Trump ‘would have standing to challenge’ his impeachment trial: Turley

Trump ‘would have standing to challenge’ his impeachment trial: Turley

Turley notes ‘a long-standing debate as to whether a former official can be impeached’

Talia Kaplan

 By Talia Kaplan | Fox News

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told “America’s Newsroom” on Wednesday that President Trump “would have standing to challenge” his impeachment trial potentially taking place after he is no longer in office “and the court could rule on it.”

Turley made the comments on Wednesday as a discussion of rules prior to a vote on whether to impeach Trump following the riot at the Capitol building last week was taking place on the House floor.  

Democratic Reps. Ted Lieu (Calif.), David Cicilline (R.I.), Jamie Raskin (Md.) and Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) introduced the articles of impeachment against Trump, charging the president with violating his oath of office. 

The calls for Trump’s removal come after the president spoke at a rally last Wednesday, telling supporters that he would “never concede” and repeating unsubstantiated claims that the election was “stolen” from him and that he won in a “landslide.”

Trump’s remarks were ahead of a joint session of Congress to certify the results of the presidential election. As members of the House and Senate raised objections to certain electoral votes, both chambers called for a recess and left their chambers as pro-Trump protesters breached the Capitol building.

Police in Washington, D.C., said the security breach at the U.S. Capitol resulted in five deaths, including a veteran who reportedly served four tours with the Air Force and a U.S. Capitol Police officer who died after suffering injuries during the riots.

With the strong possibility that a Senate trial may not happen until after President-elect Joe Biden takes office, host Sandra Smith asked Turley on Wednesday if he thinks Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over a figure who has left office.

Turley acknowledged that he did not know the answer to that question, saying, “We are well into the land of the unknown.”

“It is going to get even more bizarre once the president leaves office,” he continued. “You will be trying to remove a president who has already left. It’s like grounding a plane that’s landed and can’t take off again.”

Turley then pointed out that “the president, as a former president can argue in court that he is no longer subject to impeachment.”

“The impeachment provision refers to the purpose as the removal of the president,” he noted. “The added penalty of barring him from future office is something that occurs after conviction and removal.” 

Turley noted that there has been “a long-standing debate as to whether a former official can be impeached.”

“It happened once before, but that official was acquitted in the Senate and many senators took the view that the House had acted improperly,” Turley pointed out. 

“This is one of the few impeachment issues that actually could be resolved by the courts,” he said. “If they did impose this penalty in a type of retroactive impeachment, the president would have standing to challenge it and a court could rule on it.”

Turley also stressed on Wednesday that he didn’t think Democrats should go forward with the “snap impeachment.” He also made the point earlier in the week, explaining that the process is supposed be “deliberative,” not impulsive. 

Fox News’ David Montanaro and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.



Could Trump Face Impeachment Trial After Leaving Office? 7 Things to Know

Fred Lucas @FredLucasWH / January 11, 2021 / 0 Comments

A protester identified as Kenneth Lundgreen makes his point Monday as police set up barricades outside Twitter’s corporate headquarters in San Francisco after the social media giant permanently barred President Donald Trump from its platform. (Photo: Josh Edelson/AFP/ Getty Images)

Democrats want to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, but they’ll have to hurry—even to get a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives. 

The goal of a second impeachment would be to disqualify Trump from holding office again. Or, more to the point, prevent him from running for president in 2024. 

Here are seven things to know as impeachment moves forward, again. 

1. When Would Impeachment Happen?

It appears likely that the Democrat-controlled House would impeach Trump before he leaves office but deliver the article or articles of impeachment to the Senate after President-elect Joe Biden takes office. This could reportedly happen as early as Wednesday. 

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

House Democrats introduced one article of impeachment Monday, charging the president with “incitement of insurrection.” 

The measure was co-authored by Reps. David Cicilline, D-R.I., Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., all members of the House Judiciary Committee and close to House Democrat leadership. 

In a public statement, the three Democrats said:

Last Wednesday marked one of the darkest days in the history of our country. After months of agitation and propaganda against the results of the 2020 election, the United States Capitol—the citadel of our democracy—was attacked as President Trump’s supporters attempted to stage a coup and overturn the results of our free and fair presidential election. We cannot allow this unprecedented provocation to go unanswered. Everyone involved in this assault must be held accountable, beginning with the man most responsible for it – President Donald Trump. We cannot begin to heal the soul of this country without first delivering swift justice to all its enemies—foreign and domestic.

The House Judiciary Committee could expedite the matter without a hearing and pass articles of impeachment with a party-line vote, as it did in late 2019. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she would bring a vote on impeachment to the House floor if Vice President Mike Pence didn’t convene the Cabinet to remove Trump under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. 

Most constitutional legal scholars say the 25th Amendment wouldn’t be applicable in this case because it was meant for circumstances when a president is incapacitated.  

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he would bring up Raskin’s proposal to form a 25th Amendment Commission to evaluate the physical and mental fitness of the president for continuity of government. The congressional commission still would have to work with the vice president.

Pelosi tweeted Monday that the House would vote on the 25th Amendment legislation, and if this did not succeed, “As our next step, we will move forward with bringing impeachment legislation to the Floor.”

It requires only a simple majority in the House to approve articles of impeachment. However, it requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, after a trial, to remove a president from office. 

In late 2019 and early 2020, Trump—like Presidents Bill Clinton in 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868—was impeached in the House and acquitted by the Senate. 

Those previous impeachments of presidents, as well as impeachments of judges, had a goal in mind, said Thomas Jipping, former chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was involved in the impeachment trial of a federal judge in 2010.

“It is supposed to be the first step in the removal of a public official from office,” Jipping, deputy director of the Mees Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “What is the point of removing someone from office who doesn’t occupy that office?”

An ABC News poll found 56% want Trump to leaveoffice before the end of his term. 

2. How Would Disqualification Work?

Trump and some supporters have indicated he would run again for president in the 2024 race. 

But the Senate could vote to disqualify Trump from holding any future federal office. 

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution says that if a federal official is convicted in an impeachment trial, “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” 

Unlike removal from office, the Senate needs only a simple majority to disqualify someone from holding office. However, a two-thirds vote for removal must first occur before moving forward to the disqualification vote. 

“The Senate trial would require a two-thirds votes on removal, after that, the next step would be further sanction, mainly prohibiting him from holding office again,” Michael Lawlor, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven, told The Daily Signal.

Lawlor helped lead the impeachment effort against a Connecticut governor. 

“They could potentially strip [Trump] of a presidential pension, Secret Service protection and a presidential stipend,” he said.

Lawlor, a Democrat, was chairman of the Connecticut Legislature’s House Judiciary Committee and a member of the House impeachment committee investigating then-Gov. John G. Rowland, a Republican, in 2004. In that case, Rowland resigned and the House took no further action.  

3. When Would Senate Hold a Trial?

Senate rules say an impeachment trial must begin at 1 p.m. the day after the Senate receives the article or articles of impeachment from those chosen to be the House impeachment managers. 

So, the earliest a trial could start would be when the Senate is back in session, which Jan. 20. That’s the day of Biden’s inauguration as president. 

However, Senate Democrat Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., reportedly will seek the support of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to use a 2004 Senate rule to allow the leaders to recall the Senate into emergency session before Jan. 20.

But the second Senate trial of Trump could happen more than three months later. 

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., saidSunday that the House could take up impeachment this week, but hold off on delivering articles of impeachment to the Senate until after 100 days into Biden’s term. 

The reason would be to prevent a distraction from Biden’s legislative agenda, Clyburn said. 

An impeachment at this point would be almost entirely political theater, presidential historian Craig Shirley says. 

“This would be a sequel to a bad movie,” Shirley told The Daily Signal, adding: “Even for Democrats, Trump is good for ratings; whether someone has a good, bad, or indifferent view of Trump, he draws attention.”

4. Could the Senate Disqualify Trump From Future Office?

Once all the senators are seated for an impeachment trial, to convict Trump would require 17 Republican senators to vote with all Senate Democrats. 

Again, the Senate could not move to a simple majority vote to disqualify Trump from holding office unless it already had a vote of two-thirds or more to convict the president. 

To put it one way, a conviction requires a supermajority of 67 out of 100 senators. A sentencing would require only 51 votes. 

After Georgia Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff take office, the Senate will be split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. And once sworn in as Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris, in her role as president of the Senate, will give the Democrats a majority in case of tie votes.

Many Senate Republicans—including Ben Sasseof Nebraska, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—expressed strong disapproval of some of Trump’s remarks to supporters in a rally  before the Capitol riot. But reaching 17 Republican votes to convict would be difficult, particularly if Trump already is out of office. 

Given the slim chance of a conviction, impeachment after Trump leaves office would be largely a political move, Jipping said. 

“They want him to leave office as bruised and roughed up as possible, and sullied in the eyes of the public,” Jipping said. “The point would be to inflict as much damage politically as possible.”

But there is a path to convicting Trump, Lawlor said. If Trump or his associates were aware that rhetoric at the rally was a signal to riot at the Capitol, he said, Republican senators likely would get on board. 

“I’m not sure it’s that unlikely,” Lawlor said, adding:

It depends on what we find out over the next few weeks. Was there some collusion with the folks at the Capitol? Republicans might say, it was really that bad. … If there is evidence this was an intended outcome, if Trump—aside from maybe being a cheerleader—knew this would happen, more Republicans would vote to convict.

5. What Happens If Trump Pardons Himself?

Whether a president can pardon himself never has been tested, though Trump reportedly is considering the move.  

The Constitution’s pardon clause provides that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

So, a pardon would shield Trump from prosecution at the federal level, but it would have no effect on Congress’s power to impeach and remove him. 

A pardon also wouldn’t prevent Trump from being prosecuted at the state level. New York Attorney General Letitia James has targeted Trump, long a New York-based developer and businessman. 

“For a president to pardon himself would give the appearance a president of the United States is completely above the law,” Lawlor said. “It would be tested in the Supreme Court. It’s like a law school debate of nightmare scenarios.”

Constitutional scholars argue about the topic, Shirley said. 

He said it will take time for emotions to cool and temperatures to lower to assess Trump’s presidency and accomplishments such as record economic growth, Middle East treaties, and successful development of vaccines to fight COVID-19.

“He didn’t end his presidency well,” Shirley said. “He had a good story to tell as a one-term president. It would have been a good story to tell for a two-term president. But you can’t judge the Trump presidency without judging his character. It’s not just accomplishments. It’s also character.”

6. What Other Impeached Officials Were Disqualified?

Out of 15 federal judges impeached in U.S. history, eight were removed from office. The Senate voted to disqualify three of those eight judges from holding federal office again. 

In 1862, Judge West H. Humphreys of the Western District of Tennessee was the first judge to be impeached, convicted, removed, and disqualified from holding future office. 

Humphreys stands out for being found guilty of “waging war on the U.S. government” during the Civil War.

The other two judges prohibited from holding office again had been charged with corruption: Judge Robert W. Archibold of the U.S. Commerce Court in 1912, and Judge Thomas Porteus of the Eastern District of Louisiana in 2010. 

The most notable federal judge to be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate but not disqualified from holding future office was Judge Alcee Hastings of the Southern District of Florida. In 1988, the House charged Hastings with perjury and soliciting a bribe.

After he was acquitted in a later criminal trial, Hastings ran for Congress in 1992 and won. He continues to represent Florida’s 20th Congressional District. 

 7. What Usually Happens When an Impeached Official Is Out of Office?

The House in 1876 impeached a Cabinet secretary after he had left office. The Senate acquitted him in a trial. 

In the most recent example, the Senate in 2010 dropped a trial for a federal judge who had resigned. 

Judge Samuel Kent of the Southern District of Texas was accused of sexual misconduct in August 2008. Kent pleaded not guilty to five related charges. 

The next month, he pleaded guilty in a criminal court to obstruction of justice in connection with making false statements to a special investigative committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The guilty plea to obstruction allowed Kent to avoid prosecution on the other charges.As part of the plea, though, the judge admitted to engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact with two court employees. He was sentenced to 33 months. 

A special House investigative committee to explore impeachment, chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, who would go on to lead the impeachment of Trump, began hearings with Kent’s alleged victims on June 2, 2009. 

Kent had announced that he would resign in a year—on June 1, 2010, which would have allowed him to continue collecting his salary for a year. Kent reported to prison on June 15, 2009. 

The House on June 9 recommended four articles of impeachment against Kent. The House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the articles and sent the articles to the House floor the next day. 

On June 19, the full House approved two articles of impeachment related to sexual assault, one for obstruction of justice and another for providing false statements to the FBI. 

The Senate trial began June 24 with Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., as chairwoman and Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., as vice chairman of the specially appointed Senate Impeachment Trial Committee. The same committee handled the trial of Porteus. 

On June 25, when Senate staffers traveled to a prison to present Kent with a summons to testify, the judge gave them a handwritten resignationnote. This time the resignation was effective June 30, 2009.

The House then passed a resolution, HR 661, to end the Kent proceeding, and the Senate special committee took no further action on Kent. 

“There would have been no point in moving forward with a vote to remove him from office because he already quit,” Jipping said. “After HR 661, there was no reason to pursue any further.” 

Another example, in the executive branch, goes back to the scandal-plagued War Secretary William Belknap of  the Grant administration. In 1876, a House investigation found evidence that Belknap took part in kickbacks and other corruption involving a military vendor that paid $20,000 to the war secretary. 

On March 2, 1876, Belknap resigned from office just minutes before the House was scheduled to impeach him. The Democrat-controlled House nevertheless approved five articles of impeachment, including one accusing Belknap of “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The fact that Belknap no longer held office didn’t prevent the Republican-controlled Senate from holding a trial. On Aug. 1, 1876, a Senate majority voted in favor of all five articles of impeachment against Belknap—well short of the two-thirds required to convict.

The former war secretary was acquitted and never prosecuted.


I have read several books by Alan Dershowitz and he is a liberal but he does look at the constitution honestly and here he has made some very insightful observations that I am sure will upset Democrats but nonetheless will not slow them down from impeaching the President a second time because of their hate of all things Trump!

Dershowitz: Senate Rules Would Prevent Impeachment Trial Of Trump

Dershowitz: Senate Rules Would Prevent Impeachment Trial Of TrumpAn image from video of Alan Dershowitz, an attorney for President Donald Trump, walking from the podium after speaking on behalf of the president during the impeachment trial in the Senate on Jan. 27, 2020. (Senate Television via AP)By Newsmax Wires 
Sunday, 10 Jan 2021 2:42 PM

Join in the Discussion!

Harvard law professor and constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Sunday warned an impeachment of President Donald Trump won’t go to trial — but could “lie around like a loaded weapon” for both parties in the future.

In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Dershowitz said a Senate trial of citizen Trump would be unconstitutional.

“It will not go to trial,” he said. “All Democrats can do is impeach the president in House of Representatives, for that you only need a majority vote. 

“The case cannot come to trial in the Senate” because of rules that do no allow it until, “according to the Majority Leader [Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.), until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20” — an hour after Trump leaves office.

Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

“Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it’d be a private citizen in Donald Trump or …. Barack Obama or anyone else,” he said. “The jurisdiction is limited to a sitting president and so there won’t be a trial.”

But Dershowitz said he worried more about  is“the impact of impeachment on the First Amendment.”

“For 100 years the Supreme Court and other courts have struggled to develop a juris prudence which distinguishes between advocacy and incitement.”

“To impeach a president for having exercised his First Amendment rights would be so dangerous to the Constitution, it would lie around like a loaded weapon ready to be used by either party against the other party and that’s not what impeachment nor the 25th amendment were intended to be,” Dershowitz said.

Read Newsmax: Newsmax – Breaking News | News Videos | Politics, Health, Finance
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

Mark Levin Podcast * Mark’s radio show | 08 January 2021

Levin: Media ‘exploiting’ Capitol riot to ‘silence conservatives’ as Democrats work to ‘choke the system’

‘The media have played a huge, huge role in what’s going on in this country,’ says ‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ host

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

The mainstream media is “exploiting” Wednesday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to “silence” conservatives and Republicans, Mark Levin says on this week’s episode of “Life, Liberty & Levin.”

The host emphasizes that “we should be furious about what happened on Capitol Hill,” but adds that “the media have played a huge, huge role in what’s going on in this country.”

“We need to reject all this violence, but what about the media?” asks Levin before displaying front pages of various newspapers from around the country. 

“The New York Times: ‘Trump Incites Mob’. This is projection,” Levin contends. “This is projection. He never did that. Or The Washington Post: ‘Trump mob storms Capitol’. There were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people there … That’s an awfully broad brush. Or the [New York] Daily News: ‘President Incites Insurrection’ … or USA Today: ‘Pro-Trump Mobs Storm US [sic] Capitol’. How about ‘Thugs Storm U.S. Capitol’? How about ‘Lawbreakers Storm U.S. Capitol’?”

Levin then calls out politicians like Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who he says are also “exploiting the situation.”

“They’re talking about impeaching the president of the United States or [invoking] the 25th Amendment nine days before he leaves office,” the host says. “Do they even know what’s involved in the 25th Amendment?


“So they double down, they triple down, they quadruple down. They’re not going to change at all. On one side of their mouth, they talk about unity. Out of the other side of their mouth, they spit on people,” he goes on. “Seventy-four million [Trump-voting] people and more, they’re not going away. Their concerns still exist.”

Meanwhile, Levin says, House Democrats are working toward their goal to “choke the system even further” by passing a rules package for the 117th Congressthat makes it “virtually impossible for Republicans to even propose legislation or amend legislation, even though [they] only has a 10- or 11-person majority in the House.”

“Nancy Pelosi … eliminated 100 years of tradition …”, the host argues, “and the media are trying to intimidate conservatives and constitutionalists by projecting onto them the violence that occurred by reprobates and others who need to be tracked down and punished.

“So it seems that the lessons have not been learned,” Levin concludes. “They certainly haven’t been learned by the left, they certainly haven’t been learned by the media, and they certainly haven’t been learned by the Never Trumpers.”


December 13, 2020

Office of Barack and Michelle Obama
P.O. Box 91000
Washington, DC 20066

Dear President Obama,

I wrote you over 700 letters while you were President and I mailed them to the White House and also published them on my blog .I received several letters back from your staff and I wanted to thank you for those letters. 

I have been reading your autobiography A PROMISED LAND and I have been enjoying it. 

Let me make a few comments on it, and here is the first quote of yours I want to comment on:

The story of how this postwar consensus broke down—starting with LBJ’s signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his prediction that it would lead to the South’s wholesale abandonment of the Democratic Party—has been told many times before. The realignment Johnson foresaw ended up taking longer than he had expected. But steadily, year by year—through Vietnam, RIOTS…and Nixon’s southern strategy; through busing, Roe v. Wade, urban crime, and white flight; through affirmative action, the Moral Majority, union busting, and Robert Bork; through assault weapons bans and the rise of Newt Gingrich…and the Clinton impeachment—America’s voters and their representatives became more and more polarized.

During 2020 I have noticed lots of riots and looting across the USA and I wanted to ask you why it is always the liberals doing that? AND WHY DIDN’T ANYONE CONDEMN THESE ACTIONS AT THE 2020 CONVENTION AND DIDN’T YOU SPEAK AT THE CONVENTION TOO?

Philadelphia Riots Another Case of Street Violence Used to Advance Radical Political Agendas

Philadelphia Riots Are Another Case of Street Violence Used to Advance Radical Political Agendas

James Carafano @JJCarafano / October 28, 2020 / 4 Comments

Philadelphia Riots

In Kenosha, Portland, Seattle, and Chicago, city officials have tolerated criminal activity performed by mobs for politically motivated reasons. Philadelphia appears to be the next hotspot for mob violence to go unchecked. Pictured: A barricade is set on fire during a night of looting and violence in Philadelphia on Oct. 27. (Photo: Gabriella Audi/AFP/Getty Images)


James Carafano@JJCarafano

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research.

Like the replay of a bad movie, a law enforcement incident in Philadelphia triggered an excuse for violence and looting. It remains to be seen whether the City of Brotherly Love will become the next “Kenosha,” where city officials moved quickly to restore order and seek state and federal support—though sadly after 48 hours of opportunistic looting, violence, and destruction devastated the city.

Or perhaps Philadelphia will be the next PortlandSeattle, or Chicago, where systemic attacks seem to be a daily occurrence.

Police in Philadelphia are fully capable of restoring peace. The open question is whether the mayor and Larry Krasner, the former defense attorney-turned elected rogue prosecutor, will do their job and hold people accountable for their crimes.

When local, state, and federal governments work together, act quickly, and demonstrate no tolerance for organized violence to advance radical agendas, communities are kept safe and equal protection under the law is afforded for all citizens.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

On the other hand, when local officials, the media, and politicians ignore, excuse, normalize, and enable violence, everyday Americans pay the price.

There is a plague sweeping this country that many don’t want to talk about: The deliberate use of street violence to advance radical political agendas, often under a smoke screen of campaigning for civil liberties. The evidence of organized criminal activity at the root of the outbreaks in American cities is mounting.

The list of people enabling this violence sadly includes some public officials, who are principally responsible for ensuring public safety. For example, a growing threat to peaceful communities is “rogue prosecutors,” former criminal defense attorneys recruited and funded by liberal billionaire backers, who—once elected—abuse their office by refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes.

These rogue prosecutors are usurping the power of the legislature in the process, and ignoring victim’s rights—all to advance their politics.

Baltimore is a perfect  example. Since being sworn into office, under the watch of Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby.

Rogue prosecutors fuel street violence by refusing to prosecute rioters and looters. When confronted with the rising crimes rates, Mosby called the statistics “rhetoric.”

The only way to break the cycle of violence is for local and state officials to work with each other, and if necessary, the federal government. They need to stop enabling the destruction of property and lives on their streets, and start investigating and prosecuting the individuals (and organizations) behind the riots.

It’s time to start shaming and calling out the media, politicians, and advocates who excuse and normalize the violence.

There is a proven action plan for making our streets safe. It is past time for officials to start following this blueprint.

There is no time—zero time to waste. There are already fears of more violence in our streets, regardless of the outcome of the national elections.

In my hometown of Washington, D.C., downtown buildings are already boarding up in anticipation of violence on our streets after the election. If Trump wins, violence. If Biden wins, violence. This makes no sense, and it’s time for it to stop.

It is time for every official and public figure, every political party, in every part of the country to publically reject violence on American streets as a legitimate form of protected speech. Violence is not protected speech, period.

The notion of deliberately destroying the lives and property of our neighbors to advance a radical political agenda is abhorrent. American leaders—of all stripes—should stand up now as one and reject these violent acts. It has gone on for too long, well before the death of George Floyd.

Leaders in Philadelphia and across America must take a principled stand to demand the end to this violence, and they need to do it before the election. In one voice, they should demand: “Leave our streets alone.”


Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 293) (Founding Fathers’ view on Christianity, Elbridge Gerry of MA)

April 10, 2013 – 7:02 am

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. There have […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding FathersPresident Obama | Edit |Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 5, John Hancock)

May 8, 2012 – 1:48 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 4, Elbridge Gerry)

May 7, 2012 – 1:46 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 3, Samuel Adams)

May 4, 2012 – 1:45 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 2, John Quincy Adams)

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 1, John Adams)

May 2, 2012 – 1:13 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. Lillian Kwon quoted somebody […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

President Obama and the Founding Fathers

May 8, 2013 – 9:20 am

President Obama Speaks at The Ohio State University Commencement Ceremony Published on May 5, 2013 President Obama delivers the commencement address at The Ohio State University. May 5, 2013. You can learn a lot about what President Obama thinks the founding fathers were all about from his recent speech at Ohio State. May 7, 2013, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding FathersPresident Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the founding fathers and their belief in inalienable rights

December 5, 2012 – 12:38 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Bill Graham. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding FathersFrancis SchaefferProlife | Edit |Comments (1)

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 4)

May 30, 2012 – 1:35 am

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 4/6 There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Tagged governor of connecticutjohn witherspoonjonathan trumbull | Edit | Comments (1)

Were the founding fathers christian?

May 23, 2012 – 7:04 am

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes: Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Founding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

June 29, 2011 – 3:58 pm

I do  not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his  father was. However, I do think he was involved in the  early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good  Morning America” today, standing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David BartonFounding Fathers | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

July 6, 2013 – 1:26 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas TimesFrancis SchaefferProlife | Edit |Comments (0)

Article from Adrian Rogers, “Bring back the glory”

June 11, 2013 – 12:34 am

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian RogersFrancis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning the possibility that minorities may be mistreated under 51% rule

June 9, 2013 – 1:21 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ____________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: