ChrisWeigant.com

What Will Happen If Trump Ignores The Courts?

[ Posted Wednesday, May 15th, 2019 – 17:03 UTC ]

What does "co-equal" really mean? That is a basic constitutional question that has never adequately been answered. We are supposed to have three co-equal branches of government in the United States, the legislative (Congress), the executive (the president and all executive branches), and the judicial (the Supreme Court and all other federal courts). Theoretically, none are supposed to be held above the other, hence the co-equal designation. But what does that really mean?

Traditionally, it has loosely meant that each branch is supposed to remain largely within its own sphere of influence. The legislative branch passes laws. The executive either signs them or vetoes them, and also implements and administers both new and existing laws. The judicial decides the correct interpretation of laws. That's the elementary-school level of the definition, but the eternal unanswered question is what happens when things aren't quite so cut and dried? What happens when one branch interprets one of those "checks and balances" that are supposed to rein in the other two branches in a way in which one (or both) of the other branches disagrees? When this happens, the usual term is that we all face a "constitutional crisis." But there are often no precedents in such crises, meaning all three branches tend to just wing it in their response.

President Donald Trump seems to actively be goading the House Democrats into just such a crisis. He has announced in various ways that he sees all House investigations into any aspect of his life, his businesses, and his administration as being illegitimate and therefore he is going to ignore all requests, demands, and subpoenas from any House committee from now on.

All of these incidents will doubtlessly wind up in the federal courts. The first of these cases was heard this week, concerning a subpoena for some of Trump's business records. It certainly won't be the last, however. Which begs a very large question -- what will happen if these cases are appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and the high court rules against Trump? What will happen if Trump just decides that he's going to ignore the Supreme Court's adverse ruling?

Trump and his legal mouthpieces will doubtlessly offer all kinds of fantastical reasons why the president can ignore the Supreme Court, but they'll most likely be based on the interpretation that "co-equal does not mean any one branch is above the other." No one branch can force another branch to do something it doesn't agree with, in other words. The Supreme Court can issue rulings all day long, but they can safely be ignored because the president is their equal, not their subordinate.

Should we come to such a juncture, the media will likely dig up a reference from Trump's favorite former president, Andrew Jackson. The quote may never actually have been uttered by Jackson, but even historians who doubt its accuracy will certainly admit that it sure sounds like something Jackson could have said. When the Supreme Court ruled on a Georgia law dealing with Indian rights (this was all wrapped up in the question of Jackson's preferred "Indian removal" policy) and Jackson disagreed with the ruling, he is supposed to have responded: "John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!" In more modern terms, this might be translated as: "Oh yeah? You and what army?!?" The Supreme Court and the judicial branch have no enforcement arm at all, so they rely on the other two branches to carry out the implications of their rulings. Federal marshals are theoretically supposed to be a federal law enforcement force, but they are also part of the Justice Department, meaning they ultimately answer to the executive, not the Supreme Court.

Even a cursory glance at Andrew Jackson's term in office shows why Trump likes him so much. Jackson was the ultimate political disrupter, creating numerous precedents other presidents have come to regularly depend on (Jackson was the first to veto laws he didn't personally like rather than just on the grounds that they were unconstitutional, the first to claim executive privilege, the first to use the "pocket veto," and the first to have a house of Congress officially censure him). Jackson did what he wanted to do, and cared not one whit what others thought of his actions. The most jaw-dropping example is what became known as the "Petticoat Affair," where Jackson essentially fired his entire cabinet because their wives were all snubbing the wife of his secretary of war and refusing to invite her to Washington parties. That's not even an exaggeration -- that's really what happened, in a nutshell. In today's world, this might be akin to Trump firing his whole cabinet because they were rude to Ivanka.

But back to the modern world. Now, some might consider it premature to begin worrying about a hypothetical situation where President Trump defies convention to the extent of ignoring a Supreme Court ruling. But is it really so far-fetched to worry about such a thing? The Speaker of the House has openly worried that Trump might not relinquish the presidency if he doesn't like the outcome of the next election. The House is already contemplating impeaching Trump for far less serious constitutional offenses. Trump attacks the judiciary and the justice system at will, often viciously. And he's already shown his contempt for all sorts of traditional interpretations of how the government should work and the constraints the executive department should have to operate under. In other words, it really isn't out of the question that Trump would indeed defy the court, especially if the ruling were not unanimous or something like 7-2, but instead a 5-4 decision where John Roberts voted with the liberals. How hard is it to picture Trump unleashing his online army of supporters against Roberts and the Supreme Court in such a scenario?

Trump already sees the entire justice system as his own private legal team. He fired one attorney general who didn't adequately share this belief, and has installed another one who seems comfortable with being not the highest law enforcement officer in the land, but rather Trump's private lawyer, who will fight to protect his interests above all else. Although it hasn't adequately been tested yet (since they've never issued a harsh rebuke of Trump to date), Trump also sees the Supreme Court as "his," since he has managed to seat two of the justices which locked in a 5-4 conservative majority. The Supreme Court, as far as Trump is concerned, is another extension of his own private legal team, and will protect him against anything Trump doesn't like or doesn't want to do. So how would he react if the high court rules against him on an issue of the extent of executive power?

Such a ruling will not happen before -- at the earliest -- this fall. The Supreme Court is now wrapping up its yearly session, and final rulings on cases it has already heard will be issued in June. Then the court takes the summer off, and reconvenes in October. So barring any emergency moves, the court won't even hear any appeals in any of the cases between the House and Trump until then. The political impact of any such rulings will only increase with time, as we get closer and closer to the 2020 presidential election.

Trump has made his new strategy of completely stonewalling the House pretty obvious. At this point, he isn't going to give them anything they ask for, even if they subpoena it. By doing so, he is blatantly daring them to impeach him. Since that's the only constitutional recourse Congress really has outside of the courts, and since the Justice Department has a policy that a sitting president can't be indicted for anything, Trump obviously feels no pressure to do otherwise at this point. Up until now, House Democrats have shied away from even opening an impeachment inquiry, so Trump feels safe in his stonewalling.

All of that will change if Trump does defy a Supreme Court ruling. Let's say for the sake of argument that the case in question is over whether Congress can see his tax returns or not. The court rules in favor of the House, and Trump immediately orders the head of the I.R.S. to purge all databases of his entire tax history and burn any paper copies. Even if the I.R.S. chief refuses to do so, Trump will just fire him and name someone to the job who will (a new "Saturday Night Massacre," in other words). After the absolute destruction of his entire tax history, Trump will triumphantly tell the House Democrats to go pound sand.

At this point, impeachment will become not some abstract issue, but will become instead a constitutional imperative. If a president can ignore both Congress and the courts, then he will quite obviously be setting himself above the other two branches, instead of being co-equal. The precedent this would set might just be so terrifying to Senate Republicans that they break with Trump. But that's not guaranteed at all -- if such a ruling came down next spring, in the midst of the presidential primary season, would Republicans really decide to dramatically break with their own party's president and presidential nominee? Has Trump got the Republican Party in such a stronghold that it would allow him to set such a precedent -- one that a Democratic president could easily use against them in the future -- or would they realize that Trump had finally gone too far? Like the question of Trump actually defying the Supreme Court in the first place, none of those questions really has an obvious answer, at this point.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

84 Comments on “What Will Happen If Trump Ignores The Courts?”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Impeachment needs to happen NOW.

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    on what charges, paula?

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    How about that Trump is a compromised President on multiple fronts? He denies Russia interfered in our 2016 election in an attempt to get him elected. He lied about and still denies having had any potential business deals in foreign countries during/after the election.

    Those ten (+) cases of obstruction of justice (which Trump’s defense is that you cannot obstruct if there was no crime...Trump is as great a legal genius as he is a business genius!)?

    How about the 10,000 false statements made by Trump? How can we have faith in anything our president says?

    Violation of the Emoluments Clause — no need to wait until what the court decides as Trump has made it clear that he does not believe they can use the work of any other branch of government against him. Congress can decide for itself.

    Granted, Pelosi has made it clear that Democrats need to focus on 2020 and ignore the attempts to goad them into impeaching Trump.

    This President has been so terrified that the people would not see his presidency as legitimate that he has gone to extreme lengths that delegitimizes his presidency more than anything. Let Trump keep it up until the people start DEMANDING Congress remove him from office.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: He has announced in various ways that he sees all House investigations into any aspect of his life, his businesses, and his administration as being illegitimate and therefore he is going to ignore all requests, demands, and subpoenas from any House committee from now on.

    Richard Nixon also refused to comply with a subpoena from the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 requesting access to tapes and related documents to their investigation. The issue landed in court and was eventually decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon which required Nixon to comply with the subpoena. It was a close vote wherein the SCOTUS determined the POTUS was not above the law *shakes head* just kidding, it was unanimous against Nixon.

    Blackmun, Burger, and Powell were all appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon himself... so what could go wrong? Well, I'll tell you: Unlike the Dick who appointed all three of them, every one of them took their oath to uphold the Constitution very seriously.

    Chief Justice Burger wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, Powell, Stewart, and White... with Rehnquist recusing himself because he had served in the Nixon administration as Assistant AG.

    Nixon resigned 16 days later still believing that as POTUS he was above the law. In his famous 1977 interview with David Frost, Nixon stated in multiple different ways that he didn't believe he ever obstructed justice. Nixon accepted a pardon for doing it so the issue of his guilt or innocence was totally moot since accepting a pardon means never having to deny your guilt since you admit your guilt when you accept a pardon for committing said crime(s).

    Oh, I wouldn’t want to be a Russian leader. They never know when they’re being taped. ~ Richard Nixon

    Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it... paraphrasing, of course. :)

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Will Happen If Trump Ignores The Courts?

    It won't matter because the courts are going to side with the President..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    russ,

    Re: #3

    "Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong."
    -Luke Skywalker

    Nothing you have stated is grounds for impeachment, even if it all WASN'T total bullshit..

    Which it is...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Democrats had their chance to take down Trump with the Mueller witch hunt and President Trump co-operated albeit reluctantly..

    They lost.. They swung and missed..

    They should concentrate on actually governing if they want to keep the House in 2020...

    But they won't.. They'll continue to harass President Trump and ignore the people's business and they will be fired in Nov of 2020...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Impeachment needs to happen NOW.

    House Dems fall in line with Pelosi's no-impeachment strategy despite Trump's defiance

    WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump, who is refusing to cooperate with more than 20 congressional investigations, instructed current and former aides Wednesday to ignore a House committee's request for documents in the latest act of defiance that has prompted Democrats to declare the nation is facing a constitutional crisis.

    But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Democrats in a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday morning to stick to their policy agenda ahead of the 2020 election rather than initiate impeachment proceedings. And not a single lawmaker challenged her.
    https://www.chron.com/news/article/House-Dems-fall-in-line-with-Pelosi-s-13849065.php

    Sorry, Paula..

    Your Dumbocrats don't have the cajones to impeach because they know that A) They will be fired if they do and 2) There is not a single valid and/or factual charge to impeach over..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Not to nitpick (well, maybe a little... :D)

    Has Trump got the Republican Party in such a stronghold that it would allow him to set such a precedent --

    Don't you mean "stranglehold"...??

    Or maybe "strong hold"...??

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Speaker of the House has openly worried that Trump might not relinquish the presidency if he doesn't like the outcome of the next election.

    And you don't see the obvious and blatant (not to mention hysterically laughable) hypocrisy in that???

    Irregardless of that blind spot, what Speaker Pelosi says is always bullshit anyways...

    She accused AG Barr of lying and did not have a SINGLE fact to back it up...

    She's afraid to bring impeachment against the President..

    So, she isn't really relevant in anything, is she.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    7

    But they won't.. They'll continue to harass President Trump and ignore the people's business and they will be fired in Nov of 2020...

    Your ignorance is on full display here, and your main problem is that your ignorance doesn't allow you to recognize your own ignorance.

    The House contains the representatives of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people actually hired them in vast numbers in 2018, wherein your ignorance was again revealed in sweeping and superior fashion. The people hired them to, among other things, perform the checks and balances that Republicans relinquished to the Executive Branch because, among other things, they possess no spinal columns in the exact same way you possess no reasoning skills.

    So to recap: Unlike you and the spineless GOP, the people's House as currently constituted is not willing to bend over for the POTUS and to simply relinquish their constitutionally mandated duties to perform checks and balances. Additionally, if you had complained even once about the 8 investigations into Benghazi, people might have to take your hypocritical and mindless bullshit seriously, but you didn't... so they don't. :)

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Like, hello America, AOC here again, but this time from Washington, D.C., which is named after our country's first president, George Washington D.C. Like, did you know that?

    I came up with my plan after we were watching, like, the most important documentary on climate change. It’s called 'Ice Age 2: The Meltdown. That’s not me saying it, that’s science! My Green New Deal will cost, like, 93 trillion dollars. Do you know how much that is? Me neither. Because it’s totally worth it. If sea levels keep rising, we won’t be able to drive to Hawaii anymore!"
    -Occasional Cortex Impersonator Ava Martinez

    She totally nails Occasional Cortex!!! :D

    The video is hilarious!!! :D

    https://twitter.com/SICKENLAW/status/1127932246717943809

    Well worth the watch...

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    10

    So, she isn't really relevant in anything, is she.. :D

    She's so irrelevant, you and the GOP spend an inordinate amount of time discussing her, she stars in thousands of television commercials from coast to coast, and she lives rent free in millions of empty heads all across America. :)

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jim Comey's own words justify Bill Barr's review

    Attorney General William Barr has just blitzed former FBI Director James Comey on third down and there’s a feeling a sack is imminent.

    Barr’s tasking of U.S. Attorney John Durham to review the “origins” of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign becomes the third examination of Comey and his special team, joining efforts by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Huber.

    This is an entirely appropriate response to the fearful possibility that the FBI was misused by its past leadership for political purposes.

    AG Barr understands well that the FBI is dead as an agency — undeserving of the nation’s trust — if it is commonly perceived to be a weapon for political vagaries rather than an impartial, objective enforcer of the rule of law so vital to the survival of democratic governance.

    These three initiatives will either validate Comey’s claim that everything he and his team did was “by the book” or they will expose grievous abuses that will invite reforms to ensure this never happens again.

    Early indicators are troubling and Comey, with three linebackers bearing down, is in full scramble mode. His own words do not instill confidence, as evidenced during his most recent media tour last week in which he catapulted stones at all who have offended him.

    President Trump is “amoral,” a “chronic liar,” who “eats your soul in small bites,” according to Comey. He claims AG Barr and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein lack inner strength and character, respectively.

    This seems to be a purposeful, if questionable, strategy. The Mueller report largely has undercut any assertion by Comey that the counterintelligence investigation initiated during Comey's directorship was founded on solid legal predication.

    So now Comey's game plan seems to be an appeal to emotion: We had to investigate the Trump campaign because he is such a terrible person and, as articulated by his investigator, Peter Strzok, someone who had to be “stopped.”
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/443741-jim-comeys-own-words-justify-bill-barrs-review

    Special Prosecutor John Durham's probe is going to be DEVASTATING to Democrats..

    Even more devastating that the Mueller Witch Hunt that totally and completely exonerated President Trump with regards to Russia Collusion...

    It's gonna be a fun 17 months.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:


    Trump already sees the entire justice system as his own private legal team. He fired one attorney general who didn't adequately share this belief, and has installed another one who seems comfortable with being not the highest law enforcement officer in the land, but rather Trump's private lawyer, who will fight to protect his interests above all else.

    You mean, like Eric Holder, who stated explicitly that his job is to be the President's "wingman"...

    You mean like that???

    Funny how ya'all didn't have a problem with the AG being the President's lawyer when it was an AG and a POTUS who had a -D after their names..

    How come???

    All of that will change if Trump does defy a Supreme Court ruling.

    Why would Trump.. er excuse me.. PRESIDENT Trump have to defy a SCOTUS that rules in his favor???

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did the Left Misread the 2020 Democratic Primary?

    In a matter of weeks, moderate Joe Biden has gone from dead-on-arrival gaffe machine to undisputed front-runner. But progressive activists think they can still bring him down.

    For a huge swath of political observers, from pundits to Democratic activists, it was obvious that Joe Biden was going to flop. Before the former vice president entered the race, he was written off as a relic. He was too old (a problem for a party pulsating with millennials and Generation Z). He was too undisciplined (a flaw exposed during his short-lived presidential campaigns in 1988 and 2008.) And he was too wedded to a bygone era of bipartisanship—a centrist out of step with rising progressive stars like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

    “Biden is opposing where the center of energy is in the Democratic Party,” Justice Democrats communications director Waleed Shahid said.

    “I think there’s going to be a lot less air in the room than it looks like for Biden. The reality is that Biden’s time is passed,” predicted Democracy for America chairman Charles Chamberlain.

    “We’re in a new moment. This is not Joe Biden’s moment,” Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green said.
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/14/joe-biden-2020-226872

    Blue On Blue Civil War... :D Love it..

    As I have said, I don't think Biden can win the Primary.. Too many forces of hysterical Dumbocrats aligned against him..

    But I admit I could be wrong.. And if I am, if Biden wins the primary, I am going to have a FIELD DAY!!!

    For all their hysterical attacks on the GOP as the Party of "old white men", the Dumbocrat Party nominates.....

    you guessed it...

    AN OLD WHITE GUY!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

    The political attack ads just write themselves.. :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did the Left Misread the 2020 Democratic Primary?

    In a matter of weeks, moderate Joe Biden has gone from dead-on-arrival gaffe machine to undisputed front-runner. But progressive activists think they can still bring him down.

    For a huge swath of political observers, from pundits to Democratic activists, it was obvious that Joe Biden was going to flop. Before the former vice president entered the race, he was written off as a relic. He was too old (a problem for a party pulsating with millennials and Generation Z). He was too undisciplined (a flaw exposed during his short-lived presidential campaigns in 1988 and 2008.) And he was too wedded to a bygone era of bipartisanship—a centrist out of step with rising progressive stars like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

    “Biden is opposing where the center of energy is in the Democratic Party,” Justice Democrats communications director Waleed Shahid said.

    “I think there’s going to be a lot less air in the room than it looks like for Biden. The reality is that Biden’s time is passed,” predicted Democracy for America chairman Charles Chamberlain.

    “We’re in a new moment. This is not Joe Biden’s moment,” Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green said.
    politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/14/joe-biden-2020-226872

    Blue On Blue Civil War... :D Love it..

    As I have said, I don't think Biden can win the Primary.. Too many forces of hysterical Dumbocrats aligned against him..

    But I admit I could be wrong.. And if I am, if Biden wins the primary, I am going to have a FIELD DAY!!!

    For all their hysterical attacks on the GOP as the Party of "old white men", the Dumbocrat Party nominates.....

    you guessed it...

    AN OLD WHITE GUY!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

    The political attack ads just write themselves.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since I am talking about Democrats, it's ALL on topic...

    Right, Birther?? :D

  19. [19] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You mean, like Eric Holder, who stated explicitly that his job is to be the President's "wingman"...

    You mean like that???

    Funny how ya'all didn't have a problem with the AG being the President's lawyer when it was an AG and a POTUS who had a -D after their names..

    How come???

    What does that even mean? You have given no context and do not actually provide a quote, so for all we know Holder made that comment when they were in college trying to pick up women. In which I have no problem with it. If Barr wants to help Trump pick up prostitutes, that’s his choice.

    You obviously think what Holder did was wrong, but not what Barr is doing. You are the hypocrite.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    You obviously think what Holder did was wrong, but not what Barr is doing. You are the hypocrite.

    I made no comment on the wrongness of either Holder or Barr...

    I simply commented on your hypocrisy that you accuse AG Barr of being the President's lawyer (without any facts to support per usual) but you gave Holder a pass for doing the exact same thing...

    My point was ya'all's hypocrisy, NOT a judgement on the actions of Barr and Holder..

    Duh...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    , so for all we know Holder made that comment when they were in college trying to pick up women.

    Really?? So you think Odumbo was "the president" in college???

    Com'on, Russ!! I *KNOW* you are more intelligent than you are appearing with this lame comment.. :eyeroll:

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, if you WANT my opinion on the actions of Holder and Barr, you need but ask...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to announce presidential bid
    Bill de Blasio is not exactly popular back home, but he has a record of progressive accomplishments that allies think will resonate with Democratic voters.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-announce-presidential-bid-n1006101

    And another peon.....

    "Captain, if we were to take the phasers and align them with the transitory peons...."
    "Hay!!! Don't you 'peon' me!!!"

    -Trek Spoof

    :D

    .... joins the ranks of the Democrat wannabes :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting aside..

    My Social Studies teacher once told us that the BEST job experience for being POTUS is being New York Mayor...

    So, maybe DeBlowhole has a shot...

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Now, if you WANT my opinion on the actions of Holder and Barr, you need but ask...

    Or like normal people with multiple brain cells who've demonstrated repeatedly that you possess continuity of thought and the ability to exercise reading comprehension skills, you naturally already know his opinion of Eric Holder because you display none of the stupidity or lack of self-awareness of the hypocritical board troll who appears to believe that every day is a new one where you just make up fake shit and assign it to other people's past while naturally ignoring your own prior statements that are archived and easily searchable by anyone with a computer and a keyboard. :)

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Partner Chase
    An elite law firm’s inability to promote enough minority partners exposes the unrealistic expectations of diversity mandates.

    In December 2018, the New York law firm Paul, Weiss announced its latest class of partners. A scandal erupted: all 12 of the newly promoted lawyers were white, the photo accompanying the announcement revealed. The New York Times published a front-page hit job on the firm headlined: 12 WHITE FACES REFLECT BLIND SPOT IN BIG LAW. Nearly 200 corporate general counsels signed an open letter threatening to pull their business from law firms whose partners are not “diverse in race, color, age, gender, gender orientation, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, and without regard to disabilities.” Paul, Weiss did what every other mainstream institution does today when accused of racial bias: it fell on its sword. Rather than defend his organization against specious charges of discrimination, the firm’s chairman declared his unwavering commitment to “diversity” and promised to do better the next time around.

    The Paul, Weiss saga is a casebook study in the evasions and duplicities that govern the national discourse about race, when any discussion of the academic skills gap is taboo and when racial preferences have become the universal way to engineer “diversity.”
    https://www.city-journal.org/exposing-diversity-mandates

    That's exactly the problem with Dumbocrats and their identity politics..

    Screw the most qualified.. Just choose people based on race..

    Apparently, the Dumbocrat Party hasn't fallen far from it's racist/KKK roots, eh? :eyeroll:

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    2020 frontrunner in May? It's probably not a good thing
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/05/15/joe-biden-2020-early-frontrunner-flameout/3665632002/

    That's the problem with Biden's front runner status..

    He has no where to go but down...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    CULTURE WAR 2020: Alabama governor signs abortion ban...
    Missouri Senate passes...
    Louisiana next...
    More states coming...

    https://apnews.com/1ef6c45ac16e4468a1f6ae2f52f0a419

    Looks like the Dumbocrats and their hysterical KILL ALL THE BABIES platform is on a collusion course with those who think ALL lives matter...

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is a fundamental win for progressives every time Trump lifts a check on authority in the U.S.

    The culture war boils down to progression vs. conservation. Basically it is how much change people want to see in society.

    Typically conservatives have used the government and institutions to limit change to incremental steps at the most, whereas progressives have wanted to take large leaps forward. (Remember, I'm talking about societal change, not e.g. tax law here.)

    With Trump and McConnell eliminating more and more of the unspoken rules, they are taking the brakes off. The desperation we see in voter suppression and gerrymandering indicate that they know most of the country is against them.

    There will be a time, maybe even next year, when the progressives control all the power, and we will be hearing a lot of screaming from the conservatives.

    It is encouraging to see their desperation already, but desperation coupled with impotency will result in an even greater spike in right wing terrorism sadly.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Abortion is a Pandora's Box for the Republicans. They have used it since the late 1970's as a rallying cry, before that, it was mostly seen as a Catholic issue and the cabal opposing it were in favor or indifferent at best.

    Nearly 1 in 4 women in America have had an abortion, but they keep it to themselves for a range of very good reasons (source: https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abortion-common-experience-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates).

    Handing a huge political win to the Democrats by banning abortion is the last thing the politicians on the right want. The nutcases are missing the point - abortion is to rile up the base, not the opposition's base.

    Democrats for too long have ignored the Supreme Court as a political motivator, the Republicans are also about to hand that to the Democrats as well.

    This, coupled with the desperate tactics to stop people voting by the right are very encouraging from a long term political sense.

    It is a good time to be a progressive - the brakes are off, the country is about to despise the conservatives even more, and once the power changes and strong voting laws are put in place it will be a generation before conservatives can recover from Trumpism.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a fundamental win for progressives every time Trump lifts a check on authority in the U.S.

    Yea, that's what ya said about ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion..

    "Every time Trump speaks against Mueller, it's one more nail in Trump's coffin" or words to that effect..

    You were wrong then, yer wrong now..

    It is encouraging to see their desperation already, but desperation coupled with impotency will result in an even greater spike in right wing terrorism sadly.

    No, what's sad is THAT is what Dumbocrats are hoping for..

    #sad

    You really need to come to grips with reality.. Democrats lost.. They will continue to lose as long as they push an unpopular Anti-America agenda..

    It's really that simple...

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    One last political mistake from the right on abortion is, of course, the long term impact on demographics.

    Richer, non-Hispanic white women have the lowest abortion rates (see source in [29]). Thus forcing women to term will result in more poor, non-white Americans. In two decades these voters are not likely to be supporters of Mitch McConnell's vision of America.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nearly 1 in 4 women in America have had an abortion, but they keep it to themselves for a range of very good reasons

    Yea.. FACTS to the contrary

    #ShoutYourAbortion

    It is a good time to be a progressive - the brakes are off, the country is about to despise the conservatives even more, and once the power changes and strong voting laws are put in place it will be a generation before conservatives can recover from Trumpism.

    Any facts to support your claim?? Beyond wishful thinking, I mean...

    It is a good time to be a progressive -

    But I do partially agree with you...

    The radical Left Wing fringe is in control of the Dumbocrat Party..

    That's why it's impossible for Biden to be the Dim nominee..

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    or words to that effect

    You said "Trump will win the FIFA World Cup for America EVERY YEAR HE IS PRESIDENT!!!"

    Didn't happen.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another "word to that effect":

    You told us repeatedly that Trump would walk on the moon without a space suit by 2018 if elected in 2016, just to prove that real men don't need oxygen.

    Didn't happen!

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Richer, non-Hispanic white women have the lowest abortion rates (see source in [29]). Thus forcing women to term will result in more poor, non-white Americans. In two decades these voters are not likely to be supporters of Mitch McConnell's vision of America.

    And yet, the FACTS show that LEGAL immigrants are overwhelmingly Trump/GOP supporters..

    So, once again, the FACTS prove you wrong...

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    And , "in effect" you told us that we would all be multi-millionaires with yachts, perfect bodies and hair almost as good as Trump if he won in 2016.

    Didn't happen!!!

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    And yet, the FACTS show that LEGAL immigrants are overwhelmingly Trump/GOP supporters

    There are no facts, they are as much a part of your imagination as "words to that effect" har har.

    Reality is a challenge for you Michale.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I am glad to see you posting, Neil..

    I thought you had been so demoralized and decimated by being SO UTTERLY WRONG about the Dumbocrats' Russia Collusion delusion that you had disappeared into the wilderness..

    Glad ta see yer still with us.. I would hate to miss a chance to gloat. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump says cop killers should 'immediately' get death penalty
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-killers-of-police-officers-should-immediately-get-death-penalty

    Another reason why cops overwhelmingly support President Trump...

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    Glad ta see yer still with us

    I've been swamped at work for three months - just launched two new products and took over a new team doubling the size of my responsibilities. On a vacation hiking the National Parks of southern Utah (bloody beautiful) and after a week of no work have managed to lift my head and look around again.

    Hope all is well with you Michale.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:
  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've been swamped at work for three months - just launched two new products and took over a new team doubling the size of my responsibilities.

    Congrats.. Your success is well-earned and well-deserved..

    Hope all is well with you Michale.

    Couldn't be better.. :D Thanx

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Let Trump keep it up until the people start DEMANDING Congress remove him from office."

    This begs the same basic question as CW's article- what recourse do the people have if Congress does not meet the demand?

    The three branches of government may be equal- but they all work for and are subordinate to us.

    And the recourse we have when Congress does not do what we want is to vote for someone else.

    So maybe we should start using the tool provided for recourse to remove the big money candidates from office and then we could be more confident that the three branches of government would do what we want.

    After all, 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics.

    Yet they keep voting for big money candidates.

    If we can DEMAND Congress remove Trump from office, then we can certainly DEMAND that the candidates for Congress run small donor campaigns and use the recourse provided to replace them if they don't.

  45. [45] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!" In more modern terms, this might be translated as: "Oh yeah? You and what army?!?"

    The answer to that rhetorical question was answered a quarter of a century later by the American Civil War. The ultimate redress to an unresolved Constitutional crisis is secession and/or civil war. Trump is playing with fire. I suspect a U.S. Civil War II would look a lot like present day Syria.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ultimate redress to an unresolved Constitutional crisis is secession and/or civil war.

    Well, considering that the vast majority of the Left Wingery advocate disarmament, the Left's best course of action is secession..

    Good riddance and don't let the door hit ya'all on yer Left Wing asses.. :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Let Trump keep it up until the people start DEMANDING Congress remove him from office."

    Considering how President Trump's approval rating has sky rocketed in the past few weeks, it's much more likely that the people will start demanding that DEMOCRATS remove themselves from office.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    29

    Democrats for too long have ignored the Supreme Court as a political motivator, the Republicans are also about to hand that to the Democrats as well.

    Neil makes a very good point here, to which I would simply add the following observation:

    Any Court who sides with the Executive Branch and the weak ass arguments they're presenting for their blanket ignoring of the constitutionally mandated oversight by the House of Representatives, Legislative Branch... or the Judicial Branch for that matter... would be essentially finding that the Executive Branch is a branch above the others, and for those who've taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, that would be a clear violation of that promise.

    Now I ask you, other than the spineless GOP who are afraid to be tweeted about by the Imbecilic-Bullying-Moronic-Con Artist-In-Chief, what kind of self-respecting lawmaker or jurist in either the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch would willingly cede their constitutionally granted co-equal power to any of the other branches of government?

    Four of the Supreme Court Justices presiding at the time the SCOTUS ruled unanimously against Nixon were appointed by Nixon himself, and two of the Supreme Court Justices presiding at the time the SCOTUS ruled unanimously against Clinton were appointed by Clinton. So anyone who believes the SCOTUS or any other Court is going to effectively neuter themselves and pronounce themselves irrelevant and beneath the Executive Branch hasn't learned a thing from history... or a thing about constitutionally granted power. :)

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    As near as I see it, there are 3 areas that are going to end up in front of the SCOTUS..

    #1 Executive privilege over the Grand Jury sections of the Mueller Witch Hunt report

    #2 The Houses fishing expedition over President Trump's tax returns..

    #3 Executive Privilege over House's other endeavors..

    With each of those, the President is on firm legal ground...

    The SCOTUS, except in the extreme circumstance of impeachment, has gone to great lengths to avoid ruling on Executive Privilege..

    So, #1 and #3 are firmly in President Trump's favor..

    As far as the tax returns, the House has no reason to see those other than to try and find SOMETHING to pin on President Trump...

    So, while I'll be the first to admit my SCOTUS predictions haven't been the best, my TRUMP predictions have been universally accurate...

    Sorry Dumbocrats.. You lose... Again.. And again... And again... :D

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    43

    The three branches of government may be equal- but they all work for and are subordinate to us.

    That sounds good on paper, Don, but anyone who believes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Associate Justices are "subordinate to us" might want to have a reality check... up to and including Donald Trump.

    And the recourse we have when Congress does not do what we want is to vote for someone else.

    Unless, of course, you do something stupid like effectively self-disenfranchising yourself and withhold your vote. I'm going to let you in on a little secret here, Don, but not voting isn't the equivalent of choosing to "vote for someone else."

    Yet they keep voting for big money candidates.

    Because... let it sink in... choosing not to vote is the exact opposite of choosing to "vote for someone else."

    If we can DEMAND Congress remove Trump from office, then we can certainly DEMAND that the candidates for Congress run small donor campaigns and use the recourse provided to replace them if they don't.

    By your own admission, the recourse "provided to replace them if they don't" is to "vote for someone else." Ergo, choosing not to vote is allowing others to pick the winner while you and your ilk sit idly by on your ass and your principles.

    Imagine a fantastical scenario where Don Harris managed to convince almost every single voter in Texas to join in his exercise in self-disenfranchisement. That may seem impossible, you think, until you realize that Texas is basically a nonvoting state... dead last by nearly every measure in which they calculate voters. That actually would make campaigning easier for candidates who would simply bombard the shit out of me because they'd obviously be keenly aware that they count actual votes that exist, and I'll be picking the winner while the other idiots will be picking their teeth... if applicable. :)

  51. [51] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Whatever the House of Representatives is currently doing is NOT carrying-out its 'constitutionally mandated oversight of the executive branch'.

    What it's really doing is harassing/punishing the president for winning an election that ALL the pollsters, ALL the pundits, ALL the crystal-ball gazers PROMISED the Democratics that he could NEVER win!

    The unstated but obvious point of that is that if it was impossible for Hillary to lose, then Trump MUST HAVE CHEATED!

    Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of POOR LOSERS, right?

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whatever the House of Representatives is currently doing is NOT carrying-out its 'constitutionally mandated oversight of the executive branch'.

    Exactly.....

    What it's really doing is harassing/punishing the president for winning an election that ALL the pollsters, ALL the pundits, ALL the crystal-ball gazers PROMISED the Democratics that he could NEVER win!

    Exactly X2....

    Which is exactly why the Democratics will lose in the SCOTUS..

    It's ALL about taking down President Trump... A coup...

    And the SCOTUS will not be a party to a coup against the freely, fairly and legally elected President Of The United States...

    Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of POOR LOSERS, right?

    "I know, right!?"
    Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    As near as I see it, there are 3 areas that are going to end up in front of the SCOTUS..

    And playing out against this backdrop is the DOJ's special counsel investigation of Democrats' actions that began the whole Russia Collusion delusion debacle...

    It's gonna be a fun time!! :D

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    50

    From a purely legal point of view, it's obstruction of justice to impede the constitutionally mandated oversight of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch whether a partisan from Podunk thinks it's for purely political reasons or not.

    If you enjoyed the 8 political hearings into Benghazi that were designed to harass a potential presidential candidate and then continued unabated to harass the actual presidential candidate, then talk to the hand. :)

  55. [55] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Hers's a thought for you POOR LOSERS to ponder - If Hillary had won, how many of you would be screaming about Trump telling the Russians on national television to hack Hillary's emails, or if a Russian lawyer offered to give Trump's campaign "dirt" on Hillary?

    Not a single one of you LOSERS would give a pinch of shit about either of those episodes, if only you weren't LOSERS, right?

  56. [56] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Of course you're 100% right on the Benghazi nonsense. OMYGAWD, did I just say that? Better feel my forehead, must be feverish!

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Stucki
    55

    Of course you're 100% right on the Benghazi nonsense. OMYGAWD, did I just say that? Better feel my forehead, must be feverish!

    Pulling your head out of your ass even for a short amount of time will make it infinitely easier to feel your forehead. Okay, I'd say you're SNAFU. :)

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Of course you're 100% right on the Benghazi nonsense. OMYGAWD, did I just say that? Better feel my forehead, must be feverish!

    I would have to disagree.. 4 Americans died at Benghazi...

    That alone makes it NOT "nonsense"...

    But at least you are consistent.. :D

    You don't claim Benghazi was "nonsense" and then turn around and say "But going after Trump is perfectly acceptable!!"..

    You must have a little Glenn Greenwald in you.. :D

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    54

    Your argument is similar to the other utter asinine bullshit constantly promulgated by the board troll and is basically nothing more than "I can read your mind." It's complete bullshit, Stucki. When you're making up shit about other posters and claiming you know what they're thinking and making up fake quotes, you're proving nothing beyond the fact that you have no other argument.

    The ring wingnuts who keep claiming that Democrats can't get over the election are the ones who keep bringing it up ad nauseam... proving over and over and without question that they've got little else to celebrate while everyone else has obviously moved on. :)

  60. [60] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    No "mind reading" necessary. Everything you say and do about Russiagate just screams, we're POOR LOSERS!!

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    No "mind reading" necessary. Everything you say and do about Russiagate just screams, we're POOR LOSERS!!

    It's obvious to anyone not enslaved by Party dogma...

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    59

    No "mind reading" necessary. Everything you say and do about Russiagate just screams, we're POOR LOSERS!!

    You're missing the big picture, old man. No surprise there. :)

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    60

    It's obvious to anyone not enslaved by Party dogma...

    In the exact same way you'll always be trailer trash and nothing can change that fact, I'll always be unaffiliated and sworn to uphold the law. :)

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    The FISA Footnote that Could Doom Collusion Hoaxsters

    It is the controversial footnote to the most infamous application in American political history: The application submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval to wiretap Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

    And it could lead to the downfall of the Trump-Russia collusion schemers, as it will help make the case they misled the secret court to target an innocent man in an effort to thwart Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

    In an application filed with the FISA court in October 2016, former FBI Director James Comey accused Carter Page, a Trump campaign aide, of being a Russian agent. (The initial warrant also was signed by former deputy attorney general and Trump foe Sally Yates.) The document is symbolic of how the Obama Justice Department was weaponized against the Trump campaign by corrupt partisans, many of whom—thankfully—now find themselves under investigation.
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/15/the-fisa-footnote-that-could-doom-collusion-hoaxsters/

    Dumbocrats are crapping their pants!! :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Hoaxers become the Hunted!!! :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    2020: The Year of the Women -- for Trump

    Here’s the little secret the mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about — women support President Trump. They’re supporting him with their wallets and they’ll support him at the polls in 2020. Shhhhh … these are the kind of pesky facts they like to hide, and then on Election Day they act like they weren’t warned.

    They can consider themselves warned.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/16/2020_the_year_of_the_women_--_for_trump_140342.html

    Dumbocrats are in for a HUGE slap in the face in 2020... :D

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    O Gawd, hate to wade into this, but have to.

    Firstly, Michale, you're full of shit. Sorry, but the folks on SCOTUS are there for life, so whatever they said to Trump to get the job is gone. That said, Kavanaugh is probably with him.

    But the Rest will side with Congress. So there's that.

    No Facts - F U this is opinion.

    Also: Nancy has a lot more bows in her quiver than you imagine. If this lasts through the summer the negotiations on the budget get really interesting.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the Rest will side with Congress. So there's that.

    Yea, that's yer wishful thinking.. But you have been wrong about everything TRUMP so far..

    Executive Privilege is a real thing.. You didn't mind it when Odumbo used it..

    SCOTUS will side with Trump, just as they have on immigration and 2nd Amendment..

    Also: Nancy has a lot more bows in her quiver than you imagine.

    The fact that she has bows in her quiver PROVES she is a complete and utter moron...

    The simple fact is, she's senile.. Anyone who carries bows in her quiver IS senile..

    Barely holding on to reality.. She will likely die in office before the 2020 election...

    "Ding Dong, the witch is dead.. The mean old witch.. The wicked witch.. Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead."

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The fact that she has bows in her quiver PROVES she is a complete and utter moron..

    You have no idea what I'm talking about.

    Just a minute..I'm savoring.

    Okay, what I'm talking about are all of the legislative things that the House can do. Do you remember the "power of the purse"? Trump actually can't spend a dime without the House approving it.

    Do you grok what I am saying?

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What if Nancy decides that she's now gonna play hardball, and eliminates the Dept of Homeland Security from the budget? Or the military?

    Let's say she puts them on life support. What can Trump do, other than negotiate?

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hmmmm....dilemma.

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthy,

    Michale was mocking you for saying Pelosi had “bows in her quiver.”

    Arrows are stored in a quiver, not bows.

    We all knew what you were trying to say, Michale just prefers to avoid having to actually address the points being made.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Balthy is just being a moron and is proving he doesn't know what he is talking about..

    What if Nancy decides that she's now gonna play hardball, and eliminates the Dept of Homeland Security from the budget? Or the military?

    Yea??

    I would LOVE to see Brain Dead Pelosi try and defund the US Military..

    A Dumbocrat's life wouldn't be worth a plug nickel if she tried that..

    I DOUBLE DOG dare her to try that..

    Only a MORON would think that THAT is a good idea..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Blathy,

    You have no idea what I'm talking about.

    No.. The FACTS clearly show that YOU have no idea what yer talking about..

    As Russ pointed out...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    We all knew what you were trying to say, Michale just prefers to avoid having to actually address the points being made.

    There WAS no "points being made"...

    Just a drunken bullshit rant that Pelosi actually has any power against President Trump..

    But, of course, you defend the bullshit..

    PARTY UBER ALLES

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    defund the US Military..

    The real challenge would be to alter the mission of the military. The house could decrease funding to a lot of hardware programs and transfer the money to cyber defense spending.

    This would have the result of pointing a lot of resources at the support Trump is getting from Russian military hackers that he needs to win the 2020 election.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, you want to defund the military..

    Yea.. I encourage ya'all to try that...

    Show what the Dumbocrats stand for...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I spose YOU think that Pelosi has a lot of bows in her quiver, eh?? :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Well, you're right that not voting is not a good idea.

    But since not voting is not part of One Demand and voting is part of One Demand, the only reason you would bring it up is to be an asshole because you can't make a rational argument against what One Demand really is.

    You really must enjoy looking stupid.

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, go ahead. Miss my point.

    The point being that she has more ARROWS in her quiver than you give her credit for.

    Now how she uses them depends on her wise decision making, and I sure don't know.

    But I do know that we're a long, long, long, long way from being done.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point being that she has more ARROWS in her quiver than you give her credit for.

    Of course you would say that..

    And, of course, you are wrong..

    But I do know that we're a long, long, long, long way from being done.

    Yer right..

    Trump will be POTUS til Jan of 2025 and I am sure ya'all Dumbocrats are going to be as hysterical and as wrong as ya'all have been the last 2+ years..

  82. [82] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    With all those 'bows' in her quiver, there wont be room for any arrows!

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    With all those 'bows' in her quiver, there wont be room for any arrows!

    In Balthy's defense, I knew what he meant.. I just was capitalizing on his bonehead mistake. Much as everyone here likes to do when I make a mistake.. :D

    It's all in good fun.. :D

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    78

    Well, you're right that not voting is not a good idea.

    *bookmarked*

    But since not voting is not part of One Demand and voting is part of One Demand, the only reason you would bring it up is to be an asshole because you can't make a rational argument against what One Demand really is.

    It's never too late for you to get an education, Don, because it really does take a special kind of stupid to whine ad nauseam about not voting for big money candidates saying: "lose our votes" and then claim otherwise. Duh!

    Your website clearly states that a person should register as a participant in One Demand and declare that "in the 2016 [not a typo] elections they will only vote for candidates that finance their campaigns only with contributions from individuals in the aggregate amount of 200 dollars or less."

    You've also already conceded on multiple occasions that there isn't a candidate in America who meets those qualifications... not a single one who doesn't take "big money."

    Clue in, moron. Is it really all that difficult to grasp the basic concept that a person who pledges to only vote for a candidate that doesn't exist in America is a person that is pledging not to vote!? One cannot vote for a candidate who doesn't exist, Don!

    You really must enjoy looking stupid.

    Said the guy with a website that's outdated by multiple years and a bio wherein he highlights front and center his lack of a degree, lack of success, lack of experience, and brags about his "average" existence. :)

Comments for this article are closed.