.

Achilles said...

William said...

Well, he lost his job. That's something. I suppose though that he'll be hired by some sympathetic law firm and get a pay raise out of it.......I wonder if subway sandwiches will replace the custard pie as the culinary weapon of choice in our armories. Such weapons have been used in the past. The pie throwers were charged with misdemeanours and the worst offenders received thirty day sentences. I would classify a subway sandwich as less of an offense than a custard pie, but tastes vary.

Any regular person doing this goes to jail. Everyone knows this.

Washington DC have decided laws don't apply to them.

I actually don't mind this situation. Democrats will never win another election until they start putting people like this in jail.

n.n said...

Subway is a delicatessen?

For the elite-adjacent, yes.

Wince said...

It looks like the Grand Jury miscontrued the statute much as did this law firm [in bold].

As noted, no physical contact or injury must occur for you to be charged with or convicted of this crime. Simple federal assault is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and fines up to $100,000.

Serious Assault (No Deadly Weapon) is similar to simple assault but with two additional characteristics:

You make actual physical contact with the officer; and
You did so with the intent to commit another felony.
Serious assault without a weapon is a felony punishable by up to 8 years in prison and fines up to $250,000.


The actual statute says "or" not "and" when it comes to the threshold between "simple assault" (no contact) and assault with "physical contact" under the statute. [in bold]

18 U.S. Code § 111 - Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees
(a)In General.—Whoever—
(1)forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or
(2)forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service, shall,
- where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and
-where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b)Enhanced Penalty.—
Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

n.n said...

Submarines with vinegar dressing can be deployed as a weapon.

Vinegar is not effective against the bacteria that cause wound infections, and it can cause burns with prolonged contact.

If vinegar gets into the eyes, irritation and redness are common, and corneal injury can occur. The eyes should be rinsed immediately.

- poison.org

Mary Beth said...

I don't want to live in a country where hurling a sandwich at a federal officer is a felony offense.

I want to live among people who don't throw food.

I don't think it should be a felony, but I also think it's a thing that never should have happened and the Left should not have been treating a tantrum-thrower as if he were a hero.

Not Illinois Resident said...

NYT writer trying to be profound. Epic fail.

lonejustice said...

In my state throwing a sandwich at someone would be a simple misdemeanor. Nothing more.

Ronald J. Ward said...

I’m not all that knowledgeable about the laws on sandwich tossers but if Trump was actually serious of ridding D.C. of criminals, wouldn’t he, like, leave?

Dr Weevil said...

lonejustice (11:46am):
There's a difference between "throwing a sandwich at someone" and missing, and "throwing a sandwich at someone" and hitting the target. The latter seems obviously the more serious crime. Why do you obscure that difference in your phrasing?

Mason G said...

"The average person in Washington DC does not think the laws apply to them. It only applies to the ruled."

I don't know how anybody could reasonably disagree with that conclusion.

Lazarus said...

TS Eliot would have written "phallic though flaccid."

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cubanbob said...

He got arrested so there is a mug shot. He had to spend some money on a lawyer and he got fired. Prosecutors should stop overcharging. A misdemeanor conviction with a few days in jail and loss of his job is more than sufficient.

n.n said...

The tosserectionist should be served with Capitol punishment and a side of guac.

mezzrow said...

It was never the fault of the sandwich. No matter how tasty or lethal, it lacks agency.

n.n said...

Delicatessen of the Profanities

BarrySanders20 said...

The writer would be horrified to see what I, a former deli worker in my youth, do to a sub sandwich. After creating the culinary delight, I SLICE it into sections and then PIERCE each section with a TOOTHPICK. Gruesome stuff if that's a stand-in for a penis.

n.n said...

Was it a high capacity submarine? There needs to be reasonable sandwich control. There could have been a scalpel hidden in the layers of veggies. Planned Policehood (PP) is a clear and progressive risk in liberal jurisdictions. #HateLovesAbortion

Saint Croix said...

I suspect the grand jury system is limited to felonies in D.C. That's the way it is in North Carolina. If you actually wanted to indict this guy for a crime, charge him with assault on a police officer and take him to district court. That's how you do it if you're normal.

If you want to politicize the legal system, as Pam Bondi apparently does, you over-charge a felony and bring out the grand jury.

The reason it's (usually) easy to to get a grand jury to indict, is that there is no defense attorney in the room. It's a completely one-sided process.

They failed to indict this guy because a felony indictment is preposterous on its face. He threw a sandwich.

Also, the grand jury is heavily Democratic and non sympathetic anyway. I'm sure the prosecutor knew it was a loser going in. But why overcharge? It just makes the Trump administration look petty and stupid.

an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months

And it makes our AG look like a dummy. Not impressed. At least you're not a soft banana, like the last one. More like a rock. And not a good rock, like The Thing, or Rocky Balboa. More like a stupid rock. A pet rock.

Cheryl said...

Handy forgot that what is funny, or at least tolerated, from a teenager is just stupid from a grown man. That’s guy is getting prosecuted because he’s a jackass. (And also it technically is assault.)
Is that the “deep thought” guy? Just wondering.

Bruce Hayden said...


"'He thought it was funny. Well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today,' declared Ms. Pirro, playing the nation’s sputtering high school vice principal sick of all these disrespectful kids, in a video announcing that Mr. Dunn would be charged with felony assault.... Attorney General Pam Bondi... condemned him as 'an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months.' That seems like a lot of firepower brought to bear on a single sandwich-throwing paralegal...."

Notice the intentional disrespect as to USA Pirro in the use of “Ms”. Judge, US Attorney, or USA would have been proper.

Achilles said...

Ronald J. Ward said...

I’m not all that knowledgeable about the laws on sandwich tossers but if Trump was actually serious of ridding D.C. of criminals, wouldn’t he, like, leave?

What was he convicted of?

Be specific.

You are really just a stupid person who thinks he is smart.

Achilles said...

lonejustice said...

In my state throwing a sandwich at someone would be a simple misdemeanor. Nothing more.

Please go throw a sandwich at a police officer for me.

Tell me if you only get a misdemeanor charge.

rhhardin said...

There is nothing more deplorable than the spectacle of a formal dinner party ending in a brawl. And yet it is surprising how even the most cultured and charming people can go utterly to pieces when something is unexpectedly thrown at table. They instantly have an overwhleming desire to "join in." Everybody has, at one time or another, experienced the urge to throw a plate of jelly or a half grapefruit, an urge comparable to the inclination that suddenly assails one to leap from high places. Usually this tendency passes as quickly as it comes, but it is astounding how rapidly it can be converted into action once the spell of dignity and well-bred reserve is broken by the sight of, say, a green-glass salad plate flying through the air. It is all but impossible to sit quietly by while someone is throwing salad plates. one is stirred to participation not only by the swift progress of the objects and their crash as they hit something, but also by the cries of "Whammy!" and "Whoop!", with which most men accompany the act of hurling plates. In the end someone is bound to be caught over the eye by a badly aimed plate and rendered unconscious.

- Thurber

Saint Croix said...

If you went French with the bread, a nice hard baguette, then at least you have an argument with the grand jury. You take the baguette and walk over to the jury, and smack them with it. "Did you like that? Did you like that? It hurts, right?" You'd have to really smack them hard to make the point. Maybe a 2-day old baguette.

But if you're just throwing floppy impotent bread at the jury, they are going to laugh at you.

Achilles said...

Biff said...

I don't want to live in a country where hurling a sandwich at a federal officer is a felony offense.

If you want that to be the case, then you have to have the overwhelming majority of people in your country be able to live without throwing sandwiches at federal officers.

Freedom only works if you have people capable of doing the right thing when police are not forcing them to do the right thing.

In order to live in a country where throwing sandwiches at police officers in not against the law you have to accept that all of the animals in the population are going to throw sandwiches at officers.

Nobody is going to be an officer if twats like this are going to act like this and treat officers that way.

If you want a free high trust society then you have to remove people like the sandwich tosser from the society or you have to convince them to not throw sandwiches at officers.

If you allow people to act like this you will have a free low trust society. Somalia is a free low trust society.

Saint Croix said...

There is nothing more deplorable than the spectacle of a formal dinner party ending in a brawl. And yet it is surprising how even the most cultured and charming people can go utterly to pieces when something is unexpectedly thrown at table. They instantly have an overwhleming desire to "join in."

You cite Thurber, I cite Animal House

Pam Bondi, You are Dean Wormer.

john mosby said...

Trumpzilla wins even when he loses in DC courts. Get a bunch of no-bills and nullifications, and he can say "the people of DC, as represented by their randomly-selected grand and petit juries, have no interest in enforcing the law. But unfortunately DC has more than its own residents to deal with. Therefore, in order to protect the many nonresident federal employees, foreign diplomats, tourists and other visitors, I am introducing legislation to revoke DC Home Rule and administer the District as a federal resource for all the people of the United States, by all the people of the United States." RR, JSM

Tina Trent said...

The concern here is real, so the punishment must be too. These lunatics throw firebombs and razor blades and rocks hidden in things they fling at police, and they throw acid, feces, urine, and frozen bottles of ice at officers too. Many police have been severly injured, with no consequences for the offenders. I picked up a manual of ideas to injure police at the last Stop Cop City training I attended undercover. In a Quaker Church: nice nonviolence, Quakers. It's well past time to throw the book at them. They're all wussies, so this should tamp down some of the behavior.

Tina Trent said...

Severely, sorry. Losing hand control.

john mosby said...

Trent: Don't forget the concrete milkshake. A British specialty which I'm sure we'll eventually see here. RR, JSM

Tina Trent said...

St.Croix, I share your concerns about Bondi. Nancy Grace was one hell of a smart prosecutor in Atlanta, and she's very popular among a group Trump needs for the midterms. Her tv persona not withstanding, she is not just some talking head.

Saint Croix said...

The Trump administration ought to resist repeating the evils of the Biden administration. Specifically, over-charging people when they are protesting against the government.

This guy and the 01/06 protestors are exactly synonymous. They committed misdemeanors. I am not impressed with yuge federal governments who treat protesting citizens like they are the Death Star. Fuck you, it's the federal government and all its power that is the Death Star. If the current AG does not understand how the prior AG fucked up, quit your job and go back to private practice. There are plenty of attorneys who respect our Constitution and understand we have popular sovereignty in this country.

I'm not excusing misdemeanors, or crimes. But the urge to "make examples out of people" and over-punish them, so you can appear powerful, is a shitty anti-American urge. I remain unimpressed.

Smilin' Jack said...

Seems like the fed could still bring a civil suit for infliction of mental anguish resulting in a lifelong need for PTSD counseling. A few million ought to cover it.

Tina Trent said...

Yes, we have concrete milkshakes here too. In fact, they're in the manual I picked up from the peace-loving Quaker scum.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Saint Croix, your concern about overcharging or disproportionate punishment is a legitimate debate point. But equating ordinary misdemeanor protesters with J6 participants is factually weak. Many J6 rioters committed felonies—assaulting officers, destroying government property, and obstructing Congress.

Treating them all as if they were routine misdemeanor protesters ignores the documented violence and seriousness of what they actually did.

Wince said...

If you read the statute, it wasn't an "overcharge." If you don't like the law, ask congress to change it.

Wasn't a Trump sign passed overhead -- including by Ray Epps -- considered a "deadly or dangerous weapon" in charges brought against other J6-ers?

- where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and

-where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b)Enhanced Penalty.—
Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


The place for leniency, given the law and the flaccidity of the instrumentality, is based on prosecutorial and judicial discretion, while a plea deal is negotiated.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Saint Croix, and to your point about the AG: “ If the current AG does not understand how the prior AG fucked up, quit your job and go back to private practice”, I’ve argued before that we effectively have an AG in name only. Trump has been the de facto Attorney General, with the current officeholder acting more like a member of his legal defense team than the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

mccullough said...

Just doxx the guy and let people throw sandwiches at him for a few years. Criminal law doesn’t deter stupidity. A punch to the face does.

Peachy said...

R J Ward - I will correct you:

Few J6 rioters committed felonies—assaulting officers, destroying government property, and obstructing Congress.

Most J-6 protestors who were prosecuted - walked thru open doors and did nothing wrong. One young man walked in, took some photos, left. He was so over-prosecuted & harassed, without proper due process, - he committed suicide.

Mason G said...

"Most J-6 protestors who were prosecuted - walked thru open doors and did nothing wrong."

As everybody knows, those prosecutions are (D)ifferent.

wildswan said...

If he'd got away with throwing his sandwich, they'd all be throwing stuff and saying it was just a joke - and maybe that will still happen. But I think the skyscreamers see that the Feds are going to protect their officers - unlike DC. I've done protests and the large group which comes out when actions are consequence-free dwindles right down when there's a price to pay. And Sandwich Boy is an example of this - he ran like a rabbit . He didn't hang about and own his action and he didn't get away either. So there it is. Don't demean cops. Sandwich throwers will be booked - giving a chance for warrants to be executed, immigration status to be checked and employers to be notified. Play your dirty little games in some other city, you aren't going to get a free ride here.

Iman said...

They couldn’t get a DC jury to impartially do its duty if the survival of the country was at stake. It’s just not in these Democrats. They are dazed, confused and malicious.

Rusty said...

You gonna eat that?

Mason G said...

"But the urge to "make examples out of people" and over-punish them, so you can appear powerful, is a shitty anti-American urge."

It has nothing to do with appearing to be powerful. The urge is to insist that both sides be held to the same standards. You want this sort of crap to end? Make it clear that everybody, left and right, is going to be subjected to the same rulebook.

After what happened to so many of the J6 people who did even less than Subway Man, the consequences he has had to endure are trivial. Which will not result in getting this sort of crap to end.

Just sayin'.

Iman said...

Clowns like Ward should hang on to their Jan6 hallucinations and talk them up constantly. It has worked so well for them, lol 😆.

Iman said...

Handy’s brother Jack is much more cogent and insightful. There… I said it.

n.n said...

A pen is a phallic symbol. So is the sword. Is autopen, too?

Handy is handsy with a double-edged scalpel and exhibits a queer eye with a jaundiced AI for his JournoListic audience.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Peachy, you’re repeating a common but misleading recreation. DOJ records show that hundreds of J6 defendants were convicted of felonies—assaulting officers, obstruction of Congress, destruction of property, and even seditious conspiracy. It wasn’t just a ‘few.’ It’s true some were charged only with misdemeanors like trespassing, but even that was unlawful—they entered a restricted federal building during a violent disruption of Congress.

And you are completely wrong in claiming Matthew Perna didn’t receive due process. He had an attorney and he entered a plea agreement. He too is on documented footage of what took place that day.

Jim at said...

So we can now just throw things at people we don't like and get away with it?

OK. Your rules, leftists. Embrace them.

Skeptical Voter said...

The guy in the pink shirt has a throwing arm sorta like Obama's. He flings the sandwich at the cop--ball speed clocked at twenty miles an hour and says "So there!" Of course the color of his shirt matched the color of the slip on his desk when he got to work the next morning.

Peachy said...

Wrong, Ron Ward. - you're repeating the same lies we have all heard before.
Again - only a few committed violence- and that violence was instigated by embedded feds. Most the people wearing masks were FEDS.
None of it was nearly as bad or devastating as the George Floyd riots and arson. Billions in property damage.

Peachy said...

Yeah - we all wonder why President Auto-pen pardoned the fraudulent Jan 6th committee ?

Clues.

Peachy said...

The Capitol Building is not owned by Democrats - or Nancy Pelosi.

it is public property. Period.

n.n said...

To throw a hardcover or soft cover book at the perp, that is the question.

So, is Planned Perphood (PP), Capitol punishment, not a viable Choice?

Peachy said...

The constant delays in hearings, and postponements dragged out for over a year... and in some cases years.
This was all Soviet level BS - and a massive lack of proper due process - to break spirits.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Now now, Peachy—aside from the pure conspiracy talk, you’re backtracking. First it was ‘most just walked through open doors.’ Now it’s ‘only a few committed violence, and feds made them do it.’ Those can’t both be true. Court records and guilty pleas show hundreds admitted their own actions. The violence wasn’t staged—it was carried out by Trump supporters who said so themselves.

And comparing J6 to the George Floyd riots is apples and oranges. Riots and arson are crimes, yes—but they weren’t an organized attempt to stop certification of a presidential election. One was street violence, the other was an attack on the transfer of power.

R C Belaire said...

Reminds me of the broken window approach to law enforcement. If one doesn't take care of the small things, behavior only gets worse.

Earnest Prole said...

I think we can all agree our tolerance of public disorder varies depending on the political affiliation of the offender.

Peachy said...

Ronald - I never said the word "staged."
Also - I did not backtrack.
Many people who merely walked thru open doors - were treated/prosecuted as if they committed violence. and yes - some "rioters" fought with the feds - and that was stupid. You leftists dutifully called it an insurrection. Trump's supporters did not bring guns. The only person murdered in cold blood with a gun, was a Trump supporter.

Kakistocracy said...

'This guy thought it was funny—well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today, because we charged him with a felony.' ~ Jeanine Pirro

I guess the grand jury thought it was funny.

But if you beat a police officer with a flag, you get pardoned.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Peachy, no one is saying every single person on J6 was violent. Those who simply entered and left were usually charged with misdemeanors, not treated like violent rioters. The people who fought officers, broke windows, or obstructed Congress are the ones who were charged with felonies.

And the claim that Trump’s supporters ‘did not bring guns’ is flat-out false. DOJ cases show multiple rioters carried firearms, knives, bats, and chemical sprays. Some stashed guns nearby. A Virginia man (Guy Reffitt) brought a pistol, another brought an assault rifle to D.C. A group of Oath Keepers maintained a weapons cache across the Potomac.

Many weren’t openly brandishing, but the claim “no one brought guns” is factually wrong.

As for Ashli Babbitt, the DOJ ruled the shooting justified. She was trying to break through a barricade protecting lawmakers. That’s not ‘cold blood,’ that’s a split-second decision in defense of Congress.

Dr Weevil said...

"Those can’t both be true" (3:19pm) is simply false. If most (50%+) just walked through open doors and only a few (<50%) committed violence, where's the contradiction? And the fact is that even those who committed no violence served months and years in jail. The fact that many pleaded guilty only means that they were threatened with spending the rest of their lives in jail if they didn't lie and say they were guilty to get the sentence down to years instead of decades.

Dr Weevil said...

By the way, I'm guessing someone named "Peachy" is probably a woman, and saying "Now, now" to a woman looks kind of condescending and downright contemptuous.

Dr Weevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jim5301 said...

Can someone help me understand the mind of MAGA. Throw a sandwich = felony. Beat the shit out of police = pardon. And in your warped mind this makes perfect sense.

Dr Weevil said...

jim5301:
The people Trump pardoned had already served months or in most cases years in jail. And very few of them had "beat the shit out of" police, though some had shoved them. Again, the only people who died (besides a couple of heart attacks) were one protester shot by the police, and one beaten and tear-gassed by the police.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Doc, the irony here is almost as thick as this Kentucky humidity. I thought Democrats were supposed to be the sensitive, politically correct ones. Yet here we get a lecture on tone while completely ignoring the facts: hundreds of guilty pleas and documented violence on J6.

Dr Weevil said...

Some of us recall when a Floyd-angry mob attacked the White House, broke through the fence, forced Trump to take refuge in the basement bunker, and injured 50 Secret Service members. Did any of them serve years in jail? Months? Days?

Dr Weevil said...

Hundreds of guilty pleas were coerced from non-violent protesters by threats to send them to jail for decades if they didn't plead guilty. Do you really not understand how over-charging, plea-bargaining, and having bigoted judges and juries ready at hand ready to throw the book at them works?

Kakistocracy said...

Ashli Babbitt was discharged ULTHC. She had been previously busted down to SrA. She’s everything the military stands against.

She died while participating in an attempt to overthrow the results of a legitimate election. She was forcing her way through windows in the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

It really is something how an imaginary world has been created in detail by what is essentially a collaboration between MAGA operatives and right wing media (mainly Fox) and has come to be regarded by so many as reality.

Peachy said...

bolded repeat.

Hundreds of guilty pleas were coerced from non-violent protesters by threats to send them to jail for decades if they didn't plead guilty. Do you really not understand how over-charging, plea-bargaining, and having bigoted judges and juries ready at hand ready to throw the book at them works?

Leftist lies and BS don't work here - Bob Ward.

Peachy said...

Shorter KAK -a -Phony: 'Ashlee deserved to die.'

Peachy said...

"many were openly brandishing" - what? You leftist fuckheads are lying liars who lie.

Dr Weevil said...

"She died while participating in an attempt to overthrow the results of a legitimate election." You should have left out "legitimate", since that was and is very much in doubt. And the demonstrators wanted Congress to investigate the legitimacy of the election, as Congress had the right (and duty) to do.

Tina Trent said...

John Mosby and others, you can use my first name, though I get why Althouse uses her last name.

Jaq said...

"It really is something how an imaginary world has been created in detail..."

Talk about projection. Just one word: Russiagate.

Peachy said...

Documented violence:

Like walking in a taking photos.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Dr. Weevil, Biden won in full accordance with the nation’s lawful constitutional process. Every state certified its results, recounts affirmed the outcomes, and the Electoral College vote was counted and confirmed in Congress. That is the only legitimate process.

Attempts to stop it, including the Jan. 6 mob, were unlawful and have no bearing on legitimacy. Endless claims of a stolen election lack credible evidence—Trump and his allies filed 86 lawsuits across multiple states; every single one was dismissed, withdrawn, or ruled against after full hearings. Judges included both Democrats and Republicans, including two appointed by Trump.

It’s irrational to insist the election was stolen when no credible evidence exists. Believing otherwise is like insisting the Loch Ness Monster exists just because no one can prove it doesn’t.

Mason G said...

Forget it, Peachy. "Insurrection" is their precious and they'll never let go.

john mosby said...

RJW: Two words - Imagine Obama. RR, JSM

Kakistocracy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kakistocracy said...

Babbitt was clearly violating law by assaulting capital police and endangering the lives of congressional members. She was a criminal. She knew what she was doing — she was a believer/follower in the QAnon conspiracy nonsense. Her death was unfortunate, but demonstrates the risk of unlawfully conduct and assault. Peaceful protest this was not. The cult wants you to believe she was a tender loving individual who was peacefully protesting.

john mosby said...

RJW: "Trump has been the de facto Attorney General, with the current officeholder acting more like a member of his legal defense team than the nation’s top law enforcement officer."

So you mean Bondi is Trump's wing-woman? RR, JSM

Biff said...

Achilles said...
"In order to live in a country where throwing sandwiches at police officers {is} not against the law you have to accept that all of the animals in the population are going to throw sandwiches at officers."

I suspect that our views are fairly close. Throwing sandwiches at police officers is against the law, and properly so.

The guy has since been charged with a misdemeanor assault that carries a maximum of a year in prison and significant fines as potential punishment. I expect that won't be his punishment, but to suggest that he is not experiencing consequences isn't accurate.

n.n said...

Babbit was aborted in a prone position, in cold blood, while escaping the Pelosi-rrection with elements of Whitmer-conspiracy.

Mason G said...

"but to suggest that he is not experiencing consequences isn't accurate."

I wouldn't say he's not experiencing consequences but I would say the ones he's experiencing are trivial when compared to the consequences experienced by many of the J6 folks for actions way more innocuous.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Mason G, I actually agree that many like myself will “never let go” of calling it anything other than an ‘insurrection.’ I can’t let go because I saw the footage and because I trust our legal process, imperfect as it is. Even high-profile conservatives—McConnell, Graham, McCarthy, and media figures—initially disavowed Trump, then did a full 180. Note Fox News spectacular fall.

Accepting the truth now would force you to confront your own indoctrination. Many are simply too invested in your instructed narrative to admit it.

Ronald J. Ward said...

John Mosby @ 4:42PM, Yes, exactly. Trump’s influence over the Department of Justice has been so pronounced that the official AG often seems more like a member of his personal legal team than the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. That’s precisely my point.

john mosby said...

[supersonic crack! of the point passing over RJW's head] - JSM

Mason G said...

[supersonic crack! of the point passing over RJW's head]

I'll take "Things That Happen A Lot" for $1000, Alex.

Kakistocracy said...

It's unfortunate Babbitt's family and friends were unable to get her the help she needed.

From the Althouse Magic 8 Ball,

Babbitt’s association with QAnon beliefs likely played a significant role in her actions leading to her death on January 6, 2021. Her deep engagement with QAnon conspiracy theories, particularly the "Stop the Steal" narrative and claims of a stolen 2020 election, fueled her distrust in institutions and motivated her participation in the Capitol riot. Babbitt’s social media posts, filled with QAnon hashtags like #WWG1WGA and references to a corrupt "Deep State," reflected her belief that drastic action was needed to support Trump and expose a supposed cabal. This radicalized mindset drove her to join the mob storming the Capitol, where she was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to climb through a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby. Experts, such as Marc-André Argentino, have noted that her immersion in QAnon’s echo chambers amplified her commitment to these ideas, contributing to her presence and actions at the Capitol. While QAnon didn’t directly cause her death, it heavily influenced the ideological fervor that placed her in that fatal moment. ~ Grok

You know who else is/was a believer in the QAnon conspiracy nonsense?

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed beliefs aligned with the QAnon movement, particularly in the period following the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Text messages she sent to Mark Meadows, then-White House Chief of Staff, between November 2020 and January 2021, reveal her endorsement of QAnon-affiliated conspiracy theories. These included claims about a "huge Trump & military white hat sting operation" involving watermarked ballots to expose voter fraud, references to "The Storm" (a QAnon belief in a coming reckoning), and assertions that the "Biden crime family" and others were being arrested and detained for fraud, destined for military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. These ideas directly echo core QAnon narratives about a secret elite and Trump’s battle against them.

Thomas later expressed regret for some of these texts, attributing them to emotional distress after Trump’s election loss, but she continued to assert unfounded beliefs in election fraud. Her history of conservative activism, including ties to groups like Groundswell and her attendance at the January 6, 2021, "Stop the Steal" rally (though she claims she left early), further contextualizes her engagement with far-right conspiracies. However, some, like cult expert Rick Ross, argue her QAnon-aligned beliefs reflect her longstanding conservative views rather than a new ideological shift. ~ Grok

Jamie said...

These lunatics throw firebombs and razor blades and rocks hidden in things they fling at police, and they throw acid, feces, urine, and frozen bottles of ice at officers too.

That's what I've been thinking. The thing thrown was wrapped in a Subway wrapper and more or less looked like a sandwich, but a frozen water bottle in a Subway wrapper would also look like a sandwich, and could cause serious injury (though not, apparently, the way this guy threw - as I said elsewhere, I haven't watched the video but I understand he throws like me). In the law, what matters here - what the thrown item actually was, or what the officer (or other target) thought it might be in the moment?

Apparently to a DC grand jury, what matters is either what the thrown object actually was, or the fact that the throwing of the object was concomitant with their beliefs. I am not confident that the law in the matter was the decider.

Also: Kak, surely if a Non-Trump-Supporting Perp Of Color Or Gender were "offered" a plea deal while being threatened with years in prison, you might feel differently. Or maybe not - maybe you'd still have that finger aside your nose as you intone, "Where there's smoke, there's fire, my friends."

Iman said...

“because I saw the footage and because I trust our legal process, imperfect as it is.”

Yeah, that’s why the “Committee” destroyed evidence and covered their tracks. Fuck these cretins.

Iman said...

“Beat the shit out of police = pardon.”

That only happened during the Democrats 2020 Insurrection Summer. In Blue cities and states nationwide, jimmy numbers.

Dr Weevil said...

No credible evidence! The fact that in five states Trump won the majority of the votes that were counted with Democratic and Republican poll-watchers present, and only lost because the votes counted in the middle of the night without any Republicans present somehow came out much more pro-Biden, enough to reverse the results in exactly the five states where that needed to happen! That is prima facie evidence of fraud. We still don't know who made the phone calls to arrange for sending the Republicans home, lying to them that the Democrats were going home, too, and then going back in and counting votes without them.

As for the 86 lawsuits, did any of them actually look at evidence? As I recall, they were rejected as unripe before the Electoral College voted, and then afterwards, sorry, it's too late! I saw no evidence presented in any court.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Can we do better than rabbit-hole fodder, Iman? That’s just false. The J6 Committee documented everything—subpoenas, depositions, hearings. Nothing was destroyed or hidden.

Trusting the legal process is how accountability actually happens, no matter how many wild claims you hear.

Inga said...

“As for the 86 lawsuits, did any of them actually look at evidence? As I recall, they were rejected as unripe before the Electoral College voted, and then afterwards, sorry, it's too late! I saw no evidence presented in any court.”

Gemini says…

“Many of the 2020 election lawsuits lost on the merits, meaning judges evaluated the legal claims and supporting evidence and found them to be without substance. A study by conservative legal experts found that of the 64 cases they reviewed in key swing states, courts held hearings on the merits in 30 cases, and 29 of those failed.

Findings from the "Lost, Not Stolen" report
A 2022 report by eight conservative legal experts titled "Lost, Not Stolen" analyzed 64 election lawsuits in six key states. The report concluded that the legal challenges failed primarily due to a lack of evidence. Out of the 64 cases reviewed, 30 had hearings on the merits, and the Trump team and allies lost 29 of them. The remaining cases were either voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed on procedural grounds, sometimes for lack of standing.

Examples of cases lost on the merits
Cases lost on the merits included:
Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a claim regarding "indefinitely confined" voters because it challenged an entire group instead of individuals.

Pennsylvania: A federal appeals court, including a Trump-appointed judge, dismissed an attempt to block certification, stating the case lacked specific allegations and proof.
Arizona: A federal district judge dismissed a case from the bench, noting that "accusations of election fraud 'that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court'".

Ronald J. Ward said...

Dr. Weevil, you can keep repeating the false claim that Republicans were sent home while Democrats counted votes—that’s been debunked repeatedly. But ask yourself this: in 86 court cases, why didn’t Trump’s defense present this supposed evidence? Because if they had, it would’ve needed to hold up in court, or the lawyers risked sanctions or disbarment. Standing in front of cameras to feed nonsense works for the ‘Basket of Gulibles,’ but it doesn’t work in a courtroom. That’s the difference.

Jamie said...

I'm no longer willing to battle the headwind of "Every case was dismissed! Everything was done according to law!" Of course, it's still bs, since so many important states changed their election procedures - some in opposition to their state laws - in the name of "prudent COVID measures" that had already been clearly shown in many jurisdictions, within and outside the US, to be unnecessary and sometimes just plain stupid. But I am willing - reluctantly - to let the gross statistical outliers be outliers because 2020 was the Plague Year.

But - Kak et al. - address the shadowy cabal, willya? Can you? They were out and proud.

And when you look at the election result - that a man who could not even campaign for a full day, much less answer press questions, meet with world leaders, have a cabinet meeting, or stay awake past 8pm - became president with the full-throated support and defense of the press and the Democrat party, only for us all to learn that ALL these enablers were struggling with that horrible sinking feeling for the entire time that they were not going to be able to keep the charade going... and for you still to claim that the 2020 election was totally copacetic...

Well, you do you, man

Jamie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim at said...

The J6 Committee documented everything—subpoenas, depositions, hearings. Nothing was destroyed or hidden.

And yet some of you will still choose to engage with this guy.

Inga said...

Gemini says…

“What evidence was absent in cases lost on the merits?
In lawsuits challenging the 2020 election that were lost on the merits, the most crucial missing evidence was proof of widespread, systemic fraud or errors sufficient to overturn the election results. The claims made by the plaintiffs, who included former President Trump and his allies, were repeatedly found to be based on hearsay, speculation, or misunderstandings of election procedures rather than solid legal evidence.

Absent evidence
Specific examples of missing evidence include:
Proof of illegal votes: Courts heard allegations of illegal ballots being counted or legal ones being discarded, but the plaintiffs could not provide evidence to back up these claims. In Nevada, for example, the court concluded there was "no evidence that any vote that should lawfully not be counted has been or will be counted".

Malfeasance by election officials: In cases like Law v. Whitmer in Nevada, the court found no proof that election board members were "guilty of malfeasance," nor that defendants had "manipulated or altered the outcome of the election".
Problems with voting machines: Plaintiffs failed to prove that voting machines or election devices had malfunctioned in a manner that would have affected the outcome of the election.
Specific, factual allegations of fraud: Many cases were rejected because the claims were too vague and lacked specific allegations of fraud. Judges dismissed claims based on "public sphere of gossip and innuendo" rather than actual facts.

Sufficient evidence from witnesses: In some cases, like one in Georgia, allegations of fraudulent ballots were based on testimony from a poll watcher who was later unable to provide any evidence. Other witness testimony was deemed inadmissible because it was based on hearsay rather than direct evidence.

Demonstrated impact on results: While some minor administrative errors were occasionally identified, the plaintiffs failed to prove that these issues were widespread or significant enough to have changed the election's outcome. An Associated Press review found only a handful of potential fraud instances out of millions of votes, none of which would have altered the result.

Statistical evidence of fraud: Claims that the election results were "statistically improbable" were based on flawed statistical analysis. One report noted that such analyses failed to properly test the probability of a win, instead using "deeply misguided" methodology.

In the words of the conservative legal experts' report, the lawsuits failed "because of a lack of evidence and not because of erroneous rulings or unfair judges".

Jim at said...

This cannot stand:

Dr. Weevil, you can keep repeating the false claim that Republicans were sent home while Democrats counted votes

We watched it happen, jackass. In real time.

Good gawd. What is wrong with you?

Mason G said...

I'm no longer willing to battle the headwind of "Every case was dismissed! Everything was done according to law!"

You can't win with liars. And Democrats are on record saying that they're okay with lying if it helps them win elections.

Dr Weevil said...

By "debunked repeatedly" RJW means "denied repeatedly by people with a vested interest in denying it". Not the same thing at all. I wonder: is he paid to post here? He's pretty damned persistent in pushing an anti-Trump line.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Jim, Mason, I get that watching the counting in real time felt compelling, but the verified record—including sworn affidavits, court filings, and bipartisan observer reports—confirms Republican observers were present throughout. Court after court, including those with Trump-appointed judges, found no credible evidence of fraud. Perception and emotion don’t change the documented facts.

I again ask the question of why these arguments never made it to the courtroom. Did the defense simply forget them? I gave you the answer. You didn’t rebut it.

Jamie said...

Still unwilling to address the self- and proudly-declared shadowy cabal, huh, inga?

Jamie said...

And Ronald?

Jamie said...

I mean, after all, if you're out to stop Hitler... what wouldn't you do?

Mason G said...

"I mean, after all, if you're out to stop Hitler... what wouldn't you do?"

Every Republican presidential candidate (since Hitler, anyway) has been Hitler, to hear the Democrats tell it.

Prediction: The Republican candidate in 2028 (who will not be Trump, BTW) will be Hitler if you ask a Democrat.

You heard it here first, maybe.

Peachy said...

Shorter KAK -
Because Ashlee believed something KAK disagrees with - she deserved to die.

Ronald J. Ward said...

Dr Weevil said...
“By "debunked repeatedly" RJW means "denied repeatedly by people with a vested interest in denying it". Not the same thing at all. I wonder: is he paid to post here? He's pretty damned persistent in pushing an anti-Trump line.”

Trump’s legal team never presented them in a court of law. Trial after trail after trial, Trump’s lawyers just basically kept saying to the judge, “ we got nothing”. Why? I’ve given that answer. All I’m getting back is sand pounding because you don’t like that answer.





Inga said...

‘Still unwilling to address the self- and proudly-declared shadowy cabal, huh, inga?”

WHAT “shadowy cabal”?

Peachy said...

Jamie - 5:49 - Our lying eyes. The media perpetrated wholesale lie and lie .. and still do - on behalf of the openly corrupt democratic party - again - our lying eyes.
A mass-virus really came in handy for them.

Mason G. Indeed. Cultists all buy the BS the Jan 6th created. Nancy packed the court.

RNB said...

Assault with a deli weapon.

Inga said...

Gemini on the so called “shadowy cabal”…

“While some conservatives and conspiracy theorists like QAnon have claimed a "shadowy cabal" stole the 2020 presidential election, these allegations have been thoroughly debunked and rejected by a wide range of officials, investigations, and courts. The assertion is part of a broader misinformation campaign, often referred to as "The Big Lie," that began in the lead-up to and immediately following the election.

Origin of the conspiracy theory
The idea of a "shadowy cabal" is closely associated with conspiracy theories, particularly QAnon. QAnon is a far-right movement that alleges a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles runs a global child sex-trafficking ring and conspired against Donald Trump. While the theory predates the election, it became intertwined with election fraud claims after Trump's loss.”

Jamie said...

Here you go, inga:

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamie said...

You might also look into the Twitter Files, Facebook Files, and this case concerning the Biden administration's interference in social media on its own behalf, which doesn't relate to the 2020 election per se but certainly is instructive about the process:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri#:~:text=until%20further%20order.-,Appellate%20decision,ruling%20against%20the%20Biden%20administration.

This case, it should be noted, does not end with the Biden administration's having to change Its censoring ways. But it's very hard to avoid the presented facts that it had indeed been using censoring ways - the majority opinion just said that states didn't have standing to object, as I understand it.

Jamie said...

inga - you're trying to conflate two unrelated things. Deal with the one I'm talking about.

Jamie said...

The one that your side literally bragged about.

Inga said...

From your own article Jamie…

“The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.”

Inga said...

From your own article Jamie…

“For Trump and his allies were running their own campaign to spoil the election. The President spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.”

Inga said...

Sorry about the bold, I don’t recall how to fix it.

Kakistocracy said...

The purpose of the January 6th, Capitol riot, was primarily centered on disrupting the certification of the 2020 presidential election results by Congress.

The rioters, motivated by Trump’s false claims of widespread election fraud and his "Stop the Steal" rhetoric, aimed to delay or prevent the formal counting of electoral votes that would confirm Biden’s victory.

This is supported by court documents and testimonies from rioters, some of whom explicitly stated intentions to "stop the certification" or pressure Pence to reject electoral votes from contested states, based on baseless fraud allegations.

Trump’s speech at the "Save America" rally earlier that day, where he urged supporters to "fight like hell" and directed them to the Capitol, rioters sought to intimidate Congress and Pence into overturning the election results. Chants like "Hang Mike Pence" and threats against lawmakers, as seen in videos and court filings, indicate an intent to coerce officials into rejecting Biden’s electors or invoking alternate electors loyal to Trump.

While delaying the vote count was a clear objective, the broader intent for many was to undermine the democratic transfer of power, driven by a mix of misinformation, conspiracy theories like those tied to QAnon, and Trump’s encouragement.

The claim that it was "a day of love" starkly contrasts with these documented events.

Iman said...

Off

Jamie said...

They "shored up" democratic prices by opening mail-in balloting to all, accepting ballots postmarked days or weeks after three election, or not postmarked at all, and by censoring any positive information about Trump? Really? That's your defense of the 2020 process?

Recall, Inga, that Molly Ball was writing a hagiography of the "heroes" who "saved us" from Trump. What was she going to say? That they cheated their way to victory?

Can you honestly claim that media coverage - which everyone acknowledges is important, perhaps even decisive*, in elections - was not manipulated during the 2020 election season?

How about before - when we now know that the 2016 Russiagate scandal (which some here claim you still still think is gospel) was greenlighted by Obama himself and pushed forward by Schiff et al., despite their knowing it had no factual basis? Do you think that known falsehood from beginning to end that was forwarded by first Obama and then the many Democrats and bureaucrats who saw Trump as a threat to their power had no effect of voters' perceptions of Trump in 2020?

Or do you just think it's "politics"?

Iman said...

Off

Jamie said...

Also,

Iman said...

!?

Iman said...

‘salright

Inga said...

From your own article Jamie… shadowy cabal turns out to be a bipartisan group of people who were trying to safeguard the election for BOTH sides.

“Bad actors spreading false information is nothing new. For decades, campaigns have grappled with everything from anonymous calls claiming the election has been rescheduled to fliers spreading nasty smears about candidates’ families. But Trump’s lies and conspiracy theories, the viral force of social media and the involvement of foreign meddlers made disinformation a broader, deeper threat to the 2020 vote.

Wamp, the former GOP Congressman, worked through the nonpartisan reform group Issue One to rally Republicans to the effort. “We thought we should bring some bipartisan element of unity around what constitutes a free and fair election,” Wamp says. The 22 Democrats and 22 Republicans on the National Council on Election Integrity met on Zoom at least once a week. They ran ads in six states, made statements, wrote articles and alerted local officials to potential problems. “We had rabid Trump supporters who agreed to serve on the council based on the idea that this is honest,” Wamp says. This is going to be just as important, he told them, to convince the liberals when Trump wins. “Whichever way it cuts, we’re going to stick together.”

TeaBagHag said...

On a more positive note, Ashlee has been sober for over 4 years now and she hasn’t taken part in any violent insurrections since that January day.
Lessons can be learned, people are capable of improving themselves.

Jamie said...

I forgot to do my asterisk.

* "Decisive": remember how the one Trump ad about Kamala being for they/them and Trump being for you was declared decisive after the 2024 election? Remember how Trump's appearance in Rogan's podcast was declared decisive? Mass and social media are known to be influential in elections. Affecting what is seen and heard, therefore, on mass and social media cannot be unimportant. Yet Obama and Biden both, and the bureaucratic interregnum between them, strove to suppress Trump-positive news, forward Trump-negative news, and spin the crap out of all news to present Trump in the most negative light possible.

And our host here, an independent of long standing, appears to have stopped trusting both headlines and stories presented in the news because of that emergency action: she regularly postson, and fisks, headlines and stories that try to make Trump's accomplishments look mixed at best and more often like failures. Explain it, and explain how it didn't affect voter behavior in an election - in a time of global crisis! - in which the challenger appeared for maybe an hour or two every couple of days, never taking unvetted questions, never speaking off teleprompter (at least, not without disaster).

Jamie said...

TBH, you are being reprehensible.

Jamie said...

Inga, you are being silly - again, the article was a hagiography.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Iman said...

Hag been bobbin’ for plums…

Inga said...

Jamie, calling it a “shadowy cabal” is silly.

Mason G said...

"TBH, you are being reprehensible."

I'll take " Days Ending In 'Y' " for $1000, Alex.

effinayright said...

The Kakameister makes shit up again:

"Ashli Babbitt was discharged ULTHC. She had been previously busted down to SrA. She’s everything the military stands against."
****************
Wanna 'splain what ULTHC means? What Babbit had been busted down for? ON-line info says the **highest** rank she achieved was SrA (E-4). She had received an honorable discharge.

"Following her death, Babbitt was denied military honors under the Biden administration, but Matthew Lohmeier, under secretary of the Air Force, said in a letter to Babbitt's family that he was "persuaded that the previous determination was incorrect" after reviewing information about her service."

Per CNN and the Military Times, "The U.S. Air Force will provide full military funeral honors for Ashli Babbitt , according to announcements made just a few days ago (around August 28-29, 2025)."

So: never "busted" down, honorably discharged, never "everything the military stands against", and rescued from Biden's vindictiveness.

You must have a real appetite for shit sandwiches, as you wind up having them served to you here so often.

Kakistocracy said...

↑ If there’s no difference between upholding the Constitution and attacking it, then there’s no honor in service. Babbitt did not die defending the Constitution. She died trying to overturn it.

It doesn’t seem like it should be remotely controversial that if you’re killed by police while obviously storming the US Capitol that the military shouldn’t go out of its way years later to honor you, but then again Trump just rehung a portrait of Col. Robert E. Lee at West Point.

Military honors are for people who defended the Constitution, not those who tried to overthrow it. Granting her that recognition is an insult to real patriots.

Biff said...

It's interesting how frequently the Ashli Babbitt incident is discussed and how rarely the footage of the incident is shown.

Kakistocracy said...

They are making her a martyr of their MAGA revolution. To be honored for her pure dedication and sacrifice to Fearless Leader. Every totalitarian regime has these. They'll stream the services so the faithful can worship her pure, sinless womanhood and carry her in their hearts forever, like family.

n.n said...

Babbit was escaping the riot forced by the police and embedded agents a la Whitmer conspiracy, only to be murdered in cold blood by a senior Capitol Hill officer. Democrats have a history of entertaining abortive ideation to relieve "burdens" and releasing criminals and illegal aliens. Pelosi denied national guard to conduct crowd control, enabling the Pelosi-rrection to progress, followed by the forward-looking witch hunts and denial of civil rights to citizens, and occupation of DC.

TeaBagHag said...

LOL “escaping the riot”
That traitorous cow was crawling through a window, warned multiple times to stop and kept advancing.
It’s on tape. We all saw it. Fuck right off with that MAGat kool-aid.

Marcus Bressler said...

Ronald Coleman is without credibility, involved in major gaslighting not seen since the everyday media during the Biden administration. He's worse than Kak, who I only read so I can understand the fisking and skewering he gets from others further down in the post. TBH is pathetic. THAT goes without saying. She is the definition of "a traitorous cow".
Everytime a Negro yute resists an officer of the law and advances with a knife or refuses to drop a gun and is subsequently shot, the Left screams that the fatal shot could have been avoided -- either by shooting him in his leg (Biden, right, IIRC?) or by subduing him with a taser, et cetera. Not so for Ashli Babbit.

rehajm said...

and how rarely the footage of the incident is shown.

Who is the guy on the same side of the door with her who was talking in her ear? You know, the guy with the long gun. The world will never know…

JAORE said...

"TBH, you are being reprehensible."
Jamie, you are being generous.

boatbuilder said...

If the sandwich thrower had been shot and killed by the officer he threw the sandwich at, would the officer be charged, or hailed as a hero?
Also--RJWard is Chuck. It's pretty obvious.

s'opihjerdt said...

What else has a phallic yet floppy nature can also be seen in this context as a mocking reflection of the [...]strutting, performative, hollow machismo?

https://www.outkick.com/sports/man-arrested-throwing-sex-toy-wnba-game-faces-10-criminal-charges

john mosby said...

You know, the Ashlee Babbitt shooting can be both/and. She can be a noble, brave, unarmed demonstrator, and Lt Byrd can be a reasonable LEO making a decision to use deadly force because violent people were about to come swarming through the broken door. Or he might be just unreasonable enough that a prosecutor would not be confident of a guilty verdict, which is supposed to be the DOJ standard. And she might be just insurrectiony enough for the USAF to err on the side of burial honors. Both/and judgment calls like this happen in civil wars. I say this as someone who retired from federal LE because I could not bring myself to fight for or against either side - both ways, I would wind up fighting people like me. Kind of like Captain von Trapp. RR, JSM

Michael McNeil said...

Sorry about the bold, I don’t recall how to fix it.

You're like the Sorcerer's Apprentice—you can invoke the legions of water carriers, but you can't dismiss them again.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to learn how to do so before casting such spells?

PigHelmet said...

The only Peachy I can think of offhand is Peachy Toliver Carnehan from Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King.” Definitely a dude. But it’s fun to guess at commenters’ identities from their writing, and just as enjoyable to be right as wrong.

Post a Comment

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.