ChrisWeigant.com

Democrats Need To Keep Fighting Even If Kavanaugh Is Confirmed

[ Posted Wednesday, September 5th, 2018 – 18:18 PDT ]

I'm writing this while watching the Senate confirmation hearing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As usual for Supreme Court confirmation hearings, it is fascinating to watch. However, also as usual, it is likely going to be absolutely meaningless, because Republicans are going to have the votes to confirm him in the end. The Democrats are fighting hard, but they're going to lose this one, to put it more bluntly. It was essentially a done deal before the hearing even began.

Elections have consequences, of course. One of those is the president's power to appoint judges. This is now a turbocharged process. Democrats are on the powerless end of the stick right now, which is why Kavanaugh will be confirmed. Moving forward, there are three big ways to fight back against this situation: vote more Democrats into office, Democrats in office need to champion better laws, and don't be so shy about suggesting amendments to the Constitution. Those are really the only choices, when you look at the big picture.

The first is pretty obvious. Elect more Democrats -- enough to take back the House, the Senate, and (eventually) the White House. If Democrats controlled the Senate, Kavanaugh would not be confirmed. All other Trump judicial nominees would be in peril as well. Elections matter. But Republican voters are much more inclined to consider court appointments when voting than Democrats. This has to change, if Democrats are ever going to win this game.

Conservatives have taken a very long view on judicial appointments. They started this effort back in the 1980s, in fact. That's when the Moral Majority (and groups like them) began to see that one good way to fight Roe v. Wade was to see to it that judges were installed who mirrored their own views on abortion. We may be at the end of this road, with Kavanaugh, but it has been a very long fight for them, one they have been fighting for over three decades. They've seen their fight as a marathon, not a sprint.

Democrats simply don't have the same viewpoint. They don't consider the judicial appointment question all that much when voting. This may be starting to change -- the unprecedented takedown of Merrick Garland certainly woke a lot of people up to how important the issue was, and how far the Republicans were willing to break established precedent to fulfill their aim of getting as many conservatives on the bench as possible.

Equally important (if not more so) is to elect Democratic presidents. After all, that's where the judicial nominations originate from. Don't like the fact that Trump is getting so many judges confirmed? Then replace him in 2020, and elect Democrats for the next two or three terms. That will put the shoe on the other foot -- especially if they have a Democratic Senate to work with.

The political pendulum swings. Eventually, Democrats will get their chance at bat again. When they do, the turbocharged factor is going to help. When I use this term, I am speaking of the two "nuclear options" the Senate has gone through in the past decade. Both parties bear some of the blame (or credit, depending on your point of view) for dropping these nukes. First Harry Reid removed the filibuster from all judicial nominations below the Supreme Court level. Then Mitch McConnell did the same for Supreme Court nominees. If he hadn't, we would likely currently have two vacancies on the Supreme Court, since Democrats would have been in the mood for payback after Merrick Garland's treatment.

Sooner or later, Democrats will get the same opportunity that Republicans are now enjoying. And they'll do precisely what Republicans have been doing under Trump -- rushing as many judicial nominations through the Senate as fast as possible. Trump has set records for the number of judges confirmed, but that is a direct result of the two nukes. The process has been streamlined, which is why it has speeded up. But it'll be just as fast when Democrats eventually get their innings.

The second strategy is, after electing enough Democrats to take back at least one chamber of Congress, to push back on Supreme Court overreach by passing laws directly challenging their decisions. If a decision strikes down a law on technicalities, then go back and fix the technicalities and pass the law again. If they punt on a tiny legal issue, in other words, then force them to deal with the broader question by pressing the case.

It has to be said, this will probably fail, at least at first. But if Democrats can even take back the House, then it will be useful politically, if not successful legislatively. By passing a bill directly challenging a Supreme Court decision Democrats feel was wrongly decided, it will focus attention on the underlying issue. This will cause the Republicans to argue the other side, which may be wildly unpopular. It may even (this works only in rare cases) cause so much embarrassment on their side of the aisle to actually get a bill through the Senate (or even get a Republican president to sign it). The key to such rare victories is to mobilize the public on your side in a major way. But to mobilize them, you've got to have a solid bill to rally around.

The final strategy is also mostly a political one, but it can be used to great effectiveness. If the Supreme Court wrongly decides a case on basic constitutional grounds (rather than just ruling on a technicality), then there is only one real remedy to fix the problem: a constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. But the text of the Constitution includes every amendment, from the Bill of Rights forward. So if the Supreme Court says "this is not constitutional" then a constitutional amendment which specifically states that it is now the law will completely tie the hands of the court. If it is explicitly stated within the Constitution itself (as an amendment) then the court must decide legal cases based on the new amendment, and not on anything they've previously decided.

So where is the unified Democratic Party push to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United? Small efforts may exist in Congress, but so far the party has not made it a top priority -- despite the fact that most Americans simply do not agree that corporations have personal rights under the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights contained within). That is merely one example of what I'm talking about.

Proposing a constitutional amendment can be a purely political act, even if you would happily love see the amendment ratified. Most amendments are not successfully ratified, because the bar is so high. But that shouldn't stop Democrats from merely proposing them. A simple "corporations are not people" amendment is pretty easy to understand by most people, and would undo the damage done by Citizens United. But that's not the only good example.

How about a privacy amendment, which guarantees every citizen's privacy from both corporate America and the government? I'd bet that would be a pretty popular idea. It also might just help shore up Roe v. Wade. How about an amendment legalizing marijuana and regulating it exactly the same as alcohol? Bet that one would also be wildly popular right about now.

If Democrats don't like Supreme Court decisions, and they think they've got the public squarely on their side, then they should push as hard as they can for a constitutional amendment. Even though most (if not all) of these efforts will ultimately fail, merely bringing the subject up will reap political rewards. The Republicans have known this for a long time, and have wielded this political weapon quite masterfully, at times. Remember the hoo-hah about the anti-flag-burning amendment? Or how about the anti-gay-marriage amendment? Both were used to great effect to turn Republican voters out at the polls and excite their political base. Both, in fact, were so popular (at the time) that they caused Democratic politicians to get on board (see: Dianne Feinstein, flag-burning). The flag-burning amendment got fourteen such Democratic votes in the Senate, one vote short of the two-thirds majority it needed. That's a pretty effective political bludgeon, you have to admit.

Democrats can do the same thing, if they'd only prioritize such efforts. Corporate and dark money in politics is pretty much reviled by everyone, no matter their political bent. A "corporations are not people" amendment could garner wide support among the general public, which would leave Republicans to explain why they were fighting against something a majority of their own voters supported. There are any number of issues that could be amendment proposals, in fact. Protecting equal rights and equal pay in the workplace, for instance. Protecting the rights of people with pre-existing conditions to buy health insurance would be another wildly popular idea. Banning the use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases might be another. Pick any issue that the Republicans are going to have to play a very uncomfortable defense on, and boldly propose an amendment to fix the problem.

Or do so in direct response to Supreme Court decisions you disagree with. Citizens United won't be the only one to target in the near future, that much seems certain at this point. Democrats are fighting hard in today's hearing, but they're not going to win this battle. The court will soon have a 5-4 conservative majority, for the foreseeable future. They are quite likely to overreach on some issues. Democrats can fight back against these, and everything they do in this regard will have a serendipitous effect on their other efforts.

Get more Democrats elected. Enthuse Democratic voters by making the courts a major issue. Pass laws to force Republicans to defend things that the public doesn't agree with. If that doesn't work, then propose new amendments that an overwhelming number of people would agree with. This will all have the effect of getting more Democrats elected, eventually. It's a virtuous cycle, in other words.

We're going to lose this confirmation battle. But that doesn't mean we should weep and wail and then do nothing else. This, as the conservatives have proven, is a long game. It's a marathon. Democrats -- the politicians, the party at large, and the voters themselves -- should start acting like it, and gird their loins for an extended political battle. Republicans are already fighting this fight, so it's time to fight back using all the weapons available. That's the only way things are ever going to change for the better.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

85 Comments on “Democrats Need To Keep Fighting Even If Kavanaugh Is Confirmed”

  1. [1] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    CW...I like it, it's curiously spiffy, without being gauche. Funnily, I was in a conversation today with someone who hit most of those points. A Star trek analogy emerged, I, Borg. It was suggested that if a legal 'Unsolvable Geometric Formula' was introduced into the SCOTUS hive-mind, to keep them occupied, then the business of washing Washington by the left could take place in 2020...

    Win the house this year, rely on Trump(not that he'll be running, but his stench will remain) to lose both the senate and the White House in 2020 and then, while there's a comfy majority, in that forever rotating house ownership, go about plugging the annoying Republican dark places, like lobbying, dark money and anything Liz Warren can suggest that will even the playing field.

    My solution was elegant also, as elegant as a brick can be as it comes through stained glass window...if SCOTUS is indeed a partisan parking spot for life, then subject these snobs to elections. Also, 'for life' should be for life, either die in your robe or be ritually put the sword if you want to retire. Call it the Kennedy Clause.

    LL&P

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Those are really the only choices, when you look at the big picture."

    So citizens electing more Democrats that are proposing laws and amendments that will not be passed/ratified soon or at all which is what put us where we are now is going to be a solution to where we are now? That is your long term strategy?

    But citizens that would not vote in 2018 registering a vote against the Big Money candidates they don't like utilizing a long term strategy to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates in 2020 and future elections can't work?

    If that is what you believe, CW, come right out and say it- citizens voting for what they want (sometimes called democracy) will not work.

    Of course, admitting that would make it hard to explain why voting for Democrats would work.

    There are other choices then the Democrats and Republicans and as a reality based blogger, CW, you should acknowledge and explore this reality instead of ignoring it.

    It's way past time for you to stop viewing the big picture of our political process through the analog screen of the two party system and look at the full HD picture.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don: Read comment [1].

    Both the parties are tainted by money. We all agree to that.

    But power in America in the 21st Century is a two party game.

    One of the two powers is going to be less oriented to the wealthy than the other. It doesn't matter which.

    You vote for the party that is getting less money because they are motivated to inhibit money in politics.

    It is that simple.

    Purity tests just don't work.

  4. [4] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    CW, this is a very powerful piece. Just a little bit of spine and down-and-dirty realpolitik on the part of the Democratic party will work wonders for turning the course of this nation around.

  5. [5] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Don Harris.

    Mate, I thought of you while pouring over some...whatever.

    https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2018-05-17/economist-dambisa-moyo-edge-chaos

    LL&P

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    2

    It's way past time for you to stop viewing the big picture of our political process through the analog screen of the two party system and look at the full HD picture.

    Don, seriously, it's way past time for you to stop viewing CW as your means to an end and cease and desist in the trolling of his blog with the same asinine and repetitive request. He's obviously not interested in what you're selling, and you should acknowledge this reality instead of ignoring it. :)

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Great column, CW. |bookmarked|
    _______________

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Lasting and long-term progress is generally acquired incrementally through compromise:

    * Determine what works and work it ---> accept what doesn't and don't
    * Win some, lose some ---> skip some
    * Two steps forward, one push back ---> ever onward

    Maintaining the status quo is doomed to fail... eventually. And while it's not as showy or fun as claiming the mantle of radicalism: Cool, calm, collected, calculated, and progress always triumphs in the end. :)

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    his may be starting to change -- the unprecedented takedown of Merrick Garland certainly woke a lot of people up to how important the issue was, and how far the Republicans were willing to break established precedent to fulfill their aim of getting as many conservatives on the bench as possible.

    The AWESOME, WELL-THOUGHT OUT AND MASTERFUL takedown of Merrick Garland.....

    There.. FIFY :D

    Trump has set records for the number of judges confirmed,

    What!!?? Doth my eyes deceive me!!

    Are you actually giving President Trump CREDIT for something!!!!

    Awww right!! WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL CW!!!!!???

    So where is the unified Democratic Party push to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United? Small efforts may exist in Congress, but so far the party has not made it a top priority -- despite the fact that most Americans simply do not agree that corporations have personal rights under the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights contained within). That is merely one example of what I'm talking about.

    Of course, you will simply NEVER see CU overturned, either legislatively or otherwise..

    Republicans *AND DEMCORATS* simply love CU too much to do more than, in the Democrats case, lip service about it..

    This is fact..

    How about a privacy amendment, which guarantees every citizen's privacy from both corporate America and the government? I'd bet that would be a pretty popular idea. It also might just help shore up Roe v. Wade. How about an amendment legalizing marijuana and regulating it exactly the same as alcohol? Bet that one would also be wildly popular right about now.

    Again, won't happen. Democrats are hip deep in insuring that Americans DON'T have any privacy..

    It was Odumbo who expanded domestic surveillance to heights that would even make Dick Cheney pause and say, "ho now, this is getting out of hand.."

    I even seem to recall you gave Odumbo the BIGGEST LIE OF THE YEAR award for claiming that he "Welcomes the public debate on domestic surveillance"... :D

    So, yea.. Dumbocrats taking on Privacy issues???

    Not gonna happen...

    If Democrats don't like Supreme Court decisions, and they think they've got the public squarely on their side, then they should push as hard as they can for a constitutional amendment.

    And therein lies the kicker...

    Democrats DON'T like many of the SCOTUS decisions and they only THINK the public is on their side..

    Pro 2nd Amendment rulings are a perfect example of this..

    The Republicans have known this for a long time, and have wielded this political weapon quite masterfully, at times.

    Holy crap!!!

    I'll ask again!!!

    WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH CW!!!!!

    The flag-burning amendment got fourteen such Democratic votes in the Senate, one vote short of the two-thirds majority it needed.

    Hmmmmmmmmm

    100 Senators.....

    14 votes is ONE vote short of 2/3rds???

    OK, color me confused...

    Or do so in direct response to Supreme Court decisions you disagree with. Citizens United won't be the only one to target in the near future, that much seems certain at this point.

    You pick the ONE example that Democrats simply WILL NOT touch..

    They profit too much from CU to ever get rid of it..

    Now, if Democrats can public state that they will not take CU-inspired money, and then STICK WITH IT, then the Democrats might have some credibility on the issue..

    But they have none and everyone here knows they have none..

    CU will ALWAYS be with us because the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle like it too much..

    This is fact. This is reality...

    Your commentary raises several good points and several good facts..

    Democrats are going to lose on Kavanaugh.. That can be taken to the bank...

    But the one overarching point, the ONE thing that totally makes everything that follows impossible is the one thing you state right at the front:

    The first is pretty obvious. Elect more Democrats

    That will never happen as long as Democrats en masse are demonizing and attacking tens of millions of American voters, as "racist", "violent", "deplorable" and "irredeemable"...

    Until Democrats can talk TO those voters and, more important, LISTEN to what those voters are saying instead of attacking them and demonizing them???

    "Elect More Democrats" will be nothing but a pipe dream...

    Other than the points I have raised..

    Great commentary... :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    CW, this is a very powerful piece. Just a little bit of spine and down-and-dirty realpolitik on the part of the Democratic party will work wonders for turning the course of this nation around.

    "A little bit of spine??? Oh we're doomed, DOOOOOOMMMEED I tell you!!!"
    -Democrat Party, channeling Dr Smith...

    :D

    That would be 60s Dr Smith and not Gary Oldman's awesome portrayal of Smith.. :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The irony in the op-ed from the NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and massive: s/he accuses Trump of being "anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency
    -Glenn Greenwald

    Of course every one of the NeverTrumpers here and abroad will cheer this anonymous coward...

    Just as I am sure every one of the NeverTrumpers here and abroad would curse & condemn such cowardice if it came out of the Odumbo White House..

    "... and so it goes and so it goes..."
    -Billy Joel

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats' position on Kavanaugh is laughable.

    Kavanaugh's most egregious sin, the ONE sin that Democrats are most incensed about is that Kavanaugh had the audacity, the unmitigated GALL.... to be nominated by President Trump..

    All of this Democrat kabuki theater has absolutely NOTHING to do with Kavanaugh and EVERYTHING to do with President Trump..

    President Trump could have nominated Merrick Garland and Democrats would be acting the EXACT same way...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Both the parties are tainted by money. We all agree to that.

    "Obi-Wan may have trained you, but Luke... I am your father"
    -Stuart, SPIN CITY

    :D

    One of the two powers is going to be less oriented to the wealthy than the other. It doesn't matter which.

    It matters when one Party blatantly and unequivocally LIES thru their teeth about it..

    That notches the condemnation up a couple levels..

    At least it does for those who are not enslaved by Party dogma..

    You vote for the party that is getting less money because they are motivated to inhibit money in politics.

    It is that simple.

    It WOULD be that simple IF the Party getting less money is by their CHOICE... IE they CHOOSE not to take money from corporations....

    But it's not and you know it..

    Democrats are getting less money because their policies suck, Unions have been decimated and black Americans are leaving the Democrat Party by the millions..

    THAT is why the Democrat Party is getting less money..

    NOT because of some noble "We Won't Take CITIZENS UNITED MONEY" position...

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- I really enjoyed this column. Top notch strategic thinking. The Dems need a good cat herder...maybe you should apply. :)

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- I really enjoyed this column. Top notch strategic thinking. The Dems need a good cat herder...maybe you should apply. :)

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The system is slow and double tapping today. Sorry 'bout the clutter.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, let me see if I have this straight...

    Some anonymous coward who is afraid to stand and be counted, claims to be a calming and moderating influence within the Trump administration and claims there are others like him.. Goes on the record "exposing" what it's "really like" in the Trump White House..

    And what is the like response from President Trump??

    Probably to clean house and get rid of EVERYONE who is "calming" and "moderate", thereby leaving President Trump with ONLY the ones who think and act exactly like President Trump to guide President Trump...

    And ya'all think this is an AWESOME development!!!???

    So much for ya'all's claim that you are all about protecting the country..

    Yer cheering on the scumbag coward who is going to give President Trump free reign...

    Why oh WHY can't ya'all follow Smokey's advice...

    THINK!!!!! Before you strike...

    Ya'all are willing to see this country destroyed ALL to prove ya'all we're "right" about President Trump...

    Ya'all are willing to advocate the total decimation of this country, ALL because your candidate lost.. The ultimate in sore luserism...

    Of course, all of the afore pre-conditions that President Trump is insane and incompetent as ya'all CLAIM he is..

    Given the FACTS and REALITY... You don't have much cred in that regard...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what is the like(ly) response from President Trump??

    Probably to clean house and get rid of EVERYONE who is "calming" and "moderate", thereby leaving President Trump with ONLY the ones who think and act exactly like President Trump to guide President Trump...

    Which, given ya'all's.... ahem... considered and learned {rolleyes} of President Trump, COULD possibly indicate that President Trump is actually the anonymous op-ed author and is setting up just such a moderate purge..

    Which means, ya'all are actually cheering on President Trump!!! And cheering on President Trump's efforts to purge all moderating influences.. :D

    "That oughta clinch up their sphincters"
    -Rachel Phelps, MAJOR LEAGUE II

    :D

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Regarding the Taking A Knee hysteria and calls for a Nike boycott. I just bought what I reckon to be roughly my 75th and 76th pair of Nike Air Pegasus running shoes. I've been buying them since 1983. It's a good shoe at a good price. The idea of mandatory oath taking at corporate sporting events is a bullshit wedge issue creation. Just play ball. Long live Nike and their curved last. The NFL plutopatriots can go to Hell.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Dems need a good cat herder..

    Yes, they ARE a bunch of pussies, after all.. :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the last week, we have learned that unelected appointees of the executive branch are openly thwarting the policy desires of the President of the United States — in some cases anonymously.

    To the political left, these people are heroes, doing what must be done "to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office," as the anonymous "senior official" in the Trump administration put it in a controversial op-ed published Wednesday in the New York Times.

    The op-ed writer says he or she has taken these steps because the President is acting "in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."
    These statements are alarming, of course, because of the "senior" level status of the government official purported to have written them.

    But they are also alarming because an anonymous, unelected government appointee is substituting his or her judgment for that of the duly elected leader of a constitutional republic.

    Nowhere in the op-ed does the appointee allege criminal or treasonous behavior on the part of the President. Rather, this person says the President is not faithful to "ideals long espoused by conservatives," and conducts meetings that "veer off topic and off the rails." 6/21
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/opinions/how-dare-a-senior-trump-official-arrogantly-subvert-an-elected-president-jennings/index.html

    From CNN no less..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just play ball

    That is the POINT...

    These America Haters are NOT just playing ball. They are preaching and sermonizing..

    People go to and watch games to get AWAY from divisive politics.. And now scumbag America Hating millionaires are shoving it down their throats.

    Those scumbag America Haters are paid JUST to play ball..

    So, have them do what they are paid for and shut the frak up??

    I bet if hundreds of players got together to pay homage to GUNS AND AMMO with full support and cooperation of the league, ya would HATE that, right??

    You would scream BOYCOTT til yer blue in the face..

    Such is the hypocrisy of Party slaves...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    The “Anonymous” author of the sketchy New York Times op-ed attacking President Trump from within the White House represents the polar antithesis of Thomas More. In fact, he (or she) could rightly be called “A Man for No Seasons.”

    Why? Chiefly because this coward hides behind the veil of secrecy. Assuming the Times is telling the truth – a big assumption – when it states this person indeed holds a senior position of public trust in the Trump administration and believes this president actually endangers our republic, then the author is honor-bound to follow the esteemed tradition of Thomas More. He should immediately resign and publicly explicate his reasons. Instead, he acts as a sniveling sneak who should never be given the once-august platform of the New York Times editorial pages.

    Moreover, the nebulous objections relayed by Anonymous reveal not some noble protector of our national ideals, but rather an establishmentarian who simply disagrees with the most basic tenants of our 2016 movement. He writes, for example, that Trump “shows little affinity for ideals long-espoused by conservatives.” Well, the track record of the last 20 months sure fooled me, as this president has achieved historic tax cuts, immense regulatory relief, and the nomination and confirmation of dozens of conservative judges/justices. Apparently, Trump has fooled a lot of others as well, considering he regularly enjoys approval ratings above 90 percent of Republicans in polling. 3/9
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/06/the_times_nameless_author_a_man_for_no_seasons_138000.html

    Someone who is such a blatant coward has absolutely no credibility...

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm (3)-
    I did read comment one. And it was addressed in comment two.

    I also read comment three.

    You admit both parties are tainted by Big Money and advocate voting for the one that takes less Big Money.

    And you claim that power is currently divided between two parties. That is true but it is not etched in stone. And organizing citizens to change the current dynamic if they do not like it is what democracy is all aboot.

    Using your logic that we should just accept what we don't like and and validate the party/candidates that is less oriented to the wealthy guarantees that we will get what we don't like and not get what we want.

    And applying your logic to the 2016 election, then you should have voted for Trump because he raised less money than Hillary.

    But the reality is that if you vote for Big Money candidates you will get big Money legislators.

    It's that simple.

    And if candidates can keep taking Big Money and legislating to benefit the Big Money interests and citizens keep voting for them then there is NO motivation to change your behavior.

    Voting for behavior that you don't want validates the behavior. Voting against the behavior provides incentive to change the behavior.

    That's how democracy is designed to work.

    It's that simple.

    Lesser of two evil voting is the equivalent of picking the spouse that only punches, kicks and scratches you instead of the one that will beat you with whips and baseball bats.

    It is what got us where we are today and is not capable of producing a solution to the problem as it is the cause of the problem. It just doesn't work.

    It's that simple.

    One Demand is not a purity test any more than any other issue that citizens demand of their candidates.
    It is setting a basic minimum standard.

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    The reason I keep after CW, Ralph Nader and anyone else that I contact are:

    Determine what works and work it.
    Accept what doesn't and don't.

    Maintaining the status quo is doomed to fail.

    Cool, calm, collected and progress always triumphs in the end.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JTC-
    Thanks for the link.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: The Op Ed in the NY Grime...

    Ya'all will note that, at NO TIME does the anon author, expose ANY criminal activity or ANY impeachable offense..

    The anon's entire op-ed can be summed up thusly:

    "While I approve of some things that the President is doing, I don't like the way the President is doing other things"

    That's it.. That is his ENTIRE op-end condensed down, with all the spin and all the political BS removed..

    Now, is THAT how ya'all want America to be run?? But an appointed and un-elected person supplanting the WILL of the people for their OWN judgement??

    Do ya'all ***REALLY*** want to establish such a precedent??

    REALLY????

  27. [27] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [19] - The Dems need a good cat herder..
    Yes, they ARE a bunch of pussies, after all.. :D

    Now, this is funny. Beyond being clever, like all good humor, there is more than a grain of truth in it.

    I'll be back later.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, this is funny. Beyond being clever, like all good humor, there is more than a grain of truth in it.

    Thank you..

    I'll be here all year.. Be sure and tip your waitresses... :D

  29. [29] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [25] No problem. I know your core message to be all things voting. Dimbisa takes on the global aspect in a unique way. She mentions the mandatory voting of Australia, I know tons Aussies, they all hold the opinion that for them, it works, Liberals and Conservatives alike. I don't share their beliefs, but a diluted version I could easily support.

    LL&P

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump should probably call off the hunt for the “senior official in the…..administration " who the New York Times is claiming wrote a damning op-ed for the newspaper.

    Apparently the “senior official” claims to be part of a group of White House staff trying to thwart the president’s agenda from within. He also claims they seriously considered trying to depose the president using the 25th amendment of the Constitution.

    Serious stuff. But President Trump should relax and remember it is the New York Times after all. The paper has a scandalous history of lying about the seniority of officials it quotes anonymously - especially when that source parrots their agenda.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/phelimmcaleer/2018/09/06/relax-president-trump-new-york-times-has-history-of-exaggerating-seniority-of-anonymous-officials-n2516340

    That's a very good point as well..

  31. [31] 
    John M wrote:

    THREE THINGS

    1) The Equal Rights Amendment was just ratified last year by Nevada and this year by Illinois, making Illinois the 37th state to do so, leaving it one state short of the 38 needed for ratification. It then becomes a political question of: A) The original deadline imposed by Congress. Many people point to the 1992 ratification of what became the 27th Amendment, which had been passed by Congress in 1789 but took more than 200 years to secure support from three-fourths of state legislatures. and B) Whether a state can rescind or legally withdraw their ratification of a Federal Amendment. Five states have done so: Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this question.

    2) A Supreme Court Justice, like the President, can be removed through the Impeachment process. If Kavanaugh were to get into hot water in the future over a ruling regarding Trump, this, while never having been done before, is not out of the realm of possibility.

    3) I have seen speculation that it might have been the Vice President Mike Pence who penned the Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, chiefly because of the use of the term "lodestar" by the author when talking about John McCain, a word Mike Pence is know to use A LOT. That would certainly put a whole new spin on things to say the least if it were traced back to the Vice President.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:
  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:
  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JTC-
    Not a fan of mandatory voting. I prefer to try to inspire people to participate.

    But how about a variation?

    Why not count every eligible non-voter as part of the total vote and require that the winner or at least the total vote from actual voters exceed the total of non-voters to validate the election with the office in question remaining empty until a special election can be run that gets the required 50% plus one?

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Sunday 1PM.

    Giants- 38

    Jaguars- 16

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale-
    Sunday 1PM.

    Giants- 38

    Jaguars- 16

    Hay now.. There is no call to be NASTY!!!! :D

    Jaguars are coming off a near SuperBowl season.. And they have only gotten better as the pre-season shows..

    Giants are coming off of a horrendous 13 loss season and a so-so preseason...

    Jags defense will crush the Giants and, if Bortles gets his groove, he will trounce the Giants defense..

    Final Score JAGS 21 GIANTS 3

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll be watching the game if ya wanna join me and live blog it.. :D

    With the Grand Poobah's permission of course. :D

  38. [38] 
    Paula wrote:

    Judiciary Committee Dems fighting hard today and kudos, kudos, kudos!

    Cory Booker released documents showing what a scam the Repub's hiding of them are - good for him! Stuff is coming out that needs to be on the record and I am thrilled to see it.

    Dems are coordinated and united - yay!

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    3) I have seen speculation that it might have been the Vice President Mike Pence who penned the Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, chiefly because of the use of the term "lodestar" by the author when talking about John McCain, a word Mike Pence is know to use A LOT. That would certainly put a whole new spin on things to say the least if it were traced back to the Vice President.

    Agreed..

    ESPECIALLY if one considers that fact that Pence would be the immediate beneficiary of the invocation of the 25th...

    On the other hand, I simply CANNOT see the NY GRIME protecting Pence like that..

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    No matter who wins on Sunday, can we at least agree that this could be a Super Bowl preview?

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    I also have it on good authority that it's going to be the JAGS and the PACKERS in the 2018 Super Bowl

    :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hehe I wrote ^^^^ that one before I saw yours re: Super Bowl LIII :D

  43. [43] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [34]That's something I would get behind, with alterations, obviously. Even a system whereby citizens are required to vote once every ten years in any level of govt. from municipal to school board trustee to general election...Most people I know do cast a ballot on something. I myself only vote provincially and federally, the lower fruit on the tree here tends not to be partisan affiliated and concern themselves mostly with the day to day running of public transit.

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    3) I have seen speculation that it might have been the Vice President Mike Pence who penned the Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, chiefly because of the use of the term "lodestar" by the author when talking about John McCain, a word Mike Pence is know to use A LOT. That would certainly put a whole new spin on things to say the least if it were traced back to the Vice President.

    People are checking Michelle Obama's use of "lodestar" because they know Melania plagiarizes her ;)

    Also: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/nation-stunned-that-there-is-someone-in-white-house-capable-of-writing-an-editorial

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    Personally, I think the author is QAnon.

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    24

    The reason I keep after CW, Ralph Nader and anyone else that I contact are:

    Determine what works and work it.
    Accept what doesn't and don't.

    I regret to inform you that you genuinely suck at determining what isn't working for you. I'm infinitely interested in your viewpoint on a multitude of subjects, Don, but your beating of the dead horse of trying to get CW to shill for you isn't one of them. :)

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hi Paula! Good to see ya!

    Paula [38]: Cory Booker released documents showing what a scam the Repub's hiding of them are - good for him! Stuff is coming out that needs to be on the record and I am thrilled to see it.

    Yep. If, as CW says, the outcome is pre-ordained, this is the way to use to process to make a larger point.

    And there have been other 'shoo-in' nominations that were deep-sixed by revelations of this sort.
    The hazard of conducting these hearings during an election cycle is that something could come out that sends even conservatives running for the exits. Remember John Tower, giant of the Senate? His nomination was 'in the bag' until his alcoholism became an issue.

    Don't count chickens until the fat lady sings, or something like that...

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    JM
    Michale

    That would certainly put a whole new spin on things to say the least if it were traced back to the Vice President.

    On the other hand, I simply CANNOT see the NY GRIME protecting Pence like that..

    The NYT gave the author(s) the cover of anonymity to avoid their being fired. Pence cannot be fired. :)

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    The NYT gave the author(s) the cover of anonymity to avoid their being fired.

    NYT *CLAIMED* they gave the author(s) the cover of anonymity to avoid their being fired...

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    38

    Cory Booker released documents showing what a scam the Repub's hiding of them are - good for him! Stuff is coming out that needs to be on the record and I am thrilled to see it.

    I read them and see no "confidentiality" reason these should be excluded from release. None.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    49

    NYT *CLAIMED* they gave the author(s) the cover of anonymity to avoid their being fired...

    Who on this board did you think needed it dumbed down or clarified since obviously everything stated by the editors of the NYT -- or any publication, Left or Right -- is their "claim." Besides, you're missing the point that if Pence went to the NYT and requested anonymity to publish an op-ed, they likely would tell him to pound sand... for the exact reasons you already stated. :)

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT

    publish that op-ed

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, you're missing the point that if Pence went to the NYT and requested anonymity to publish an op-ed, they likely would tell him to pound sand... for the exact reasons you already stated. :)

    How can I be "missing the point" when, as you point out, it's a point that *I* made first? :D

    Regardless, you are correct.. The NY Grime wouldn't protect Pence... Which is the point I made..

    Thank you for acknowledging it and agreeing that I am factually accurate.. :D

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    [47] Balthasar: Thanks! I'm off for a few hours today and am loving the hearings.

    Don't count chickens until the fat lady sings, or something like that...

    What's interesting - among many things - is that Kavanaugh really seems to be an exceptionally bad choice. He appears to have a ton of baggage and Repubs trying to suppress that baggage makes them look terrible. If they force him through now he will be tainted and so will they. That may not matter in the short term but I think it will matter in the end.

    But the other story is the beauty of the Dem pushback - they're doing it with real ammo. It's not bs, it's substantive. It's great to see in action.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    53

    How can I be "missing the point" when, as you point out, it's a point that *I* made first? :D

    No, I did not say anything about you making the point first because you didn't make the point I added to y'alls obvious previous points, which was: Pence can't be fired. :)

    Thank you for acknowledging it and agreeing that I am factually accurate.. :D

    It didn't require all the "claimed" BS to get there since I was quite obviously agreeing with y'all and adding another reason to both of yours. Sheeeeeeeesh! ;)

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    It didn't require all the "claimed" BS to get there since I was quite obviously agreeing with y'all and adding another reason to both of yours. Sheeeeeeeesh! ;)

    And I'll say it again..

    Thank you... :D

  57. [57] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: the Op Ed.

    Whoever wrote it is attempting to justify why he and whoever agrees with him is enabling this POTUS instead of telling the public POTUS is unfit. It is the beginning of the GOP's process of rehabilitating their increasingly tattered reputations. When Blotus goes down they will claim he was never one of them and they shouldn't be tarred with his brush.

    And, to be accurate, he isn't one of them if you mean the mythical conservative - which none of these people are. What he is is the instrument through which they'd get what they want. The deal they struck was they'd let him run roughshod over everything so long as they could push through laws and legislation that delivered their priorities: destruction of the social safety-net, an end to protective regulations, empowerment of the already rich and powerful and weakening of everyone else, etc. Abortion is the sweetener they'd throw to the Christianists who's votes they needed.

    I've said all along the GOP would support Blotus up to the point where it hurts them more than it helps them. That point is getting nearer every day and they can smell it and are starting to implement Operation We-Don't-Even-Know-The-GUY-and-Aren't-Responsible-For-Anything-He-Did-On-Our-Watch.

    It is NOT good that a bunch of unelected staffers are supposedly running the government. It is NOT good that Repubs with oversight powers refuse to use them and fall back on the crutch that unelected staffers may prevent the worst of the worst just long enough for them (Repubs) to break a few more things. And when Blotus is gone, they shouldn't survive unscathed.

  58. [58] 
    Paula wrote:

    Go Kick!

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    40

    No matter who wins on Sunday, can we at least agree that this could be a Super Bowl preview?

    Giants and Jags? Super Bowl preview?

    I hate to rain on your little parade there, Don, but you are only half correct. The Giants are not Super Bowl material this season, but one out of two ain't bad. ;)

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    56

    And I'll say it again..

    You'll say it again? But you're not known for being the repetitive type... why start now?

    Thank you... :D

    No reason whatsoever to thank me for agreeing with you; even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Giants are not Super Bowl material this season, but one out of two ain't bad. ;)

    And once again.. Complete agreement between myself and Kick...

    This could be the start of something wonderful.. :D

    You watch. Jags and Packers.. Super Bowl LIII

    :D

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    57

    This!

    I'm still not convinced Javanka didn't do it. They were the first ones I thought of when I read it.

  63. [63] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [50]: Read that material too. There was one email in there that interested me. In it, Kavanaugh is discussing an SBA program that would primarily benefit native Hawaiians. He writes:

    "...which generally requires that all Americans be treated as equal (absent a program narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest). The desire to remedy societal discrimination is not a compelling interest, however."

    It isn't? I could present dozens of reasons for the government to have an intense interest in remedying societal discrimination, particularly in the Hawaiian islands, where native populations experience high rates of poverty.

    Ironically, Kavanaugh switches directions when the subject becomes airport security, and argues initially that race-neutral approaches to passenger screening "could be" even more effective than one based on racial classifications.

    But Kavanaugh, a political appointee, realizes that the prevailing sentiment of the Bush White House was that Muslims should be the primary target of suspicion. So he switches gears, and suggests in the very next paragraph that "if the use of race renders security measures more effective" - the opposite of the view he'd just expressed - "then perhaps we should be using it in the interest of safety, now and in the long term".

    Finally, he adds: "such action may be legal under cases such as Korematsu."

    Korematsu v. United States was the Supreme Court ruling that justified the Executive order that sent the Japenese into internment camps during WWII.

    It's hard to discern here whether Kavanaugh was actually endorsing basing a race-based policy on such controversial precedent or subtly warning his peers of the slippery slope of argument that could follow such policy. Either way, it demonstrates just how 'dark' Kavanaugh was willing to go to appease his political bosses at the time.

  64. [64] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Burt Reynolds did it, and says he'll do it again...oh wait.

    Ok, onto the next theory.

    RIP Bandit.

    Guessing Trump will tweet something about an American icon, overlooking his role on 'Flipper' naturally.

    LL&P

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthsar..

    What Kavanaugh is saying is that racism as a response to ADDRESS racism is not the correct solution..

    I happen to agree with that..

    I realize you want to see the boogey-man here, but it is all pointless..

    Kavanaugh will be on the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will take a hard right..

    This is the reality you better get used to cuz their ain't no stoppin' it now...

    Elections have consequences..

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    61

    And once again.. Complete agreement between myself and Kick...

    Crazytown! Oh, wait... that's the White House.

    You watch. Jags and Packers.. Super Bowl LIII

    I would wager y'all are going to have to beat the Patriots in order to make it... and probably Pittsburgh too. You know that, right? You better hope Brady gets hurt. Packers are hard to beat on the Frozen Tundra. I would wager the road to the Super Bowl will at least go part way through there... pending injuries, of course. Who could beat the Packers this season? The Aint's might, Atlanta maybe, and Super Bowl LIII is in Atlanta. I've been there for a Super Bowl. My team won... good times. :)

    I better thrown Don a bone, though: Don, your Mr. Brady of the Giants will likely win Rookie of the Year but... no Super Bowl for you. Sorry, but thank you for playing! ;)

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What Kavanaugh is saying is that racism as a response to ADDRESS racism is not the correct solution..

    I happen to agree with that..

    Recently I read an opinion piece that used this analogy:

    The Republican attitude toward rulemaking is like that of a team that has been able to run up the score in a game 64-0 in the first quarter, because the other team was not allowed to wear helmets. Now that the other team finally has some helmets, the winning team objects to any change in the rules that would allow the losing team to catch up, arguing that to do so would make the game 'unfair'.

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    63

    You're right, of course. And none of it will matter because he'll be confirmed regardless.

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    64

    Guessing Trump will tweet something about an American icon, overlooking his role on 'Flipper' naturally.

    Flipper! People will think he's whining about Mikey Cohen. ;)

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    65

    Kavanaugh will be on the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will take a hard right..

    Justice Kennedy wasn't all that moderate so I don't think the SCOTUS will change all that much with Kavanaugh. It will likely make Roberts the swinger, though.

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    CNN
    @CNN

    Read the stolen letter from President Trump's desk reported in Bob Woodward's book https://cnn.it/2wMZUSY

    3:34 PM - 6 Sep 2018

    Like I said, Woodward will have receipts. :)

  72. [72] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [71] Kick, we're being assured that Woodward has all the empirical evidence and an iPhone bursting with recorded interviews. Smart cash is on this Washington institution, he not only knows the game, but wrote a fair amount of the rules. He's also hardly going to roll the dice with a slander or defamation suit at this late stage of his career. Trump has form for suing authors, the last few, David Cay Johnstone, and Michael D'Antonio have both sat in depositions, armed with notes, and beaten trump at his litigious game...so he won't go there with Woodward...that and he will know he'll have bags of evidence to Trump's winning smile...

    LL&P

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [71] You're on a roll, Kick, That's the second good document you've linked to today.

    Trump isn't going to come out of all of this with a good opinion of lawyers, that's for sure.

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    72

    Smart cash is on this Washington institution, he not only knows the game, but wrote a fair amount of the rules.

    Yes, sir.

    He's also hardly going to roll the dice with a slander or defamation suit at this late stage of his career.

    Plus, how would Hair Dick-Tater claim he was too busy being POTUS if he commenced to suing everyone who wrote a book about him? *laughs*

    Trump has form for suing authors, the last few, David Cay Johnstone, and Michael D'Antonio have both sat in depositions, armed with notes, and beaten trump at his litigious game...so he won't go there with Woodward...that and he will know he'll have bags of evidence to Trump's winning smile...

    *laughs* And most famously Timothy O'Brien, formerly of the failing (just kidding) New York Times, where Trump lost and lost bigly and perjured himself ~30 times in deposition where he claimed his net worth fluctuated based on his mood and that he would know Felix Sater if he was in the room (bigly lie).

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/trump-s-history-of-lies-according-to-biographer-timothy-o-brien

    You can't really slander the president in America, though, JTC; the POTUS is fair game for all. If he wasn't, Barack Obama would have skewered Trump nine ways to Sunday for all his fabricated and utter nonsensical Birther nonsense. So when Trump became president, he basically forfeited his claims to libel and/or slander in perpetuity. Poor Donald. :)

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    73

    You're on a roll, Kick, That's the second good document you've linked to today.

    And then I discovered Senator Patrick Leahy's Twitter feed and read 'til I fell asleep -- not because it was boring -- I think my eyes just got hypnotized. ;)

    Have you seen that thing? Lots more "confidential" documents: https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy

    Trump isn't going to come out of all of this with a good opinion of lawyers, that's for sure.

    Yes, sir... especially and particularly his own lawyers, and the shit hasn't even come close to hitting the proverbial fan yet. Mueller is just getting started. :)

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT to [74]

    *laughs* And most famously Timothy O'Brien, formerly of the failing (just kidding) New York Times, where Trump lost and lost bigly and perjured himself ~30 times in deposition where he claimed his net worth fluctuated based on his mood and that he wouldn't know Felix Sater if he was in the room (bigly lie).

    Of course, Trump would lie under penalty of perjury about knowing who Felix Sater was... because money laundering.

  77. [77] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [76] Sater is a bigger pain in Trump's backside than the cash-washing, though that's a biggie...Sater was listed as a partner in Trump SOHO, Trump and his kids cultivated investors at SOHO and a few other projects (never started). The thing is, Trump failed to mention, to his investors, that Sater was a twice convicted felon...A felony in the US, carrying 10 years in Sing Sing. the statute of limitations runs out in 2021 for that SDNY fun.

    Watch the Dubious friends of Donald Trump on YTube, By Zembla, I way have mentioned it before.

    LL&P

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would wager y'all are going to have to beat the Patriots in order to make it... and probably Pittsburgh too.

    We've done it before.. :D

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Republican attitude toward rulemaking is like that of a team that has been able to run up the score in a game 64-0 in the first quarter, because the other team was not allowed to wear helmets. Now that the other team finally has some helmets, the winning team objects to any change in the rules that would allow the losing team to catch up, arguing that to do so would make the game 'unfair'.

    So, you believe that the proper response to racism is more racism??

    OK.. I respect your opinion.

    I simply don't agree with it..

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    'nuck,

    [71] Kick, we're being assured that Woodward has all the empirical evidence and an iPhone bursting with recorded interviews.

    We were assured the same thing with Wolff and Omarosa as well..

  81. [81] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [80] 'yank'

    Woodward in respected by folks from both sides of the aisle, He's renown for spot on reporting, and his attention to detail, most of the politico types have said you can pretty much take to the bank what he writes is solid in facts.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Nuck

    Woodward in respected by folks from both sides of the aisle,

    That's what NeverTrumpers said about Wolff..

    He's renown for spot on reporting, and his attention to detail, most of the politico types have said you can pretty much take to the bank what he writes is solid in facts.

    Many NeverTrumpers have said the same thing about the NY Grime and WaPoop..

    I have NO DOUBT that Woodward's book will be well-received by those who already hate President Trump..

    But we have been promised these TRUMP IS TOAST consequences from these tomes of revelation before..

    And it's NEVER happened..

    You could be right this time and Woodward takes down a POTUS...

    OR..

    Woodward is so enamored by reliving the past glory of taking down a POTUS, that he has fudged on details and facts to please a built-in 'ready to buy the bs' audience.....

    He wouldn't be the first.. He won't be the last..

    Does Woodward say ANY good things about President Trump?? Is there any praise of President Trump??

    If not, the hysterical NeverTrump bias is obvious and blatant...

    Such is the curse of HHPTDS...

  83. [83] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [80] would it surprise you to hear he has written scathing books on Clinton, Obama, Bush, the CIA and the supreme court, and John Belushi...he's also written on kids with autism and bringing up kids with disabilities. So painting him as a leftwing hack might be an over-reach.

    LL&P

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    77

    The thing is, Trump failed to mention, to his investors, that Sater was a twice convicted felon.

    Yes, sir, and Sater was/is also a valuable cooperating witness for the U.S. Department of Justice, helping to convict mob figures for financial-fraud crimes.

    A felony in the US, carrying 10 years in Sing Sing. the statute of limitations runs out in 2021 for that SDNY fun.

    You don't say, JTC. I wonder if Mueller and the NYAG knows about this? *nods head*

    Watch the Dubious friends of Donald Trump on YTube, By Zembla, I way have mentioned it before.

    I know, right!? I posted it on this blog the day after it dropped in May 2017... seems like decades ago

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/17/kid-president/#comment-100152

    It was posted the day I also commented for the first time on the blog that the GOP had received laundered money from Russian sources, which fact was just proven with Mueller's latest indictment and guilty plea/flipper. I got called some choice names that day over it... as per usual... but how do you like me now? ;)

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    [80] would it surprise you to hear he has written scathing books on Clinton, Obama, Bush, the CIA and the supreme court, and John Belushi...he's also written on kids with autism and bringing up kids with disabilities. So painting him as a leftwing hack might be an over-reach.

    I didn't paint him as a LeftWing hack..

    I painted him as a hysterical NeverTrump hand have yet to see any FACTS that would counter that label..

    Is his latest book a biased Anti-Trump hit piece?? Or is it a fair and balanced honest and objective assessment of the Trump administration..

    If it says nothing good about President Trump then it's the former..

    If it makes an honest case for President Trump's win and losses..

    Then it's the latter..

Comments for this article are closed.