Qualified Immunity

With 1 Republican Cosponsor, Rep. Justin Amash Gains Tripartisan Support To End Qualified Immunity

Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.) announced he will support the Ending Qualified Immunity Act.


For the first time in U.S. congressional history, a bill has support from a Libertarian-Democratic-Republican coalition of lawmakers.

Introduced by Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.), the Ending Qualified Immunity Act seeks to squash a legal doctrine that allows public officials to violate your civil rights with impunity if those rights have not yet been "clearly established" by preexisting case law.

"It is the sense of the Congress that we must correct the erroneous interpretation of section 1983 which provides for qualified immunity, and reiterate the standard found on the face of the statute," the bill reads, "which does not limit ability on the basis of the defendant's good faith beliefs or on the basis that the right was not 'clearly established' at the time of the violation."

Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.) signed on to cosponsor, joining Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) and a lengthy list of other Democratic legislators who support Amash's legislation. The death of George Floyd, the unarmed black man who was killed by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, prompted the Republican lawmaker to back the bill.

"Whatever his motive, the killer of George Floyd had 18 complaints for misconduct, and one of his accomplices had six. Why is such misconduct tolerated by big city police departments?" he asked. "Is it because the doctrine of qualified immunity shields corrupt officials from accountability for a wide range of crimes?"

Though qualified immunity was never meant to shield police officers from actual crimes, it sports a sordid history of doing just that. The "clearly established" standard—referred to by Amash in his bill—has become an increasingly Herculean task to meet. As I wrote earlier today:

In Howse v. Hodous (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit gave qualified immunity to two officers who allegedly assaulted and arrested a man on bogus charges for the crime of standing outside of his own house. There was also the sheriff's deputy in Coffee County, Georgia, who shot a 10-year-old boy while aiming at a non-threatening dog; the cop in Los Angeles who shot a 15-year-old boy on his way to school because the child's friend had a plastic gun; and two cops in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant.

The cops in those cases received protection under the legal doctrine because the judiciary had not yet established in near-identical terms that those actions were unconstitutional. In other words, officers need clearer notice to know, for example, that stealing is wrong.

Even so, qualified immunity still has its supporters. "'Clearly established' means that the law is so clear at the time of the incident that every reasonable officer would understand the unlawfulness of his conduct," Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit wrote in the majority opinion for Howse. "To avoid 'paralysis by analysis,' qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent officers or those who knowingly violate the law."

When considering how the doctrine works in practice, the contradiction in Thapar's reasoning is a bit hard to ignore. Only "plainly incompetent officers" and "those who knowingly violate the law" are exempt from qualified immunity, he says. And yet it still shielded two cops who could not deduce without the help of the courts that taking hundreds of thousands of dollars is a violation of someone's constitutional rights.

Brynne Kennedy, the Democrat facing McClintock in the November election, called his stance "a welcome surprise," according to McClatchy. It shouldn't be, however, when considering that McClintock has historically erred on the side of support for police reform, even before he clinched his seat in the House.

"No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason," he said yesterday. "The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses."

For her part, Kennedy isn't impressed. McClintock must show he will "protect Social Security and Medicare, combat corruption, and lower the cost of prescription drugs," she said. Otherwise, his bipartisanship—rather, tripartisanship—is moot. But that logic represents a backward understanding of crosspartisan lawmaking. Ironically, by Kennedy's definition, bipartisanship can only exist when everyone already agrees with the core tenets of her platform.

That attitude is also counterproductive to striking down awful legal doctrines like qualified immunity and perhaps explains, in part, why so few lawmakers are willing to cross those political trenches.

Just last week, I wrote about the Republicans' hesitance to support Amash's bill—an odd trend when considering the GOP claims to be the party of small government. Qualified immunity puts more power in the hands of the already-powerful at the expense of the little guy. One hopes that more might follow McClintock's lead, understanding that principled leadership need not be hamstrung by tribalism.

NEXT: Lacking a State-Issued Degree Shouldn't Bar You From Pursuing Vocational Education

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So Amash is going to pass a law that makes it illegal to bypass the law for people who routinely bypass the law…

    It’s simple Justin. Criminalizing breaking the law means that only criminals will break the law…

    QI is a violation of title 18 section 241 of the US federal code. We have judges to deal with and they won’t be listening to Justin’s law any more than they are Madison’s laws.

    1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job.xcx Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction

      on the given website………… See More here

    2. Uh, you missed the whole point. THE JUDGES declared that cops have qualified immunity! It was never a law, it was a horrendous misinterpretation to let the cops off the hook for crimes committed by cops.

      Amash is trying to REVERSE that! To ensure that cops will be liable for the acts they commit.

  2. For the first time in U.S. congressional history, a bill has support from a Libertarian-Democratic-Republican coalition of lawmakers.


      1. I am now getting paid every month more than $31,000 by doing very easy job online from home. I have earned last month $31540 from this easy job just by giving this job only 2 to 3 hrs a day using my laptop. Everybody on this earth can now get this job and start making more cash online just by follow instructions on this web page… More Reading

    1. yeah perfect.

      1. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Last month my pay check of nearly 30 k$.This online work is like draw straight-arrow and earn money.Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I just work.You will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this WEBSITE.I
        hope,you can find something,Simply go to the below SITE.GOOD LUCK COPY THIS WEBSITE……….. GoodProfits.Com

    2. I’m kinda excited about it.

      1. Thanks for not being a cynical asshole.

        1. You two zealots are anything but cynical, Jeff.

          1. Jeff’s not here, Mrs. Torrance.

            1. Only Jeff would be edgy enough to try to LARP his socks as “possessed”.

              1. Why are people here always accusing other people of being some other person?

              2. Umm, thank you?

    3. Keep up the good smirk

  3. I’ve read the post over twice, and I think what he’s saying is that the bill has been introduced and has sponsors–not that it’s passed?

    The bill did not pass with tri-partisan support (not that Amash was elected as a registered Libertarian). The big news here is that a bill was introduced, and Justin Amash supports it–and Binion is giving him a fuckin’ trophy?

    Am I reading that right?

    1. In more important news, here’s Gwarsenio Hall covering Snakes of Christ with Gina Gleason of Baroness–each from their own locked down apartments in NYC (presumably).


      1. HOLY CRAP.

        That was amazing!

        Dude’s better than Danzig and that guitar player chick was smokin’.

        You are right. It was a better 5 minutes on that parody than on this dumbass article.

      2. yeah that was fun. pretty telecaster.

      3. Tight.

        Gina’s fun.

      4. Thanks!!! Awesome

      5. Dude, that was fucking awesome!

      6. I give this video a five out of five, will definitely watch again and again and again …

    2. We don’t come to Binion articles to learn anything or clarification, we come here to lob insults at him until he learns to be better. I’m starting to lose hope.

      1. Can a non-event happen? It something happens then it isn’t a non-event. I’m not sure anything happened here, really. I’m not even sure what this post is supposed to be about!

        I remember when the media was obsessed with Sarah Palin. I remember seeing Entertainment Tonight or something like it, and the lead story was all about how Sarah Palin wasn’t going to Grammys.

        When the story is about something that isn’t happening, you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel. It has something to do with qualified immunity and Justin Amash, and that’s the important thing, amirite?

        1. If we didn’t write about the things Amash wasn’t doing, could we even prove he exists? These are questions for philosophers, Ken.

          1. Brown Envelope Binion still owes the Amash 2020 campaign an article a week.

        2. Yeah, but Palin was hot, so who cares?

    3. The point is that, for the first time in history, a truly tripartisan bill has been written, endorsed by a Dem, a Rep, and the first big-L registered Libertarian, not to mention first non-independent, non-duopolistic congressman, in many, many years. That’s the point.

      Seems pretty simple to me, Ken. Not hard to understand at all. So what’s the problem? Don’t like Amash?

      1. I think he, like me, is kinda bummed we bothered to read this article.

        I have learned a lesson here about Binion.

        Skip the article and head for the comments directly. Way better content in the comments.

      2. How is libertarian different than Independent? There have been independents who have signed on to Bill’s prior.

        1. libertarians have a plan. Independents are just lost. 😉

          1. Congressional libertarians seem to be primarily contrarian. Guess that’s a type of plan.

        2. Isn’t most of what Bernie Sanders votes on Tripartisan? What about AOC? Isn’t she a Democratic Socialist? I mean I know they caucus with the Ds. Hmmm. Who does Amash caucus with these days? Does he caucus at all?

          1. AOC is endorsed and put on the socialist ticket but she is a registered dem.

        3. Because Libertarian is a party. Independent is not.

        4. Umm, you actually need an explanation about the difference between the Libertarian Party and non-afflilated independent?

      3. “for the first time in history, a truly tripartisan bill has been written”

        I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but this is also the first time a Libertarian congressman has decided NOT to go to the moon for summer vacation.

        Momentous occasion, isn’t it.

        1. Yay. There’s bill full text in this article, at least. Still not at Thomas, but baby steps.

          A couple of people in Congress think it’s a good idea. McClintock’s been around awhile, generally gets a few things done. Good.

          Now, let’s see it get out of committee.

          1. McClintock was always one of the most sensible California legislators.

      4. Isn’t Bernie a Socialist? He never got a Republican to support one of his bills?

    4. Wasn’t Amash bashed around here endlessly because, supposedly, “all he did was name a post office”?

      Now, here is an opportunity for Amash to be a part of something much more significant than that.

      But of course, libertarians gotta libertarian and that has to be criticized as well.

      1. He named 2 post offices asshole.

        And we get it. Your sense of accomplishment is not getting anything done, just started.

        1. How’s that wall coming?

          1. Why do you change the subject?

          2. Great.
            Not as good as your wall, but still coming along nicely.

        2. Yeah, that comment really needed a gratuitous “asshole” thrown in. Like a dash of JesseAz salt.

          1. Fuck off, Jeff. Go troll somewhere else.

            1. Nope, not going anywhere. Gonna stay here and serve my lord and master, Guy who hijacked tulpa’s handle. He really showed the way one should behave here.

    5. Yes Ken, you are reading it right.

    6. Sorry that the bill is bumming your day.

    7. The point is that there are co-sponsors from three parties in congress. Personally I believe that government officials and employees should have not more immunity than everyday citizens. To safeguard against frivolous lawsuits, I also believe that a jury should have the right to determine that a lawsuit is bogus and penalize a plaintiff and their lawyers.

      1. The contingency fee system, along with summary judgment proceedings, are highly effective in preventing frivolous lawsuits from going to trial.

  4. >>Libertarian-Democratic-Republican coalition of lawmakers.

    lol if not some portend of Beelzebub I don’t know what is

    1. Sorry, but according to the calendar, Beelzebub is not scheduled to arrive this year. Maybe next year?

      1. Mayhem as Time’s Man of the Year made me laff this morning.

        1. Accurate take

      2. Hey look, it’s a graph of all the things that cytotoxic the Torontonian manchild thinks are equivalent to a cold virus.

        1. Actually, it’s a funny joke.
          Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?
          Why don’t you chill out or something.

          1. Actually, it’s a funny joke.

            No, it’s an unbelievably fucking lame reddit-tier meme that reinforces your idiotic panic-mongering urbanite masturbatory fantasies about the coronavirus. You are a joke, you’re just not funny. That about clear it up, or do you have any more iFunny OC for us?

            1. It’s a joke.
              And get help.

    2. It’s often noted how bipartisan bills mean they’re really screwing us.
      Odd to celebrate now with a 3rd party joined

      1. worst. threesome. ever.

  5. In a previous thread I had stated that the Seattle PD was rumoured to be abandoning the West Precinct, which I indicated was in my neighborhood. I am wrong about its location. My precinct is the SouthWest Precinct. West Precinct is downtown. I should have known better, because Antifa prefers neighborhoods where you can get an organic, fair trade coffee. The SouthWest precinct is in an entirely un-hip neighborhood, situated near an AM/PM and that other place where their alt-right maintenance man buys stuff to fix around their apartment building.

    1. Don’t know how I screwed that up, but the link was supposed to be to Home Depot. The place where fascists shop for lawn implements and drywall screws.

      1. Not all people who by lawn implements and drywall screws from Home Depot are fascist, but all fascists get their lawn implements and drywall screws at Home Depot. Fact.

        1. Silence == support. By shopping at the Fascist outlet, you are complicit in fascistness.

          1. Complicit in fascistisness???? Fascisticity??? Fascistisism?? Let’s just go with nazi. HD shoppers are all nazis.

    2. The Joe West precinct? Because they didn’t fire the Elongated Man fast enough?

  6. an anti-T protest is going on within range of my bleach-bottle launched balloons filled w/tomato soup am I violating NAP if I go forward w/the launch?

    1. You’d be violating the NAP if you didn’t launch.
      Fuck Marxists

      1. And… Here’s Nadless Nardless to explain (as you would to a child!) that Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.) is a horrible MARXIST for supporting even the VAGUEST notions about cops being held accountable for their actions!

        If even respectable Government-Almighty-fearing REPUBLICANS are turning AGAINST lawn order, as defined by Nadless Nardless, then WHO is going to mow our lawns for us?!?!? WHO, I ask, WHO?!?! Because we all know, if illegal sub-humans are allowed to mow our yards and give us “lawn order”, the Very Universe as we Know it, will IMPLODE!!!


        1. meds dude…

          1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

            So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

            Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

            Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

            Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

            At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

            Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

            Thank You! -Reason Staff

            1. Nobody likes you

              1. I beg to differ!!!!
                Government Almighty LOVES me!!!!

                Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

                Government loves me, This I know,
                For the Government tells me so,
                Little ones to GAWD belong,
                We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                My Nannies tell me so!

                GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
                Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
                Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
                And gives me all that I might need!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                My Nannies tell me so!

                DEA, CIA, KGB,
                Our protectors, they will be,
                FBI, TSA, and FDA,
                With us, astride us, in every way!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
                My Nannies tell me so!

              2. I kinda like SQRLSY.

                1. Nobody likes you either

            2. Sorry, my bad.

              Your meds are obviously just better than mine. 😉

              1. Sqrlsy won’t swallow them unless his mom hides them in a poo, first.

      2. That’s weird. He said “anti-T”, which I’m guessing is “anti-Trump”. How does being against Trump, like over half the people in this country, translate into being Marxist?

        1. Not sure why anyone who hangs out at a libertarian website would get all that bent out of shape about an anti-Trump protest, but here we are.

          1. “waaaah”

            1. You can tell when Nardz has started drinking in the evening.

    2. What happens after they’re out of your control has nothing to do with you. Which is the ultimate libertarian philosophical position.

  7. Ironically, by Kennedy’s definition, bipartisanship can only exist when everyone already agrees with the core tenets of her platform.

    That is the standard DeRp definition of bipartisan. Anything ‘smaller’ than that is simply ‘You agree with us on this – and we’ll admit you just agreed with us on this.’

  8. A simpler task might be to legislate against asset forfeiture, no-knock warrants, distribution of surplus military equipment, and eliminate the drug war. Probably stop 80% of the interactions that result in QI situations.

    1. Shhhhh. QI is the buzzword. The mob has spoken.

      1. Not one iota from your cult, yet you sit here and criticize the only people doing anything about police accountability. Cool cool.

        What’s wrong with ending QI? Trump doesn’t like it, that’s what.

        1. It’s a first step.

      2. Don’t think the idea of ending QI came from the mob. It’s more the kind of idea that comes from someone who has thought about the problem.

        The mob came up with “Defund the police”, and then had to have a 10 minute John Oliver video explain that it didn’t really mean what it literally meant.

    2. ” simpler task might be to legislate against asset forfeiture, no-knock warrants, distribution of surplus military equipment, and eliminate the drug war.”

      Ding, ding, ding!
      Hell, any 2/4 would lead to VAST improvement.
      But Reason has been given the QI talking point because the progressives don’t really want to solve anything, and the sycophants here will follow and celebrate like obedient sheep being sheered on their way to the slaughterhouse.

      1. Sure. Doesn’t get more progressive than Tom McClintock.

      2. Actually getting rid of QI would have a much broader impact than outlawing those specific acts. Why not both?

    3. Hey look. A city implemented change quickly because they actually pushed commonly accepted reform measures.


      This will not be challenged through standing. There is no judicial doctrine worry. It just fixes a problem. But let’s keep the focus elsewhere.

      1. Hey look, let’s keep trying to come up with unspecific, unfounded complaints about ending QI, otherwise it makes Trump and the GOP look like total statist cop-suckers!

        1. No, youre the one talking about Trump.
          The problem with QI reform?
          It’s a bauble that seems to make you forget about all the far more significant things longtobefree mentioned

          1. He’s talking about Trump because he knows you and your history of ridiculous Trump apologizing arguments.

            1. Your flailing was fun for a minute, but just got sad a long time ago.
              I’m honestly amazed you hate yourself enough to not commit suicide

    4. All good stuff, but that does not sound simpler or easier.

  9. “And yet it still shielded two cops who could not deduce without the help of the courts that taking hundreds of thousands of dollars is a violation of someone’s constitutional rights.”

    When everything is reductionist, your opponents sure do look retarded. Care to actually discuss the case? You hid a link within a link to get to your actual original article on the subject, and all that says is that there were alleged illegal gambling operators that police executed a warrant on and confiscated allegedly illegal assets that were not listed on the warrant and pocketed the rest for themselves.

    So how about we actually discuss the facts? Did the officers actually steal? Did the accused just make up some bullshit figure about what was confiscated? Maybe you just like to parrot assertions over and over Binion, but I actually care about facts. I found the opinion stashed several links back and read through it. The warrant authorized everything the officers took.

    Did anyone find out if the officers did in fact steal? Because that was never resolved. The opinion does not answer that question. But the opinion does explain why QI applies. It doesn’t apply to shield a theft. It applies because the alleged theft and seizure of assets are two separate events. The execution of that warrant and seizure of assets was legal and Constitutional. If the police officers did in fact steal after the fact, that means they stole from the police department, not from the individuals. Is that wrong? Of course. But does stealing assets that the police department had every right to seize violate 4A? There was no case law stating such a thing.

    I know it sounds stupid to defend police officers who may very well be thieves, but there is nuance here.

    1. In their article the other day they also shorthanded by saying that a cop raped a nurse, when he actually allowed a prison inmate to rape a nurse. There’s a world of difference between those two things..

  10. Qualified immunity is just such a red herring issue that I don’t even care what happens with it.

    1. I’m increasingly beginning to feel that way, because even if removed, I suspect it’ll become like malpractice insurance for Doctors, but paid through union dues.

      1. It already is. Most cases of QI that have officers not immune have judgements paid for out of a union account. Sometimes even a city account instead.

        1. Yes, but those amounts would increase dramatically, starving the union. Also many criminal cases would take bad cops off the streets.

          Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

    2. It is one part of a larger piece of police reform.
      QI has to go, along with civil asset forfeiture and no-knock raids and bullshit drug war laws and all sorts of other abuses.

      1. Oh, but unnecessary now because Trump assures us he is drafting an executive order to encourage police to behave better. So, problem solved.

  11. I am assumed to know the law and you are assumed to know the law.

    Let’s agree that police officers should be assumed to know the law.

    1. They generally are assumed to… Qualified immunity applies to open questions of law that haven’t been decided by the courts. Even without a specific doctrine, generally speaking, cases are going to be acquitted because most crimes have different requirements like intent, negligence, unlawfulness, etc. Qualified immunity has just been used as a kind of shortcut to cut through all of that quicker.

      That’s why in my post above I referred to it as a red herring issue. Libertarians talk about this as a silver bullet that’s going to solve all problems of holding police accountable, its totally silly.

      1. Wow, that’s a nice strawman you just constructed.

  12. What I’ve learned from Twitter in the last 10 minutes:
    – Starbucks is apparently racist now, and should be boycotted
    Fuck Reason and your QI pushing, Louisville did something real

      1. Awesome move Rand Paul.

    1. If I could stand starbucks burnt coffee I might switch from dutch brothers. But their coffee is so shitty.

    2. I just learned that big J Journalists aren’t the worst group-thinking retards on the planet but in fact call out each other constantly. Lee Fang currently unavailable for comment.


      Can’t speak to doctors or teachers, but journalists call out other journalists for bad journalism all the time. It’s practically a sport.

    3. Why this hard-on against QI reform?

      1. Because it’s a red herring.
        Why so eager to bend over for it?

      2. Trump supports cops.


      I’m honestly not sure if this really happened, or if I got in a fatal car accident and this is just some “light at the end of the tunnel” death hallucination.

      I would have sworn that the ratchet only ever moved one way on statism.

      The even freakier thing is that not only did this (apparently) happen, but it’s named “Breonna’s Law”, and thus also violates the general rule of laws being named after people being an even bigger liberty shitshow than normal.

      Aaaand, I’ve been up all night and I’m about to go to bed. So if that’s not the end of the hallucination coming up, and I actually wake up, uh… “tomorrow”, I’m going to be really happy.

  13. If you can’t understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences.
    For example if someone is making everyone around him miserable and you’d like to know why, their motive may simply be to make everyone around him miserable including himself. Why would the Republicans and the Supreme Court be against ending qualified immunity? I think we have seen the consequences of keeping QI as it is. And now we understand their motivations clearly as well.

  14. Yesterday I trash talked Team Red because there wasn’t a single one. Today I will trash talk them because there’s only one. :joy:

    1. Nobody cares

  15. Tripartisan? Is he really still a Libertarian, now that he ditched the LP presidential nomination chase? Or back to being an independent?

    1. He’s a member of the Libertarian Party and has an L by his name.

      1. Was that Stalin? Che? Castro?

        1. That made no sense.

  16. Didn’t someone prominent once say “at this point, no good person can be a Republican?”

    1. Who said this and when? Google brings up nothing…

  17. “Tripartisan”? You are really desperate to misrepresent Amash as being a Libertarian.

    1. It is our libertarian moment! Don’t crap on it.

      1. It’s sad that libertarian moments mostly seem to consists of desperate, self aggrandizing, washed up Republicans.

  18. This from CNN

    What the lack of any sort of formal concession from Trump would do is clear: For his legions of adoring supporters, they would also never believe that Biden had won — or that he was the recognized president, whether or not the electoral map or the popular vote proved it. Which would mean that for a decent-sized chunk of the country, Biden would be viewed as an illegitimate president and, therefore, not someone who needed to be listened to.
    And it’s very easy to imagine Trump — with his 80-plus million Twitter followers and the potential that he would be the head of a TV network post-presidency — beating the drum of illegitimacy day in and day out. Because, well, it is in his interest to do so and, as he has shown repeatedly during his presidency, he has very little regard for either the office or its status as a moral beacon within the country and the world.
    The result isn’t hard to imagine: An even deeper divide within the country between the Trumpists and everyone else. A divide that would make Biden’s pledge to create “One America” again an absolute pipe dream.

    1. Hilarious.
      As the progressives prove every day, they are constitutionally incapable a self reflection

      1. They regularly accuse the Heffalumps of what they have been doing all along.

      2. I have to agree, that was an amazing piece of failure to recognize themselves in the mirror.

        Ooooh! Maybe they’re vampires, and thus, don’t actually have a reflection?

  19. Also from CNN


    an article about how police in Minneapolis avoid accountability.

    “CNN Investigates!” is the banner.

    One name that does not make the article….

    Amy Klobuchar.

    Apparently she had a case of a questionable shooting by Chauvin before her. Her team wanted him prosecuted, but she stopped it.

    I wonder how in the world the crack investigative team at CNN managed to miss that detail?

    1. Apparently the current DA is running interference for her. Her office claims that she was no longer in charge when the final decision was made.

      On that one case.

      Which may or may not be the whole story.

      But nothing of the other 18.

  20. Kick the traitor out of the Party! Trump will not put QI on the table, so any Republican who signs onto QI reform isn’t a true Republican! Hang the sonofabitch!

  21. Lol, as if amash represents any party. Please.

  22. Has anyone not seen the news lately? Is there a reason that we need to continue to state George Floyd was an unarmed black man? Is this being done to continue to fan the flames of hate or just to let anyone who hasn’t seen the news because of some sort of technological problem they have been unable to keep up on US current events?

    1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job.DCx Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

      This is what I do.►…..► Go to this link

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.