Expert report: Evidence proves election fraud and Bernie WON the Democratic nomination. Had enough .01% rogue state crimes to demand arrests, or need more lies, looting, wars?

“The difference between the reported totals, and our best estimate of the actual vote, varies considerably from state to state. However these differences are significant—sometimes more than 10%—and could change the outcome of the election.”  ~ Fritz Scheuren, professor of statistics at George Washington University, President of the American Statistical Association (ASA)

1-minute expert testimony that unaccountable voting machines are a literal “black box” with absolutely nothing to see or count. Please note the distain of the off-screen “official” responding to clear and obvious proof of election fraud:

We’ve documented that the US use of electronic voting machines without a paper trail fails to meet the definition of election because it requires physical votes subject to independently verifiable counting (with videos).

We’ve documented that Clinton belongs in prison for support of lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression in key vocal roles as US Senator and Secretary of State; the worst crimes a nation can commit, as well as election fraud in collusion with the Democratic National Committee.

Now, Election Justice USA issued their report of the 2016 primaries, Democracy Lost, with findings that Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primaries, but was denied victory from the following types of election fraud (pg. 95):

1) Targeted voter suppression

2) Registration tampering

3) Illegal voter purges

4) Exit polling discrepancies

5) Evidence for voting machine tampering

6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types

Their conclusion:

“Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders’ campaign.”

15-minute analysis of Election Justice USA’s report by Lee Camp (adult language):

But this is business as usual for .01% “leaders” in government and necessary corporate media accomplices to “cover” these crimes and to only and always herd We the People into ongoing rogue state empire with bullshit (a serious academic term) lies of omission and commission.

Americans who vote for Hillary or Trump are voting with relative ignorance to continue the following, with 95%+ who would never agree if honestly briefed on the facts:

  • The wars are Orwellian unlawful; not even close to legal. If there’s one law responsible citizens must know, and to honor the awful sacrifices of all our families through not one but two world wars, it’s war law. Did you know?
  • The real solutions to correct the Robber Baron-era system are monetary reform (direct creation of debt-free money for productive infrastructure) and public banks (at-cost and in-house credit to reduce government borrowing costs by 50%). For just one example: if your state had their own bank with a 5% mortgage and credit card, all state taxes are abundantly paid for, with no other taxation ever needed. The benefits of just a few reforms are conservatively calculated to $1,000,000 per average US household. Literally, you have nothing more valuable for your time than to learn this. Did you know?

Of course, almost all Americans don’t know.

This is because US “leadership” isn’t about informing the public in a democratic republic, but to bullshit them to support either the Left or Right arm of one rogue state empire political body.

I use the word bullshit as an academic term from the most recognized living US philosopher’s Bestseller: relentless lies of omission and commission to disinform the public to get their approval through whatever means needed. It must be constantly applied to bury any appearance of comprehensive facts, because those facts will drive public opinion in an uncontrolled direction away from the bullshitters’ parasitic interests.

I use rogue state in its academic meaning: a nation constantly breaking international law with both threat and harm to others, ruled by authoritarians who restrict rights and proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them (81%). These ongoing illegal Wars of Aggression have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. The sum of 30 million means the US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s NazisDid you know?

Therefore: a vote for Hillary or Trump continues this bullshit:

  • Lying that “reasons” for war were “the best intelligence at the time” as the worst lie of commission a government can make to wage intentional Wars of Aggression. Or that “Saddam was a bad man” in a lie of omission that he was a CIA asset since 1958, and used in attempt to overthrow Iran’s government after they refused a US-friendly dictator. Or that “Israel has a right to self-defense” as a huge lie of omission to leave out their military siege and armed attacks on Gaza are obvious Crimes Against Humanity.
  • Lying in omission to never ever ever ever ever mention that war is illegal. Expect more lines like, “9/11 changed everything,” “We didn’t choose this war,” “We ended the war in Iraq,” but never to state the US/UK wars were started with known lies, in opposition to UN Security Council Resolutions, and exactly what two US treaties were meant to prevent in crystal-clear letter and intent.
  • Lying in criminal commission from positions of legal fiduciary responsibility to Americans that creating debt is actually “money,” and somehow “good” for us even as it grows to tragic-comic accelerating levels. Lying in omission to never tell Americans that creating what we use for money as negative numbers added forever means the debt can only become bigger over time, with greater and greater debt-servicing costs going to the owners of this scheme. Lying in criminal omission that Benjamin Franklin knew the obvious solutions of creating debt-free money and operating credit as a public service that was so successful he wrote a pamphlet documenting how colonial Pennsylvania’s government operated without charging any taxes. You don’t know this from “official” lies of omission and commission.
  • Corporate media is complicit in this bullshit: six corporations that generate ~90% of what Americans receive for “news” that ongoingly lie in omission and commission in the above topics. The CIA admitted to the US Senate in 1975 they had over 400 operatives controlling US media. Did you know?

If you need further evidence of election fraud through unaccountable electronic voting machines, “leadership” and corporate media manipulated primaries, and the general characteristics of both Clinton and Trump beyond being illegal rogue state supporters driving We the People further and further into debt slavery, look hereherehereherehereherehere for further documentation as clear as we’ve covered so far.

There is an alternative to voting for bullshit evil: Demand .01% arrests

The responsible citizen response to these Emperor’s New Clothes obvious crimes centered in war, money, and lies is to demand arrests of US Left and Right .01% leaders.

Please read that sentence again to appreciate its elegant power and truth.

The alternative is to lie to one’s self, nation, and global community to allow ongoing crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions. This is not a responsible alternative, let alone to take the criminal fraud further to vote the Left or Right’s chosen puppet to bullshit for further crimes.

In fact, unless one wishes to condone, bond, and join such evil and bullshit, one cannot vote for it. If one wishes to stand as an American under our ideals and Constitution, one must demand arrests for such outrageous crimes.

The categories of crime include:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).
  2. Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
  3. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).

US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:

In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):


Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.


Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at

Note: has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).


This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • jadan

    Gutless Bernie, the loyal opposition.

  • yep

    bernie was a plant in this convention, he sold out, period

  • MrLiberty

    Comparable crimes go on in the GOP as well. As someone who witnessed the crimes firsthand against Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012, I can tell you that neither major party should have ANY credibility with the American people.

    Don’t get me wrong. I have absolutely NO problem with a private organization making their own rules or a party choosing whomever they wish as their nominee, but let’s be clear. Primary contests are paid for by all citizens to the tune of millions of dollars. The two major parties receive tens of millions of dollars of stolen loot to put on their prostitute-filled conventions. At the state and federal level, BOTH major parties conspire against any and ALL competitors using Gerrymandering of districts and restrictive ballot access laws to keep their competition off the ballot so no other party EVER has a real chance of challenging the two-party oligarchy ( for some great info.). Given their criminal hold on the political apparatus and their theft of millions to promote, support, and run their parties, it is most certainly inappropriate for these groups to violate the rights of others in the process of selecting their nominee.

    Personally I think that both major parties need to simply be washed away and replaced, along with all of the criminally-restrictive ballot laws, congressional structure rules, etc. A free and sound America demands nothing less.

    • Carl_Herman

      Well stated, and yes: Ron Paul was also robbed, as was my friend Dennis Kucinich.

      “Washed away” can happen through lawful arrests for obvious election fraud, as well as the obvious crimes centered in war, money, and lying.

  • lomsha

    Desperate much? Lol, your tin foil hat might be on too tight. Get over it he lost!

  • The .01% will never be arrested because they are the Police! View and or just listen while doing other things, but they are one in the same. They are two sides of the same coin or any other analogy you can come up with!

    No, the Police Don’t Work For You

    Killed By Police 2013 – 2014 – 2015 – 2016

    The most accurate, most comprehensive and always up-to-date list of people killed by U.S. enforcement officers. Est. May 1, 2013

  • Jul 28, 2016 Activists burn US flags over choice between ‘fascist’ Trump, ‘imperialist’ Hillary

    Activists from the Revolution Club burnt US flags outside the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on Thursday.

  • May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention

    Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset. If you were present at this, wouldn’t you be upset? I’m not saying threats are warranted, but at what point do the American People say enough is enough?

  • Brockland A.T.

    Demanding investigations and accountability is one thing – demanding arrests, no way. The 1 percent is not a monolith and not likely to be all warmongering criminals. Those that are, as the DNC has shown, have extensive support among the 99% who will do anything to support their lifestyle.

    Erdogan’s Turkey is the textbook example why calling for ‘arrests’ is a problem. There’s no telling who’s listening and who’s going to get arrested if a mob mentality takes hold.

    Trump 2016 – The strategic vote.

    Jill Stein 2016 – The moral vote.

    • Carl_Herman

      Hi B.A.T.: you’re off by a scale of 100 in my recommendation to demand arrests for those leading obvious illegal and lie-started Wars of Aggression.

      An arrest is the lawful way to stop a crime, the opposite of mob mentality. Without arrests, what is your recommendation to end the illegal Wars of Aggression?

      • Brockland A.T.

        Arrests are that part of due process between investigation and laying of charges, and conviction and sentencing. A fact that does not stand out in your rabble-rousing posts.

        You deliberately and consistently cheapen the meaning of the word ‘arrest’ worse than the TV shows like ’24’ cheapen criminal investigations; You even follow up with the dramatic demand, how would I stop the wars?

        Your call for arrests lacks strong due process context and is little more than reducing ‘arrest’ to a call for unilateral small ‘p’ patriot mob action. Due process itself is has been under constant attack but that sharpened after 9/11 and cut deeper under the Democrats. Calls like yours only contribute to the destruction of civil common sense the elitists of the Deep State are happily fostering in popular culture.

        All the substantiating arguments made by better activists and investigators than yourself are reduced to kindling for self-serving calls to a witchburning, with no safeguards for due process and the innocent. You may toss in the occasional link to due process, the but the takeaway on any of your calls to arrest, is the emotional call to arrest someone.

        Any restless idiot could take those piles of kindling and light them. You have no control over who does.

        I would stop the wars by advocating voting Donald Trump, to defeat Hilary and her obvious warmongering agenda. Its a real action that might have meaningful effect.

        I would also advocate against the growing cult of arbitrary measures more likely to get patriots killed than organized as effective civil actors in their daily lives and as political activists.

        • Carl_Herman

          What you state is a straw man argument of my position.

          With all respect, if a person was attacking your child there is about a second of “investigation” followed by a lawful arrest to stop an apparent crime.


          I think you’re confused how “Emperor’s New Clothes” obvious the illegal wars actually are. Let me test: what is war law based on two active US treaties? If you know it, you can summarize in a sentence. If you don’t know, look at the links or simply ask and I’ll tell you.

          Because the wars (and now election fraud) are just as obvious as our example to arrest someone attacking a child, it’s also as obvious to arrest Left and Right “leaders” to stop their armed attacks.

          Law can be ethical, Brockland. It’s just hard to imagine when our leaders are unethical and criminal lawyers.

          • Brockland A.T.

            You’re making the strawman, with increasing skill but no less wisdom or honesty. The steps of criminal justice are quite clear. Let’s you tell me for once, and demonstrate the soundness of your knowledge on the laws of war.

            An apparent assault in progress usually requires immediate intervention to prevent further harm, but also to determine what is occurring and the context. Is it a parent disciplining a child? A kidnapping in progress? A juvenile delinquent being apprehended? Is criminal justice warranted? You always assume you know what is going on, yet amply demonstrate cluelessness.


            I’ve about had enough of your Great Leader prima donna poseur patriot posturing.

            The real Oathkeepers who are real trained veteran servicemen and law officers aren’t recklessly screaming for arrests nor are they making any. Are these the responsible people you are demanding act upon your grating whines? What do you make of their, by your standards ‘inaction’?


          • Carl_Herman

            Wow, ok, say what you will. Readers can make up their own minds regarding the validity of your character accusations rather than sticking to the topic of war law and the facts. And to be clear: I said if a person was ATTACKING YOUR CHILD that would prompt your INSTANT intervention in full effort to stop and detain that person for arrest (you would be conducting a citizen’s arrest, but unlikely to call it that at the time). This is an example that with all respect I offer for your reflection: sometimes you respond to what isn’t written, and react in defense against something that hasn’t happened. Now that you have understood what I wrote, I’m sure we have zero disagreement on this point that your “investigation” of an attack on your own child would last about a second before you would stop the attack, and authorized with full legal authority to do so.

            Brockland: I am factually claiming that stopping the US wars with arrests is as obviously justified as you stopping an attack on your child, or if an officer of the law witnessed the attack on your child to stop it with a lawful arrest.

            The documentation of war law is here:

            In one sentence: two treaties after each of the two world wars make military attack illegal unless under armed attack by another nation’s government.

            So let’s be clear on this point before we address my friends and colleagues at Oath Keepers who have some members in my position and some who haven’t examined the issue of unlawful war. Let’s have your answer: are the current US armed attacks legal?

            You’ll have to read and verify for perhaps an hour.

          • Brockland A.T.

            If I saw someone attacking my child, I would do as described above. Stop the violence and find out what is going on and determine what, if any criminal justice measures need be called upon.

            However, a citizen’s arrest would not top my list. No matter how justified one thinks it may be, making a citizen’s arrest leaves one open to all kinds of legal grief, especially if you happen to be wrong, morally or by some legal technicality.


            Again, nothing in your interpretation of the laws of war provides directly for arrests of warmongers. Even world leaders tread carefully here.

            Feel free to add your support to Captain Michael Nathan Smith’s legal challenge as to the legality of Obama’s war on the Islamic State.


            Notice the good captain is going through proper channels to demand an investigation and ruling, and not unilaterally making arrests.

            Also feel free to support Sundus Shaker Saleh lawsuit against the Shrub regime for plotting Iraq War II. Notice she’s not making any citizen’s arrests.


            Mr. Herman, your calls for unilateral arrests and defense of such reckless actions are absurd and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Carl_Herman

            And I’ll just copy what I just wrote to you on another article:

            You still haven’t examined the “Emperor’s New Clothes” obvious illegality of the wars, Brockland. For maybe the fourth time: what is war law? Please summarize it, as it is meant to be as clear as “stop sign” law or the rule of when a baseball runner is or is not safe at first base.

            Again: if someone ATTACKED YOUR CHILD that is cause for arrest, and exactly analogous to the US/UK/Israel ATTACKING millions of children as an immediate cause for arrest. Your “proper investigation” to defend your child would last about a second, then you would act to stop the crime of attack with most parents demanding arrest of the attacker. When you know war law, war history that includes awful sacrifices of all our families (I know my family sacrificed much, Brockland), then a “proper investigation” takes about as long as reading the facts of the paper I was invited by the Claremont Colleges to present to 2,000 international guests last year. War law:

            But, Brockland, until you look for yourself at the clarity of war law, you’ll be unable to state it, and therefore unqualified for informed opinion of what is and is not “reckless actions,” “absurd,” and ironically having “no idea what you are talking about.”

            Pointing to others whose documentations doesn’t include demanding arrests IS NOT demonstration of the law, facts, and rational basis to determine if there is or is not clear violation of law.

            Those of us working to explain, document, and prove clearly illegal Wars of Aggression demonstrate leadership that you are blind to until you look for yourself at the law and facts, Brockland. Are you ready to look yet? If so, what is war law?

          • Brockland A.T.

            … You really don’t get it. What’s more you’re attempting to exert non-existant authority over myself with weenie posturing the same way you think your personal interpretation of the law has any legal standing despite not having been won so in any court of law.

            Almost every war the United States has ever fought has been under the hubris of self-defense with no choice but to fight. Take your little essay(s) and make your arrests, or more practically, take the U.S. government to court and make them stop going to war, if you think its so slam dunk.

            The Geneva Conventions are far more specific in what is and isn’t a legal action in war. They are still violated, and someone has to go to court for remedy even to start an accountability process, if there is no voluntary consent to accountability by the offending party.


            Kellog-Briand Pact full text:


            Nowhere are there provisions for enforcement or any ‘arrest’ procedures or penalties spelled out for violation of goodwillspeak. There’s not even any provisions to go to court; its just the traditional way things are done in other matters of international law.

            The UN Charter:


            Provision for enforcement seems to be is left to the Assembly, in particular the UN Security Council and particularly particularly the five permanent veto-wielding members.

            Which just as well may be provisions for un-enforcement, as its tantamount to having the foxes guard the henhouse for the wolves. Again, go make your case twith the Hague.

            Hilary Clinton obviously plans to escalate hostilities in Syria and Ukraine, clearly threatening the lives of many children, and tens of thousands of children right now are suffering under attack, because of her and her Neocon masters warmongering, and there’s the off-chance of a nuclear WWIV.

            Yet your precious conscience won’t let you vote Donald Trump, because Jill Stein is the more moral individual. So even if Hilary becomes President as a result, you think your conscience in clean. At least your dearth of reasoning skills is consistent.

            The purpose of elections is clear. Elections are not about who is the most moral candidate, they are about who gets the most votes and wins. The voter’s morality is on trial – who will the voter allow, by action or inaction to win, to the best of their ability.

            The laws of war are clear – they are an agreement in principle every bit as abstract as the Uniformed Oath to the Constitution and subject to legal interpretation.

            A commitment not to make wars of aggression, and if done so anyway, to wage them humanely, do not in and of themselves always spell out directly arrestable offenses. You’re conflating national warmongering policy laid out with carefully spun hubris with a comrade-in-arms brazenly executing prisoners. The moral obligation to stop either exists, but not always direct material means.

            Laws of war treaties appear to grant right to legally demand investigation for offense and if found sound, seek remedies, that may include arrests, of specific official-level perpetrators for specific punishments according to international law or domestic law.

            However, if you think its so simple as an intentional tort, prove it. Make your arrests or use your legal argument to compel accountability on the MIC with a court order.

            All these years, and all those peace activists and wronged nations had to do was read Carl Herman’s interpretation of just two treaties from the corpus of ‘laws of war’.

            You’re really that full of yourself that you made legal discoveries all on your own that no-one else ever considered?

          • Carl_Herman

            You argue the Orwellian, that laws are not laws and there are no rules that cannot be interpreted anyway the dictator wishes. You wrote:

            “The laws of war are clear – they are an agreement in principle every bit as abstract as the Uniformed Oath to the Constitution and subject to legal interpretation.”

            You are unfamiliar with the history of scholars, attorneys and even a fellow-author on Washington’s Blog (David Swanson) who point out that your position of war law not meaning anything (or any law) is rejected by all but the .01% liars who take advantage of people like you.

            Ethical law is meant to be as clear as traffic law or baseball rules, with the purpose for groups to achieve desired outcomes. The more important the topic, the more important certain rules are clear, with no more important topic than to prevent war-murder. The documentation colleagues and I provide show war law is crystal-clear in letter and intent, and only allow armed attack when under attack by another nation’s government.

            But go ahead, Brockland: take your stand that there is no cause for arrests on these lie-started and illegal wars because law can always be spun to suit the empire. Go ahead and argue that all our families’ sacrifices in two world wars led to zero accomplishment to clearly state what is and is not lawful use of military.

            Americans are smart enough to choose the best option when the choice is clear.

            I appreciate your help for interested readers to understand your position and tone, and its contrast from my essays and comments.

          • Brockland A.T.

            There is cause for investigations. There needs to be duly adjudicated legal clarifications. Etc., etc..

            There is no cause to empower another set of tyrants like yourself who think they alone know the law.

            You’re all talk. Irresponsible talk, using knowledge in the service of ignorance.

            You won’t test your arguments going to court, let alone making the arrests yourself and see how that goes.

            No, you’re hoping someone else will take the risks while you prattle on about the need for arrests, when what’s really needed is accountability and a broader, deeper understanding of what that means.

          • Carl_Herman

            You argue war law means nothing and will be twisted to allow anything. This is Orwellian, and the opposite of what law means.

            You take your best actions, and I’ll take mine. Thank you for allowing interested readers to compare your claims and tone with the documentation and history of war law I provide.

          • Brockland A.T.

            War law means what the courts say it means in any actionable sense because no warmongering idiot is idiot enough to explicitly say they are outright violating international law. The alleged offenders claim to be acting within it and even to defend it.

            That claim has to be fairly determined true or false, and even someone as odious as Hilary Clinton gets fair due process before anything like arrests can happen. Get it?

            You probably don’t.

            Its obnoxious to see you prancing about like a one-man lynch mob screaming for arrests at a time when Americans need cool heads.

            Especially flogging the otherwise sound information you link to (when its not one of your own posts) when the state of civil order is already in such disarray in the United States.

          • Carl_Herman

            Oh, and with your first claim: The Kellogg-Briand Pact (Renunciation of War) was the legal basis to prosecute leading Nazis after the war (including from their media).

          • Brockland A.T.

            Still ignoring due process. And now history.

            The Nuremberg trials are controversial. For one, the Allies were never held fairly accountable for their excesses. When I said take things to court, I meant a real court beholden to principles of justice, including universality of justice. Nuremberg was ad hoc and nastily, political.


            Again, your calls for arrests ignore due process and understanding of international law and now history seems limited.

            The Nazis had no way of defending due process in what was almost a kangaroo court eager to hide Allied complicity in the Nazi rise. Nearly every commoner walked away thinking justice was done.

            The Americans later use of Nazis in the CIA indicates American motivation for sparing them from the summary execution Churchill preferred was not based on affinity for law and order. America had plans for these Nazis.


            Kellog-Briand in lacking realistic enforcement prescriptions, contributed to the legal concept of a crime against peace. Which curiously has never been applied to the NATO and the Anglosphere, but rather their weapon against world peace as the chosen prescription for violation is war.

            The Nuremberg precedent was the basis of today’s ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) humanitarian war doctrine and endless wars.



            I cannot believe I have to explain the obvious abuses that arose from poorly defined and poorly understood due process when we are living in it and you’ve written about it.

            So again, you’re demanding arrests, mostly for emotional effect that totally overwhelms any pretense to educating. That separation from due process, which is discipline to fairness under the law, is extremely dangerous to civil society.

            Flatter yourself as a firebrand for justice all you want. A few thinking people see a petty internet demagogue demanding arrests.

            Trump looks more sane than your self-righteous self, a typical liberal negative stereotype.

          • Carl_Herman

            You: “you think your personal interpretation of the law has any legal standing despite not having been won so in any court of law.”

            Then you shift the argument from war being used to win a case, but to attack the case (legitimate point, but not to your original statement).

            I won’t argue further: thank you for providing choice to interested readers between your claims and tone versus what I present in my essays/articles.

          • Brockland A.T.

            You are deranged and clearly trying to end a discussion you seem very confused about.

            It seems to me your interpretation of Kellog-Briand and the UN Charter has never been used in court to stop a war. Therefore, its your personal opinion of what they should mean and not a standing legal precedent established for anyone can use.

            Certainly not enough to justify people going out and making arrests on their own and blindly demanding arrests instead of investigations and accountability and clarity.

            Then you claim the K-BP was used for the Nurenberg trials, as if that helps since the Nuremberg trials established that some nations are exceptional to international law and may break it in defending the peace.

            All the while the work of better activists are reduced to kindling for your calls to witchburning and the depth of their facts is lost.

          • Carl_Herman

            Last one: thank you for calling me “deranged” along with your comments for readers’ consideration to compare your analysis versus mine:

            Law is meant to be crystal-clear in letter and intent to provide limits to behavior, such as traffic law and rules for a sport. The purpose of law is for a desired outcome to be achieved, such as relatively safe roads and so a game can be fairly played and enjoyed.

            You, Brockland, argue that law is not law, anything can be interpreted in any way, rather than what those of us trained and working in law point to: OBVIOUS VIOLATIONS are clear and easy for anyone to verify, such as driving 40 mph over the limit or a baseball pitch 10 feet over everyone’s head being not even close to a strike.

            You are factually wrong that war law is somehow unclear. You are correct that our .01% “masters” take the view you have to tell us that they can do anything they want when they say “self defense” and not allow anyone like me to offer the law for public consideration.

            But again, despite your insulting language, I appreciate the opportunity to provide choice to interested readers and receive feedback of how my colleagues and I can best communicate this important point to the public.

          • Brockland A.T.

            I am arguing fair due process is part of law and you are deranged in not recognizing what constitutes fair due process under the law.

            You very often act like a preening demagogue calling for arrests and reveling in the attention, at the expense of really educating people with the useful information you link to and motivating them to constructive thought and action. Unless they have a dislike for preening demagogues and so motivated to deconstruct your ignorance.

            You insist you KNOW arrests can and should be made, when there is nothing to back that up, and not only that, you freely admit its not worth your time and money to challenge the system personally based on that information.

            You have no sense that maybe its unfair to demand people do what you yourself can’t or won’t do, while making that task, which you won’t do, seem easy enough for them to.

            You have no sense its wrong to cheapen the information of better researchers and activists by reducing them to planks on your preening soapbox.

            Essentially you demand respect for actions you yourself did not accomplish.

            All of the above suggests its not wrong to consider you deranged.

  • Alicia Wilson

    This is just stupid

    • Carl_Herman

      This is just denial from you, Alicia, and would look ridiculous next to similar statements like:

      “Bush and Cheney lied to start these wars!” then “That’s just stupid.”

      “Dr. King’s movement asks for respect of all people.” and “Well, that’s stupid.”

      “The Declaration of Independence is about rights for ALL people!” with “That’s so stupid.”

    • Brockland A.T.

      It sure is.

  • Eric Zuesse

    Thanks, Carl, for bringing so much evidence together, effectively making the case that the Democratic Party is now just as rotten as the Republican Party has been since at least the time of Nixon. Of course, one could argue that it went back to JFK and the Daley machine, pre-Nixon. So: when did democracy end in America?