Unfit or Unpopular? Trump Critics Turn To The 25th Amendment To End His Presidency

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedBelow is my column in the Washington Post on the movement to remove President Donald Trump through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.  Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush recently declared the “answer” to Trump suggestion of a Democrat and Russian collusion in the election is “Amendment 25.”  Previously, Painter wrote a piece with clinical psychologist Leanne Watt, Ph.D. where they discussed the “downward mental health spiral” of Trump. They identified the illness as “extreme narcissism or self-centeredness” as well as “an extreme anti-social tendency, an inability to understand how other people feel.” That, Painter suggests, is enough for the first removal of a president under the 25th Amendment in the history of the country. If so, half of the presidents could have been removed for their “self-centeredness” and “anti-social tendencies.”  I strongly disagree with such interpretations.

Here is the column:

It appears that just as impeachment fever had started to break around the country, a 25thAmendment bug started going around. A few weeks ago, the University of Chicago’s Eric Posner argued that the “conventional understanding” of the amendment should be “enlarged” to include instances where both parties “lose confidence in the president’s ability to govern.” A Los Angeles Times reader asked, in a letter to the editor, “Why have a 25thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution if we refuse to use it” when “President Trump wrecks everything in his path?” The chatter is loud enough that, reportedly, Trump-whisperer Steve Bannon privately warned the president that opponents might try to use the 25thAmendment as a way to oust him. Trump reportedly asked him, “what’s that?”

He’s not the only one looking up the amendment, but if, as I’ve argued, impeachment would be a mistake, removing Trump via the 25th Amendment would be a disaster for our system. For Trump’s agonists, there’s an obvious solution; one they seem intent on avoiding: If you can’t stand the president, then the proper fix is electing someone else.

Sandwiched between the prohibition against poll taxes and right to vote for 18-year-olds, the amendment detailing presidential succession fills a gap in the original Constitution. Until 1967, there was far greater uncertainty over the question of when and under what circumstances a president could be succeeded in office. The issue of “disability” of a president “and who is to be the judge of it?” was raised in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 by Delegate John Dickinson of Delaware, but left unanswered. The first presidential succession ambiguity arose when President William Henry Harrison died a few weeks after taking office and former Vice President John Tyler struggled to be seen by critics as the appropriate successor — throughout his presidency, critics referred to Tyler as “His Accidency.”

Members of Congress pondered the succession question after President Dwight D. Eisenhower suffered a stroke. They ultimately, if not exhaustively, dealt with the issue via the 25th Amendment after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. There was finally a sense of urgency as members realized that, had Kennedy lived on, incapacitated, it was not clear that Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson could assume office.

What entices Trump critics now, however, aren’t the amendment’s provisions in Section 1 and 2 for the orderly succession of power “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation.” Nor is it Section 3, which allows for temporary transfer of presidential authority when the president “transmits” his own “declaration” of temporary disability (as when George W. Bush underwent a “routine colon examination” and invoked the amendment to allow his vice Dick Cheney to briefly take over). Rather, it is Section 4’s provision for a less orderly, and permanent, removal from power. This prospect has been floated by those who acknowledge that impeachment in the House of Representatives is highly unlikely without a clear “high crime” or “misdemeanor” — not to mention a two-thirds majority needed for conviction in the Senate. Impeachment, though, is a constitutional cake walk in comparison to a Section 4 removal.

Section 4 has, essentially, two avenues for dragging a president from the Oval Office. First, there is the mutiny option. A vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can agree that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and notify Congress that the vice president intends to take over. If Vice President Pence could get eight Cabinet officers to sign a letter to that effect, he would immediately become the “Acting President.”  But if the president then declares to Congress that “no inability exists,” Trump could resume his powers.

Pence and the rebellious Cabinet would then have to send another declaration within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that says, more or less, don’t believe a word, he’s unfit. Once Congress had the second declaration, if not already in session, it would have 48 hours to assemble to debate the issue. It would then have 21 days to vote on the president’s fitness. To remove the president, two-thirds of both houses would have to agree. If Congress did not vote within 21 days, the president would get his power back.

Impeachment only requires a majority vote in the House and doesn’t need the cooperation of the vice president in addition to a two-house, two-thirds vote. In a climate where members of Congress struggle to cobble together a simple majority on replacing Obamacare, a supermajority to remove Trump seems a tad optimistic, and politically risky: Cabinet members would do well to remember Emerson’s adage, “Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him.” With a president made famous by the catchphrase “you’re fired,” there’s not much doubt as to one’s political future if you sign a Section 4 declaration and fail.

Which brings us to option two. Section 4 states that a decision to remove the president could be made, alternatively, by “such other body as Congress may by law provide.” This is the course Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has sought with proposed legislation to create an “Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity”—a body to decide if the president is physically and mentally fit. But even in the unlikely event that Republicans supported this approach, the process still calls for the vice president’s assent, and it’s even less likely that Pence would stake his political fortunes on dumping Trump.

More importantly, any disability review commission would be tasked with finding a mental or physical disability — unlikely. A group of self-declared “mental health professionals and members of the public” called Duty to Warn recently marched to call for a 25th Amendment removal on the supposition that Trump has an incurable malignant narcissism and “is too seriously mentally ill to competently discharge his duties as the president.” Narcissistic Personality Disorder is defined as “grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration,” which, indeed, describes Trump. But let’s face it: If we started removing public servants because they were narcissists, the nation’s Capital might become a virtual ghost town. In D.C., the question isn’t who fits that definition? but, who doesn’t?

Moreover, declaring the president unfit without an examination runs counter to the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater Rule” that doctors cannot express professional opinions about public figures they have not personally examined.

Attempting to discern incapacity, particularly at a distance, is a slippery slope. Psychology Today reported last year that one study of the first 37 presidents suggests half of them experienced some form of mental illness. Kennedy had a number of physical ailments that were hidden from the public and intermittently took a secret regimen of drugs prescribed by doctor sometimes called “Dr. Feelgood,” but few would suggest that he was not up to the job of president of the United States.

For many, Trump’s routine tweets and taunts, and his untoward exchanges with more than one grieving gold star family, seem not just un-presidential, but unhinged. I have been critical of many of those comments and find them deeply disturbing. The standard, however, is whether Trump is “unable to discharge” his duties, and there is no evidence of a clinical condition that renders Trump unable to perform them.

When no less a figure than Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), an influential Senate committee chair once seen as a Trump ally, refers to the White House as “adult day care,” or when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly calls the president a “moron,” many are hoping that core Republicans are looking for an exit ramp. However, Section 4 is not about childish or boorish presidential comportment. It is about a disability that prevents a president from carrying out capable decision-making. The Constitution only requires Trump to be able to discharge his duties; not necessarily to discharge them well. The fact is that Trump exhibited most of the traits he exhibits today during his campaign and his long business and television careers. He is as he advertises and slightly more than one-third of Americans still support the president. For them, the controversy is about style, not sanity.

Absent more compelling evidence of incapacity, Trump’s continuation in office will remain a political, not a constitutional condition, triggered by the very cause that is also its cure: a presidential election.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

Follow @JonathanTurley

1,119 thoughts on “Unfit or Unpopular? Trump Critics Turn To The 25th Amendment To End His Presidency”

  1. Here’s how I read it: The Clinton’s game plan is always the same: cheat, lie, collude, destroy. We know Clinton rigged the DNC primary to screw Bernie out of the nomination and this is why the DNC cannot raise any money these days. We know the Clinton campaign wanted Trump to be the nominee. They believed Trump was the best match for Clinton to proceed quickly to her entitled coronation. But then the unthinkable happened. Trump outsmarted them all and won. Trump’s election sobered them all up. Now what to do? Activate the game plan again: Cheat, lie, collude and destroy. The only mission since election day has been to destroy Trump. The MSM is part of this mission. The Republican establishment is part of this mission. This 25th Amendment talk is part of that mission. Ad campaigns like those being launched by big Democrat donors like George Soros and Tom Steyer are part of that mission. Destroy Trump at all costs.

    1. I think the best mafia movie I ever saw was Clinton Cash. Followed by Godfather II and Goodfellas. Honorable mention and best score to Once Upon a Time in America.

  2. Darren, is there no way to block nicole3538 and other “make a fortune on the Internet” trolls?

  3. We all believe that those who think differently than we think, are crazy. The profession of Psychiatry exists because the public needs someone to officially say who is crazy and who is not. It’s a tough job but somebody has to do it.

  4. Why the 25th amendment panic attack? Oh that’s right, progressives had the executive branch right where they wanted it for Queen Hillary. Rule of law, dead. Separation of powers, dead. And along comes Trump to stomp on their dreams.

    More popcorn please.

      1. And they are bored.
        Having accomplished most everything in life of materialistic form, they seek to conquer other areas of human endeavor, to justify their existence, and just not to die of boredom.

        1. Why can’t they do philanthropic work? Why the incessant need for more perks and power, stuffing themselves at the public trough? These egomaniacs are a dime a dozen.

          1. Do the above comments apply to tRump? Except for the accomplished and environmental parts, of course.

  5. This whole discussion is ridiculous. Obviously the majority of Dems are still butthurt. The amazing thing is the dangerous projection game they’re playing. Had Hillary won, I would fully expect that the 25th Amendment would have been triggered, or did they really want a repeat of Reagan’s second term with First Gentleman Bubba running the show? Anyone remember the human statue waiting by the curb on 9/11/2016? You all should really try the chai latte.

    DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for NPD (ca. 2011) are provided at the link in the middle of the file. This is the easiest way to compare them side by side that I could find in a quick search online, since the APA started playing around with the criteria. I would find it difficult to claim that Trump has significant deficits in empathy, as by many accounts he’s helped numerous down-on-their-luck people financially with nothing to gain personally from his generosity. This whole twitter spat and he said/she said is a diversion to keep the sheeple occupied with inanities, while the real important stuff gets ignored.


    1. CCS said, “This whole discussion is ridiculous.”

      Agreed. Whatever else one might think of Trump, he has not yet left the domain of normal psychology en route to the hinterland of abnormal psychology. I know this because a psychiatrist once told my number two son, The Lummox, that the only thing wrong with him is that he needed a more satisfying job.

      Surely job-dissatisfaction disorder would be an instance of normal psychology even if it were diagnosed in The President of the United States.

      1. “The Lummox”. LOL. Great story. Job-satisfaction disorder…..yes, normal psychology for sure.

        I have heard from a friend the new diagnosis is “existential depression”, a protracted, more severe version of the common existential crisis; apparently a lot of Gen Z (and late Millenial) men are looking around them and finding nowhere to fit in, nowhere to make a contribution. (Part of the reason for the MGTOW movement, I wonder?) Though the diagnosis sounds ludicrous, I think it dovetails with what your son was told. Previous generations knew they would have to work hard to get ahead; attachment parents raised narcissist kids with entitlement issues. Given 20 years of being told how special and unique they are, how can we be surprised that they fail to find fulfillment in their inane jobs? I think we’re in for a lot of “wandering in the desert” for these kids over the next 20-30 years. Just my armchair analysis; YMMV.

    2. This whole discussion is ridiculous.

      Absolutely CCS! The one thing I trust JT to do is to critique our government’s fidelity to the constitution. The easy target over the years has been the tension between the executive and legislative branches. This tug-of-war however hasn’t been the one imagined by the founders. This has not been a branch battle but a party battle. Democrats on one side trying as best they could to anoint Obama the King and then transfer that power to Clinton. No one expected the court jester to throw a wrench in that plan.

      JT has not had much to say about Trump’s use of power, at least not from a constitutional standpoint. Trump is unconventional to say the least. He’s not politically polished. I really don’t care. I do care very much whether he honors his oath, respects the rule of law and returns the balance of power to its constitutional place. The rest of this is just a joke; and the last laugh has been and will continue to be with the jester.

      1. This is a second attempt to respond; earlier attempt was a bit fresh for the “prude police”.

        “This has not been a branch battle but a party battle. Democrats on one side trying as best they could to anoint Obama the King and then transfer that power to Clinton. No one expected the court jester to throw a wrench in that plan.” Their access to the power centers has been disrupted, and they’re flailing around for a way to regain it. This is why they’re doubling down on the old fogie stogies and not letting new blood into the party; people like Tulsi Gabbard want the party to represent the people again.

        “JT has not had much to say about Trump’s use of power, at least not from a constitutional standpoint.” If one didn’t like the former Preznit governing by executive fiat, one can hardly complain when the new Preznit gives power away, as this one has. People complain that Trump isn’t statesmanlike; well, Obama sure cut a figure and spoke well while he was deciding every Tuesday morning which poor brown b@strd in the ME was going to die extrajudicially. If Trump can leave office having done some of what you say in your last two sentences, I’ll be content, as I really don’t have much hope for anything better.

  6. The article says mentally unfit. There is a book out which psychiatrists use to diagnose and thus justify their use of drugs or shock treatment on the patient. It is called The Diagnoitic and Statistical Manual 5.
    There is probably a shrink out there on this blog who can weigh in and tell us where Trump fits. If the foo itShays then wear it.

  7. Let’s assume that impeachment against Fodie Fie happened. And Pence since that is also a stated goal. Would a Ryan-Hatch administration be the preferred outcome? Do Democrats think they’ll sweep 2018 and change that to a Pelosi-Schumer administration? Or that Hillary will somehow be able to become President?

  8. Narcissism was removed as a mental illness from the DSM when Barack Obama became President. Nobody is as narcissistic as he is. I didn’t see anyone screaming about the 25th Amendment over him.

    1. Can you refer me to any of Obama’s narcissistic tweets? Or speeches? Or is being a black president in and of itself evidence of narcissism?

      1. Jay S – while on the campaign trail for Hillary Obama gave a speech where he referred to himself over 124 times. It would be a drinking game, but people would die of alcohol poisoning. 🙂 In almost all of his speeches, he refers to himself many times. There were people who counted the references just as a hobby. Personally, I never listened or read his speeches, except the one where his monitors go blank and he starts to stammer. That went viral.

        1. Paul, you’re forgetting Bill Clinton’s triumphal march to the podium at the 2000 Democratic National Convention while a voice from the rafters announced his economic achievements. It was obscene.

          1. Diane – I haven’t watched a convention since the famous Buckley-Vidal debates.

      2. Jay S, You’re referring to President Selfie? The guy who published a photo of himself to commemorate every occasion, every death of a prominent figure? That Obama?

        1. The iPod stuffed with his speeches given as a diplomatic gift to Queen Elizabeth bordered on camp.

    1. There’s actually a provision in the 25th Amendment that spells out the procedure for removing a president who is determined to be incapacitated.
      An impeachment effort based on Trump’s NFL tweets probably won’t get much traction.
      Rep. Green seems to have backed off of his efforts to force an impeachment vote after the NFL Tweetstorm.
      The shrinks will have to do better than make long distance diagnoses about political figures.
      If Trump gets impeached and convicted, or removed via the 25th Amendment, it should be based on something much stonger than the desire to overturn the results of an election.

  9. Some weeks ago there were several comments in TNYT by various academic psychologists stating their opinions on the mental health of The Donald. Certainly seems to be the worst since, say, Andrew Jackson. But so far the USA isn’t in a major war and the economy carries on despite him.

      1. Yes, but those offering opinions were not bound by that rule for some reason.

        Incidentally, I listened to Barry Goldwater in a class once upon a time. So I don’t understand why it is called the Goldwater Rule.

        1. You can read about the lawsuit that Goldwater won against FACT magazine, or read Section 7 of the APA’s Principles of Medical Ethics.
          Those “offering opinions” about Trump’s mental state can CLAIM that they “are not bound by that rule”, but they clearly are violating the APA’s own ethical rules.

              1. If necessary but Wikipedia is usually a good starter. Don’t knock it; use it.

                    1. If Wikileaks is your final authority, that’s OK.
                      It suits you well with your 2-3 word or 2-3 sentence proclamations.
                      Readers Digest is probably another excellent resource for you.

        2. You can read about the lawsuit that Goldwater won against FACT magazine, or read Section 7 of the APA’s Principles of Medical Ethics.
          Those “offering opinions” about Trump’s mental state can CLAIM that they “are not bound by that rule”, but they clearly are violating the APA’s own ethical rules.

  10. Wow… been coming to this site for YEARS now and until awhile back I counted on intelligent discussion to help me figure it out and find my truths, and even sometimes participated. Now I mostly delete in disgust as it’s like listening to somebody reading the front of the Enquirer out loud at a WalMart checkstand. I’m with Karen’s last (above), guess it’s just the times we live in now.

    1. Agree with you. I do not care about the differences between Kathy Griffin and her attorney. These Trump attacks will continue as long as he is President. Would rather see a focus on actual problems that have facts to back them up. The uranium deal, etc. As for those who like to diagnose Trump with a mental illness, it is not possible to accurately do this with anyone unless you have individual evaluations with the person, family, etc. This can take several sessions, especially if a personality disorder is considered. Also need a complete medical work-up. Being “unfit” is vague and not a medical term.

    2. Sadly it appears that the intelligent and thoughtful Professor Turley has become a magnet for Trump sycophants.

    3. There is not one partisan Democrat who posts here who reliably makes arguments and speaks with integrity. Most of them can hardly do so even episodically. They are almost entirely responsible for any poor quality of discussion on these boards.

      1. Haha. As if. I’m Libertarian and only come here to see what the freaks and kooks think is real today.

        This is to “but hannity told me” spammy

  11. There you go again! (To quote St. Ronnie, the patron saint of trickle down Republicans.) Making statements that are arguably correct insofar as they go, but which ignore the larger problem and deflect the discussion from solving the larger problem this country faces. Whether Trump is or is not clinically ill or is just bat guano insane is besides the point. We agree we can’t unelect him. Impeachment wont happen with House in the hands of Republicans. Ever. Removing him for “incapacity” won’t happen either.

    Yet he is destabilizing the US and the world to the point where the United States is likely to face a major reckoning in more than one way before the next presidential election in 2020. Maybe a nuclear war, maybe two nuclear wars, on top of possible economic reckonings that could make people wish for the “good old days” of 2008 and 2009. Trump is a death star, a perfectly launched weapon of mass destruction. Doesn’t matter much whether he was launched by the Russians, the Martians, or the Green Berets, He’s launched, and the trajectory does not look very promising.

    Republicans won’t do anything unless and until it becomes clear that they can’t shift a massive amount of money to the very wealthy via “tax reform” and other possible means. (Tax cuts aren’t inherently evil if properly targeted, but the folks with a net worth of $5 million or more don’t need a major tax cut. Nor do very profitable corporations.) Even then, as a group Republicans currently lack the intestinal fortitude to stop a Republican Death Star in his tracks. They will just continue to feather their own nests until they feel truly personally threatened by Trump. By then it could be too late.

    Democrats lack the intelligence and moxie to come up with and execute on a creative game plan. They are the deer in the headlights (headlice?) paralyzed with fear.

    When the answer on how to get rid of him is so obvious. Convince Trump that he will be even wealthier and more revered than he is now if he resigns right away, and then make it happen!! Tell him he can have ten “original” Renoirs, that every day will be Steak and bj day, that he will get his picture put on the front of all $100 bills even though he is alive, if he will just resign. and then give it to him. Name a major holiday after him, if he will resign now. Given him his own replica of Air Force 1, name a city after him. Give him as many TV shows as he wants, Pass a law that allows him to marry as many women he can grope.

    And at the same time, make clear that, if he stays, he won’t get any of that. Bob Corker will make day care comments every day between now and the end of Corker’s term in the Senate. He will be forced to have lunch with Pelosi and Schumer at least once a week. His Ketchup bottle will be taken away.

    Don’t whine about how inappropriate it is to remove him for medical reasons, Turley. Help solve the problem. Think outside the box!

    1. Doofus,..
      The closest we came to nuclear was was in October, 1962.
      We then had a much younger president whose mistakes early on in his administration contributed to that 1962 crisis.
      Once in that crisis, his youth and the speed his Dr. Feelgood gave him kept him alert , and seemed to serve him well as far as staying alert and on top of the crisis.
      We saw the same kinds of doomsday predictions in the 1980s when Reagan was elected.
      The cognosanti like you were equally confident and arrogant in their predictions of Reagan as “a death star”.
      Congratulations on the revival of a trite meme from the 1980s.

      1. Accusing me of being a member of the cognoscenti, Mr. Nash? The Horror! It’s almost as bad as being accused by Mao and the Red Guards of being a Bourgeois Revisionist. At least in the US I don’t get shot or taken out to a re-education camp. Whew!

        Given that you didn’t spell cognoscenti correctly, and I could not have spelled it correctly until I looked up the word just now, I’m going to plead not guilty by reason of inability of either of us to spell the word correctly.

        1. Doofus Firefly – as I used to constantly tell my struggling students if you cannot spell it, you cannot be it.

        2. Good catch on the spelling, Doofus.
          “Cognosanti” writes reviews for TripAdvisor☺, and I should have checked for spelling.

      1. Then why in the world do you even need to say anything about my inane comments? That’s inane! My inane comments should speak for themselves. Res ipsa loquitor and all that jazz.

    2. Fortunate for you and the rest of America Trump is doing his job. That the others aren’t is well known. If you are still working and earning a living you can give back some of your salary that was disappearing under other administrations….And if you like living under the threat of North Korean nukes (did they get their uranium from Hillary) you can move there and be a neighbor to rocket man.

      1. Haha. More comedy? Thankfully, the buffoon apparently doesn’t have access to anything of consequence except his twitter account.

        This is to “good job brownie” allan

        1. “Thankfully, the buffoon apparently doesn’t have access to anything of consequence except his twitter account.”

          This comment demonstrates how stupid and out of touch you really are. Trump has access to our nukes and commands our armies. Is there anyone more ignorant on this blog than Mark M.?

          1. Is there anyone more ignorant on this blog than Mark M.?

            Yes there is: “Ken”, FishWings, and bettykath.

    3. “Convince Trump that he will be even wealthier and more revered than he is now if he resigns right away, ”

      What do you mean convince him? He already knows that. There is one report that he has lost $600 million of his own money because he assumed the Presidency. How accurate that number is I don’t know, but I do know he is steadfast in doing right for America and the people. We see that in improved employment and salaries along with a host of other things.

      The turn of events is starting to heat up. The WP has now said that the DNC and the Hillary campaign paid for the Steele dossier. Uranium One is being linked closer and closer to Hillary along with the payoffs and I assume in a matter of days we will hear eyewitness testimony implicating Hillary and others. The NYTimes admitted the connection over a year ago, but apparently, even the Democrats on this blog don’t read the NYTimes any longer.

      I think the NYTimes has also written that some of that uranium that is not supposed to leave the US is gone and no one knows where. For all we know it went to North Korea or Iran. Imagine the “capitalist” Hillary sold the rope to the Russians to “hang” Americans.

  12. Beanie 48, you’re right, the establishment just can’t accept the fact that Trump won.

  13. The best way to remove Donald Trump from office is through our election process. At this point in time anything else is the deep state trying to unseat an elected president. I know he really irritates his adversaries, but so did President Obama.

    1. I’m a republican and will say Obama was mature and had class compared to Trump. Trump is a 10 year old in a 71 year old body who has caused nothing but turmoil since he was elected. He is in way over his head but that being said I don’t think the 25th amendment applies to him.
      I see no evidence of mental illness just an immature 71 year old baby as president. The voters will take care of his removal the first chance they get.

      1. In my opinion, most ten year olds are more mature than Trump. Maybe four or five years old would be more like it.

            1. He offered a snotty characterization of someone. It doesn’t require refutation and there are no facts which would apply in that case.

        1. Tell us Jay, how many 10-year-olds can deal with the corruption in NYC, contractors, rich clients, politicians, etc. and become a multibillionaire?

          You may recognize how ridiculous you sound.

      2. Many would argue that it was the community organizer from Chicago who was in way over his head. But when you have the media in your corner protecting you, then the public opinion is easily manipulated. Now we see the opposite happening with Trump. Give it time, and history will hopefully set the record straight.

          1. SWM, I would think you are a Dem who might be able to grasp the obvious fact that the Republican establishment hate Trump MORE than Dems.

            1. SWM doesn’t understand why. Let’s tell her. See, Trump is actually more of a New York Democrat. He’s not really a conservative Republican. He just ran as one because it was the only way to win against the Clinton machine. Trump is really an anti-establishment outsider with no ideological allegiance to any party. This is why Republicans hate him as much as Democrats. Trump is exposing the corruption in the media, the corruption in Washington, the corruption by the special interest groups, etc etc…and there is a lot to lose all around as long as he is in power. Destroy Trump at all costs is a bipartisan mission.

              1. I don’t think anyone knows what Trump is other than that he is a bully and a Goldman Sachs lackey with hawkish tendencies.. He may have been a New York democrat at one time but now he plays to to the anti-gay crowd.

                  1. He is the keynote speaker at an anti-gay summit. The choice of Pence was his first act that was not gay friendly.

                    1. This is a problem why? The gaystapo are plain awful and politicians across the board should quit pandering to them.

                    2. The summit is not an anti-gay summit. There may be people that are anti-gay attending, just like some criminals might attend a Democratic meeting. I’ll bet there are a lot of people there that disagree with gay marriage, but that doesn’t make them anti-gay. You have a very narrow viewpoint.

            2. I think they are embarrassed by the crazy tweets and are worried about the future of the GOP so what you say has some validity.

              1. If they were actually ‘worried about the future of the GOP’, they’d have demonstrated something other than wretched performance in the 19 years since Dr. Gingrich departed the scene. They’re in office because the Democratic Party is so awful it is sinking in public esteem faster than the impotent careerists who run the Capitol Hill Republican nexus.

          2. It’s also useful to know that Senator Corker has been under FBI investigation and rumor has it that his future is not looking too bright. No matter what kind of wrong doing these guys in Washington try to pin on Trump, the fact is that no one in Washington has clean hands. And Trump is well aware of this fact.

        1. Oilybomber is an empty suit, and the historians are starting the review already……I’m on a Victor Davis Hanson kick who talks at the link about how Obama destroyed the Dem party. Don’t agree with Hanson’s position WRT Middle East, but I think he’s on the mark vis a vis Obama & the extant Dem party. Anecdotally, I saw firsthand how Barry’s campaign organization, which morphed into OfA, screwed over local Dem clubs in CA when I lived there. It was all about getting him elected Preznit, nothing for local/state Dems. This was repeated countrywide.

        2. Woodrow Wilson, whose administration incorporated some dreadful unforced errors, was still getting satisfactory press 60 years later. It’ll take a while before academic historians give BO the flaying he’s earned and deserves.

        3. You’re right, TBob. It’s been one extreme (protect Obama at all costs) to another (trash Trump with whatever you’ve got – never mind facts).
          President Trump has actually accomplished a great deal in less than a year in office. It’s just totally unnoticed in the din of the sore losers.

  14. “A few weeks ago, the University of Chicago’s Eric Posner argued that the “conventional understanding” of the amendment should be “enlarged” to include instances where both parties “lose confidence in the president’s ability to govern.”” That would basically apply to every single elected President. Those who did not elect him would obviously have no confidence in his ability to govern according to his standards. The Entitlement Generation wants the ability to remove anyone for whom they did not vote, damn the consequences of the election. But they adamantly do not want the other side to have that power.

    If Liberals ever do succeed in getting Trump out of office, they will rue the day. Precedent will be set. And if we are now to be run like a Banana Republic, then what was allowed for Liberals must be allowed for Republicans. Every single election will be contested, and resisted, and marched against, and the 25th Amendment would then be applied to every single one of them. The Democrats will have to lie in the bed they made.

    As for the Gold Star widow – I suspect that the widow is a Trump hater who is injecting politics where it doesn’t belong. She claimed that Trump did not know her husband’s name because he did not say it until he mentioned the report in front of him. He made a difficult phone call in a difficult time, that most of us would not be up to.

    President Trump should have ignored any injected politics. Gold Star families are allowed to be bitter, grieving, enraged, depressed, unreasonable, and unfair. They are in mourning. They can cycle through all of those feelings in a single afternoon if they need to.

    There are ways to address a misunderstanding with diplomacy and tact, which, for Trump, would mean not addressing it on Twitter, ever and allowing his staff to help him craft a delicate response. Something along the lines of our hearts and prayers are with all of our Gold Star families, and we will be forever grateful and humbled by their sacrifice. These are some of the most difficult calls we will ever make in our lifetime. If we failed to convey that sentiment, then the fault is ours and we offer our sincere apologies. Period. End stop. No more should be said on the subject.

    1. The widow “injected politics where it doesn’t belong!” I believe her first statement was yesterday. Certainly, Trump did, Kelly did with the lies he won’t apologize for and Wilson did as well. Trump is now calling the widow a liar indirectly in his tweet. Such class.

      1. Absent a recording of the phone call, it’s impossible to tell whose version of the conversation is accurate.
        I do think that that Congresswoman’s account would have more credibilty if she ditched the Halloween costumes she’s wearing.

        1. We’ve listened to Kelly describe what he suggested Trump say which sounds very much like what three others in the car to date have said. There’s plenty of room to believe Trump didn’t have bad intentions, he just didn’t have the capacity to pull off empathy.
          Keep in mind the call itself was a reaction to having been asked about the deaths in Niger and him trying to be better than former President’s Obama and Bush.
          Kelly’s statement began as a gripping, heartfelt description about the process in which our fallen soldiers are returned and honored. It ended in a long, precise, attack on a Congresswoman which was a clear lie if one has taken the time to watch the entire speech. The White House backs up his lie with more lies. The President calls the widow a liar. BTW, have you seen Roy Moore’s costume, complete with tiny gun?

          1. Enigma,…
            I haven’t seen Roy Moore’s costume , so I can’t comment on it.
            Will his outdo Fredericka’s and win the best Halloween costume prize?☺

              1. Apparently it comes as a surprise to the ABC employees who posted that clip that AL has concealed carry.
                I do note that their employees have little mastery of the English language, and show no understanding of regional differences in pronunciation. Third paragraph quote: “wither” should read “weather”. Below the Mason-Dixon, the word “pen” is pronounced “pin.”

      2. It started with the Congresswoman complaining about the call, and then the widow’s friend and the widow herself said that Trump disrespected her husband. His mother claims that Trump called and disrespected everyone. I find that not credible, that a President would take the trouble to call the family of a deceased soldier, specifically to offer comfort, and then deliberately disrespect him. I do not think the family lied; I think they are wrong. I think they were angry and upset and grieving, and talking with the POTUS that the media has spent a lot of time claiming is mentally ill, in league with the KKK, working with the Russians, etc. Statistically, African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and the DNC has worked diligently to falsely claim that Trump is Anti-Semitic and racist. That is going to be in the back of their minds. Of course she’s going to be beside herself and everything she hears is going through that filter. President Trump saying that a soldier knows he puts himself in harm’s way is not blaming the soldier, but actually remarking on his bravery. That’s what we all say – he bravely ran into danger knowing the risk to save others. It’s that knowledge that makes his sacrifice so heroic.

        I think this was a misunderstanding. Politics do not belong in grief. I also think that the President handled this misunderstanding poorly.

        General Kelly is, himself, a Gold Star family member. His opinion on the call that he heard holds more weight than a reporter’s. This is supposed to be a private moment between the POTUS and the grieving family of a soldier he sent into harm’s way. The Congresswoman was absolutely, completely wrong to use it to make political hay. Any impression the widow had that the President did not respect her husband, who died in the line of duty, was obviously a misunderstanding. Why would he call her specifically to disrespect her? It’s kind of like calling someone a Fascist if you are upset with them. I still do not blame her. She’s in the fire of grief right now, and can say whatever she wants.

        1. It “started” with Trump claiming to call almost all the families of soldiers killed in action and comparing himself favorably to past Presidents. He then called the four families involved in a belated attempt to look good.
          We can agree to the possibility his words were taken other than intended. You might be willing to concede that Trump might not appear the most empathetic person in the world. I could accept that he was misunderstood. He says though he “didn’t say anything the Congresswoman says” when General Kelly pretty much explained that he used almost those exact words and how they were meant to be expressed.
          Yes, many claims are maid about Trump, some unfairly and others that have been made for decades, even when he was considered a Democrat. I won’t attempt to prove anything here to you now but claims of anti-Semitism and racial bias are well-documented and his firm’s Housing Discriminations has resulted in two settlements.
          General Kelly’s discussion of the call didn’t support Trump’s description as a lie but attempted to say what he intended. Kelly’s description of what happens to a soldier when killed was riveting, heartfelt, and informative. His description of Congresswoman Wilson’s remarks at the FBI dedication was a series of outright lies, easily seen by any willing to actually watch the 9-minute video where she isn’t grandstanding, honors the fallen FBI agents and praises Republicans, John Boehner, and Marco Rubio. Trump’s direct attack on a Gold-Star widow (not a first for him) would normally be as low a thing as imaginable except for all the other low attacks he’s made (McCain, the disabled reporter, women he devalues).
          We can also agree he didn’t call intentionally to “disrespect her,” that was probably only his insincerity seeping through. The most ridiculous part of this whole discussion is Kelly being “stunned” and Trump claiming Wilson was “SECRETLY” listening in to a call on speakerphone, while according to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Trump himself, there were “several people in the room” including General Kelly with Trump. This was never a private call, it was a political stunt gone bad.

          1. ” I won’t attempt to prove anything here to you now but claims of anti-Semitism and racial bias are well-documented and his firm’s Housing Discriminations has resulted in two settlements.”

            Some might want to call the above race baiting. Trump must be the most unfortunate anti-Semite around with his daughter converting to Judaism and other children marrying spouses of the Jewish faith. Along with that Trump has to then live with the fact that all his grandchildren are Jewish. So much for enigma’s veracity.

            Then the claim of two settlements. Guess what? There are people found guilty and there are settlements because these claim with or without basis have no end. If one looks at the settlement against Trump one can only conclude the settlement was to end abusive government actions. That is the norm for innocent victims of overzealous political hacks in the NYC area. His settlement was as close to innocent as possible. The taxpayer pays for the costs of these overzealous hacks and their salaries, but the innocent individual is faced with huge costs in time, money and the ability for his business to function.

            I guess we have to put up with all sorts of despicable people wherever we are.

            1. Because I’m not trying to prove what you’ll never accept. I’ll just say that these claims began decades ago, when he was a Democrat, running for nothing.

              1. You don’t try to prove anything. Sliming among other despicable things appears to be your modus operandi.

                    1. You apparently need to ignore certain truths by attacking the messenger. Simple question, did Kelly lie about Congresswoman Wilson’s remarks where he says she took credit for $20 million in funding for the FBI building?

                    2. You are not a messenger. Your innuendo and lack of context create messages that never existed.

                      I never discussed Kelly (per your note) and if he erred in what he said I would look closer and see if there wasn’t an associated truth that he was thinking about. Errors are human, but your type of error that never gets corrected is despicable.

          2. The only thing I would add to your well-said piece is that Kelly apparently recommended that Trump not make the calls, that they weren’t required and that he didn’t get a call from Obama. But we know Trump, Obama did it, Trump won’t, Obama didn’t, Trump will. So Trump is going to make the call against recommendation. He asked Kelly what to say and Kelly told him the words that brought him, a career military man, the most comfort. Considering that those words were probably not the first ones that Kelly heard when informed of his son’s death, and when he was most likely trying to make sense of it after the rawest emotions had been dealt with, they were not the best words to tell a widow who was still dealing with the rawest emotions of losing her husband and not yet knowing any details of his death. Maybe in a few weeks those words, “he was doing what he wanted to do”, will provide her with some comfort, but now is not the time. I would also point out that since this was the first call Trump made, it was probably more of a rehearsal for the others. This would help to explain his tone and stumbling over his words.

            It’s disappointing that Kelly hasn’t figured out the Obama did, Trump won’t; Obama didn’t, Trump will yet. If he has, then he intended that Trump make the call. Obama is a trigger word for this president.

            Kelly’s attack on Congresswoman Wilson is inexcusable, even if he were telling the truth but he wasn’t.
            Too bad these guys don’t understand the importance of one’s word. Once you start lying, you have no credibility.

            1. bettykath – the President made what he thought was a private call to the widow, but it appears the Congresswoman was also in the car. She had no right to expose the substance of that phone call and she put the widow on the spot to back her up. The Congresswoman politicized the phone call for her own gain, not the widow’s. Now she is claiming to be a RockStar. The bar is low for the Democratic party if she is a Rockstar.

              1. It was up to Mrs. Johnson to decide, not Trump or Kelly, how many people, whether family, friends, or strangers, she wanted to listen in at her end. And there was absolutely no reason for Trump or Kelly to assume that the other end of the call was private while Trump had Kelly and others listening in on his end.

            2. Kelly was also a bit disingenuous by not mentioning the breakfast he was invited to by President Obama, honoring gold-star families where he was seated next to the First Lady. It’s not like he was ignored.

          3. enigma – you should check out how Diamond and Silk view the Congresswoman’s comments. They made some points that you might take to heart. 😉

              1. enigma – no sense of humor then? Afraid to open your mind to black conservatives? Afraid you will be turned? 😉

                1. I’ve seen their show before. Calling them black conservatives does a disservice to conservatives as much as I don’t mind the concept. If its possible for anyone to be more policy deficient than the President, they are. I get why one might find them entertaining if they reinforce their views. As a legitimate source of information. Not so much.

                  1. enigma – like the Dr. of Common Sense I find Diamond and Silk to be commentators, not hard news. And both have a certain entertainment value.

                    1. enigma – well, taste is personal. But when they are provocative enough that YouTube tries to shut them down, I know they are doing something right. 😉

                    2. Or it could mean they’re doing something wrong. I went and read the YouTube guidelines and the clause that appears to be hampering them is the one that their content has to appeal to advertisers. Let’s imagine we live in a polarized world (which we do) and that their fans come from about 35% of adults (and shrinking). By inference, those they don’t appeal to could reach as high as the 50/60% range (and growing) and might turn off advertisers? I’m sure the Klan has followers too (I’ll throw in Antifa for your benefit) but that doesn’t entitle them to make money off YouTube. I’ll guess Diamond and Silk will have to live off sales of Trump merchandise and payments from the Campaign.

                    3. enigma – Google and YouTube were sued over their policy today, the claim is that it shut out conservative voices. However, they still go on, as have all the others. They have just moved to other platforms. And YouTube loses their traffic.

                    4. America, anybody can sue anyone for anything. Maybe the policy shuts out those on the fringes of either side and there are just a whole lot more fringe “conservatives?” Do you consider Trump a conservative?

                    5. enigma – I consider Trump a man without a party. He is a registered Republican, however, he is more Independent than either Republican or Democrat. I agree with some things he is doing or trying to do and disagree with others. However, I have felt the same way about every President we have had. I waited a long time on Trump because I wasn’t sure he had a fire in his belly to win. Sadly, my candidate got knocked out in the early rounds. And Trump is the champion of the USA. He knocked out all his opponents, both the darlings of the right and finally the darling of the left.

                    6. You may find it interesting that I find little value in Left-wing hucksters who distort facts and outright lie to their base. I put Ed Shultz in that category, the Palmer Report, and a couple others. Likewise, I can watch several Fox News shows without going crazy except Lou Dobbs and Hannity. I don’t mind a point of view left or right. Don’t purposely distort the facts.

            1. Paul Schulte,..
              – I see where you finally convince Jeff Flake not to run in 2018…he just made the announcement.
              I know that you’ll miss his smiling face.😁

                1. I don’t think you’ll have to….in Arizona, does the Governor appoint the replacement for a Senator’s unfinished term?
                  ( to Paul Schulte…I can’t tell when or where things will post).

                  1. Tom Nash – for Senators the governor appts but only for the remaining term or if it is too long a time, until the next election. I am sure he has a folder full of potentials resumes on his desk as we write. If McCain dies before 2018, Ward would be the obvious choice, she was runner-up in a 4-way contest the last primary. She got 40% while McCain got 51%, preventing a run-off.

        2. “I find that not credible, that a President would take the trouble to call the family of a deceased soldier, specifically to offer comfort, and then deliberately disrespect him.”

          Karen, I think that says it all and one can stop there and recognize that outside of the wife who is grieving, those using her grief for their own advantage are disgusting people. They are picking at a wound to make it worse so that they can embellish their careers.
          What did Trump actually say? Quoted from the NYTimes:, “Mr. Trump angrily disputed that account, saying that he “had a very nice conversation with the woman, with the wife, who sounded like a lovely woman.”

          What was his tweet to the woman? “Donald J. Trump‏ Verified account @realDonaldTrump Oct 23
          I had a very respectful conversation with the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, and spoke his name from beginning, without hesitation!”

          But we have the bottom feeders and those that pick at the wounds others have to promote their agendas even on this list. ““Trump is now calling the widow a liar indirectly in his tweet.” This is typical of a type of person that doesn’t care about the truth and is willing to slime anyone in his path. Then again that type of person doesn’t seek the truth and relies on statements lacking context so the wrong idea is portrayed. The NYTimes: ““Last week, Mr. Trump said on Twitter that Ms. Wilson’s account was “totally fabricated,”

          Trump didn’t say anything of the sort. He wasn’t even talking to the woman and to date there has been no recording produced of what was said. He was replying to the congresswoman, not the widow and we are not even sure of the exact nature of what he was replying to when Trump said: “Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof). Sad!”

          Studies have been done on patients under stressful circumstances where the patients have actually been videoed and when they repeat the conversation it is very different than what was said on the tape. I wouldn’t rely on what the widow believes at this point. The Congresswoman had an agenda and as disgusting as she is some people want to believe what they want to believe and those people are not to be respected.

        3. Karen S.,
          Of course it’s not credible. That being said, as long as the complaint is about President Trump, credibility has not been the issue. This legal blog has certainly attracted a following of people that are less concerned with the law and more concerned with partisan politics. If they had any real sense of concern for the rule of law, they would be all over the Uranium One deal.

            1. Markie Mark Mark – even if we had a new Benghazi hearing, it would be with the same players, except with this one both Holder and Obama are signators. Broadens the playing field a little, lets us into the DoJ and POTUS. Win-Win.

  15. There is no compelling evidence to suggest President Trump is suffering a mental health issue so advanced it renders him unfit to execute the duties of his office. All that is alleged is narcissism, inability to socialize with others and traits many of the population possess, especially limousine liberals in Hollywood.

    It truly is pointless to go down these trails to nowhere. Find something substantive to contest with the President. Constantly foisting garbage arguments such of this is not only getting old very quickly, it makes them look increasingly ridiculous in the process.

    If through political shenanigans the pols succeed in convicting President Trump in an impeachment trial based on the “evidence” presented so far, I guarantee you there will be a shitstorm the likes of which have not been seen for over 150 years. If the pols want the anger of millions of citizens, they better be prepared for the consequences of their actions.

  16. When will the dirty, slimey, dems just give it a rest and carry on. These individuals are unhinged and don’t except the fact that…….Donald Trump IS our president. I was unhappy when we had Barrack Obama but accepted the fact and lived my life as best I could with a president I was ashamed of. He shamed me by being a weenie, bowing to the Saudi’s, establishing a red line and then acting like a doormat when it was crossed, by being weakj when strength was necessary. Michelle may say “it was first time I was proud of my country”, how sad, because his presidency made me ashamed. So go crazy, try any reason to end the President’s term, even if it’s pure poppycock and fantasy.

  17. I agree with your analysis. However, I wonder if you have seriously considered the posssibility that Trump Might have some form of dementia. Based on my personal experience (my mother had frontotemporal dementia), Trump does seem to exhibit some symptoms of this disease. Specifically, his ability to speak coherently seems to have declined, and he engages in compulsive behavior.

      1. I’m not sure that Trump “needs to go for a diagnosis”.
        There are experts like Prof. Benson who can diagnose mental illness via telepathy, without the need for a Trump to “go for a diagnosis”.
        If he can do this kind of diagnosis in the case of the woman who falsely made the accusation of rape, he’s equally qualified to diagnose Trump.

      1. Compare the way he used to speak to the way he speaks now. It’s painful to try to make sense of his sentences. Dementia is more common than you may think, particularly early onset dementia like my mother had.

        1. It’s painful to try to make sense of his sentences.

          Karen, that’s your intellectual incapacity giving you trouble, not his.

          1. Oh yeah, I forgot that Some zealous Trump supporters seem to have figured out how to interpret his word salad. It’s an exclusive club I’m not s member of. Who’s elitist now?

        2. Trump should consider having the yearly physical at Bethesda that the other presidents have done in the past. After the physical, the results should be made available to the public.

          1. I agree. I’m no Trump fan, but I can separate my political views from my sincere concern that Trump May have a physical illness. Despite the negative comments I’ve received here, I have real concerns about his ability to carry out such awesome responsibilities.

            1. Karen, everyone “may” have an illness even if one appears totally healthy. What you are seeing is a successful person who is bit eccentric. Many very successful people have had what we characterize as certain mental illnesses. Take bipolar disease, Winston Churchill was bipolar. There have been many leaders and great business people that have had bipolar disease. I don’t think Trump has anything more than an eccentricity that is magnified because he is so good at reading the public’s mindset and because he is so geared to success.

              He has proven himself a leader. He won a campaign that should have been lost while spending less money and having almost the entire mainstream media against him. He is functioning at a high level with opposition from his own party as well as the Democratic party where pundits say all sorts of things. He keeps moving forward and they keep losing. He threatens their existence because they have not done their jobs. What you think are defects IMO are the best parts of Trump, his strengths. We should not ask him to fit into our model because we are not as successful as he yet we are judging him based on our own failures.

              I have known about Trump for decades and know people in the banking industry that know him as well. They convinced me he was a good candidate and watching what is happening proves them to be right. I have followed him in Manhattan since that is near where I was born and lived my earlier life. I still maintain a second home there. I remember him as much younger man, but I don’t see the changes you do except for the fact we grow with age in both experience and knowledge.

              Trump is the type of leader we need in this day and age when the country is crumbling under the mismanagement of both political parties. He is not an ideologue and can move in either direction to get the best possible job done. He didn’t build those buildings based on being a community organizer or born from a father who later became President. Though he lives rich his mindset has always been focussed on people, as was the mindset of his father.

                1. Mark, what I find amazing is that you never say anything factual about important events. All you do is act like a jackass.

                  Don’t ever let your bosses fire you from your job of filing unimportant papers because I don’t think you could get another one.

                  1. I thought my statement was therapeutic for you. My intent was to issue a commentary which would allow you to step away from the pipe, actually read what you had posted, and realize that your malady needed treatment, stat.

                    this is to “if I think it’s important, then others must, too” allan

                    1. “I thought my statement was therapeutic for you. ”

                      Mark, you better put your straight jacket back on. The attendants will be coming to put you in a rubber room.

                    2. Marky Mark Mark – did you college professors ever suggest counseling to you? Really, it is like you have OCD.

      1. This is obviously not a forum for serious discussion. I was reading Professor Turley’s article from an intellectual, not political, standpoint.

        1. Diagnosing someone with dementia based on watching TV clips is not the basis for a serious discussion.

          1. Not TV. My mother passed away from it last year, so I researched it a lot and spoke with her docs and nurses.

            1. The TV refers to your observations of Mr. Trump. Your discussion of the condition with your mother’s doctors and nurses and some independent research qualifies you to diagnose POTUS from a distance?

        2. Nevertheless, Karen, your distinction between intellect versus politics strikes me as useful.

        3. Then you have missed the whole point. Try to remove politics from the suggestion of using the 25th Amendment in this particular case.The benchmarks are dearth and nebulous.
          Your “serious” disccusion wasn’t engaged because you left out the half if not more of the argument.

          1. Roscoe P. Coltrane said, “Try to remove politics from the suggestion of using the 25th Amendment in this particular case.”

            Well, I do suppose that is the point: One of the several possible uses of the 25th Amendment is supposed to hinge on the mental capacity of POTUS rather than–in this particular case–the political grudges of The President’s political opponents.

            While Karen’s attempt at separating the political issue from the mental fitness issue may have been in good faith, it is also an impossibility in this particular case. And that current impossibility is, in fact, useful for clarifying the proper use of the 25th Amendment in future cases when the mental capacity of POTUS might not become just another political grudge match.

            1. I’ll admit I’m not a conservative. I did, however, try to give Trump a chance and was somewhat heartened by my belief that he was not an idealouge (although many in his cabinet are clearly very radical).
              Unfortunately, it is apparent, as ten months have gone by, that he has no intention of rising to the level of integrity and behavior that we have come to expect from our President. Frankly, he acts like a child. He shows little to no knowledge of the policies he advocates or any willingness to learn about them.
              In my 47 years on this planet I’ve seen several Presidents, Republican and Democrat. But I have never questioned the mental stability of any of them until now. Sorry, but I do think there is something very, very wrong with Trump, and I’ve never worried about my 17 year-old son’s future before now.
              To all of you who have suggested that my perception that his speech and language are difficulties are just a matter of my biased perception, have you read and/or listened to his Fox interviews? He’s all over the place- the man can’t complete a coherent sentence. Color me elititist, but I have come to expect my President to speak in full sentences, have some knowledge of policy and act like a grown up.

              1. but I have come to expect my President to speak in full sentences, have some knowledge of policy and act like a grown up.

                You mean you’ve come to expect presidents who’ve read pre-fabricated briefing books and use a TelePrompTer (but, unlike the current president, are devoid of accomplishments).

                Everything you’ve said indicates you’re interested in the superficial to the exclusion of anything else.

                1. No, I’d just like my President to act more grown up than my teenage son.
                  And btw- I’m pretty sure I only made my “Trump sycophant” statement after (and in large part) because you called me an idiot. You are obviously a Trump elitist.

                  1. I’m pretty sure I only made my “Trump sycophant” statement after (and in large part) because you called me an idiot.

                    No, you’re not, because such a response would have been non sequitur and it was not appended to my remarks.

                    You’re imputing dementia to a man who has run a business with $9.5 bn in revenue and 22,000 employees. Without any history in electoral politics, he managed to make short work of Jeb Bush (the latter’s mountain of donor money aside) and win a federal presidential election in spite of the nearly wall-to-wall hostility of the media and crucial components of the Republican establishment. These aren’t signs of dementia, woman.

                    1. His record as a businessman is debatable.
                      Nevertheless, I’m talking about his behavior now, as President. He acts like an adolescent. He shows no understanding of foreign or domestic policy. He’s either incapacitated by dementia or just plain unqualified. His business experience is of no consequence. It doesn’t translate into running the most powerful nation on earth.

                    2. And just because my comment wasn’t appended to your remarks doesn’t mean I didn’t see it. I was responding to someone else who was also disappointed by the level of irrational Pro-Trump discourse here.

                    3. His record as a businessman is debatable.

                      No, he’s proven capable in a variety of endeavours. He is one of six real estate developers on the Forbes 400 in 1982 who was still there 30 years later. You simply don’t wish to acknowledge his accomplishments.

                      I’m talking about his behavior now, as President. He acts like an adolescent. He shows no understanding of foreign or domestic policy.

                      He ‘shows no understanding’ to a middle-aged woman who doesn’t know what an accomplishment is, doesn’t know what dementia looks like (after making sketchy biographical claims on this board), and thinks BO was great because be could regurgitate the self-referential pap his speechwriters generated. You’re very adept at claiming perspicacity and then making it plain you haven’t any.

                  1. At this point, you’re playing I-Say-It’s-Spinach or you’re revealing you haven’t a clue what an accomplishment is.

                    1. I’ve pointed out precisely what they are and you can see what they are by reviewing his business assets.

                      You play crappy games with people as if they were lashed to you in an insipid and silly domestic argument, then go and complain about the president being puerile. You can’t help yourself.

                    2. You haven’t answered the question of what Trump has accomplished in office. I don’t care what he did as a small business owner.He’s POTUS now.
                      Also, why does he act like a child? Can you seriously defend that?

                    3. I can’t help myself? I believe it was you who called me an idiot.
                      I’m concerned, sincerely concerned, about my country and my child’s future. Show me why this man is NOT unfit for office without just insulting me. I’m not POTUS.

                    4. You haven’t answered the question of what Trump has accomplished in office.

                      You never asked that question and it’s a stupid question. He’s been in office for 9 months. The accomplishments any president has had since 1969 have been through executive actions which accumulate incrementally.

                      You shift from one foot to another and offer pretenses because you’re bereft of integrity.

                  2. “I don’t see that Trump has many accomplishments.”

                    Let me make it simple for you Karen, you don’t see because you don’t want to look. Under the last President when GDP growth was very sluggish he told the people that they may have to learn to live with less. Trump has brought GDP growth to over 3% in very little time with a hostile congress. That is a huge accomplishment. Unemployment is down and the rate of fall of the U6 was much more rapid under Trump than under Obama. As the U6 returns to more normal levels the rate should slow down, but it went up. Salaries have increased and since some of the adults in your family are working that should be considered an accomplishment.

                    You can go through a list of accomplishments here, but the above should first be considered and then you should tell us why you believe high unemployment. lower salaries and poor growth are good for the American people.


                    I was going to print the list in its full form but it would have occupied enough blog space that one would have to go to an additional page.

                    1. GDP was over 3% in several quarters of Obama’s term as well. Unemployment has been on on the decline for years now as well as stock market increases, so these are not “achievements” that can be solely attributed to Trump, although I know he wants to take credit for all of them.
                      Furthermore, if stock market is up so much, why do we need a corporate tax decrease to 20%? I’m not an economist, but seems to me corporations don’t need tax cut it and it will just cause tax deficits. Also, over half of Americans don’t own stocks, and I assume this includes much of Trump’s (non-corporate) populist base.

                    2. What do you mean by a “hostile congress”? Republicans hold majorities congress.

                    3. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but you have to recognize that the economy fell far lower than it should have so one expects growth at a lower GDP to increase faster. I’ll defer to DSS on this since he is an economist.

                      Did you not notice how the economy was settling in after huge amounts of debt were created? Do you remember what Obama said that we would have to learn to live with less? Living with less was due to his policies not due to America’s inadequacy. In fact, the recession was far worse than needed because of those policies. Compare how different states reacted during the time frame of the collapse. Texas and Florida acted in a conservative way while Illinois and NJ acted in a typical progressive way. If you follow the economies of all four states you can see how well Florida (one of the worst states hit) and Texas did. The other two are doing poorly. There is a video out there that shows what happened and why.

                      Are you satisfied with our industry leaving the US and taking our jobs with them? That is the question you have to ask when you consider tax policy. The best thing we could do would be to lower our expenditures and lower all taxes. That promotes growth. Growth promotes wealth and wealth promotes the ability of all in our nation to improve their well being.

                    4. ““Conservapepedia”? That is the most biased link I have ever seen.”

                      You asked for a list and they compiled one for you to look at and take issue with if you can. What you are doing is saying everything is biased that doesn’t agree with what you believe. What if what you believe is wrong? Does that make the reference less biased? No. It gave you the list you asked for and I gave you the economic implications of some of Trump’s policies.

                      Hostile congress: Trump may be a Republican, but they are hostile to him as well. Why do you think that is true? He doesn’t want the status quo to continue and that threatens the power of both parties. We have terrible leadership in Congress so threatening their power is a good thing and might shake them up so they do their jobs or the threat might cost them their jobs. Either way the status quo is impacted.

                      Are you one of those that think it just fine that Congress takes care of itself and neglects the American people?

                    5. Ok. I’ll bite. Tell me what Republicans, specifically, have stood in the way of Trump’s legislative proposals?

                    6. They haven’t even voted against him besides McCain on that “mystery” healthcare bill. Flake has been with him 90+%- he just doesn’t approve of Trump’s infantile, dangerous behavior. Good for him. Trump needs to grow up.

                    7. Karen – Flake is dying in the polls here in Arizona, I am not sure if he would poll 15% right now. He is toxic, he cannot raise money for his re-election and Bannon came to Arizona and anointed his primary opponent Dr. Kelli Ward who is polling about 30% ahead of Flake in the primary. Flake is just a sore loser who is striking out at the President, who he hates anyway.

                    8. Karen – people in Arizona are not that happy with McCain, so voting with McCain 90% of the time was exactly the wrong thing to do.

                    9. “Ok. I’ll bite. Tell me what Republicans, specifically, have stood in the way of Trump’s legislative proposals?”

                      How many times did the Republicans pass a bill to get rid of Obamacare? They said all they needed was a Republican President not to veto it. You saw the debates and the arm-twisting and the compromises and still Obamacare exists so Trump has used an alternate route. Obama got Obamacare passed and then used executive orders some of which were illegal to prop Obamacare up. Trump is now ridding himself of some of those executive orders attempting to get Congress to act as that is where these laws need to be created.

                      I’m waiting for your comments on all those things you requested and I provided for you referring to what Trump has done, but it seems your request was disingenuous.

                    10. I knew you’d go with Obamacare. Here’s a novel idea: Trump comes up with his own replacement for Obamacare. Why not?
                      And I did address your points. GDP did go beyond 3% during Obama administration. Stock market had been on the rise for several years, same as unemployment rates.

                    11. “I knew you’d go with Obamacare. ”

                      Under those circumstances one has to be pretty stupid to have asked such a question.

                      “Trump comes up with his own replacement for Obamacare. Why not?”

                      Now I understand why you gave up law. You don’t understand it. Congress has to pass the law otherwise it is an executive order that lasts until the next administration. The Republicans had their majorities and a President ready to sign a law getting rid of Obamacare. That should tell you some of the problems he faces, but I don’t think you have the ability to have a reasonable understanding of what that means.

                      “And I did address your points. GDP did go beyond 3% during Obama administration. Stock market had been on the rise for several years, same as unemployment rates.”

                      No you didn’t except in the most ignorant manner.

                      I gave you an explanation on why after a recession a GDP can appear high. I’m not sure of the numbers, but as the economy started to settle so did the GDP and Obama was willing to settle on a slower growing America. Trump changed the dynamics. For the first six months of the Trump administration, I believe the U6 fell three times as fast as it did under Obama. It is apparent you don’t understand these things and what they mean. Take some courses in economics, but this time study.

                    12. I understand law. I also know that most Presidents have come in to Office with some knowlege of policy and how it’s made. If they don’t, they surround themselves With people who help them learn.
                      Trump doesn’t even want to learn. He just wants to pass everything off to congress.
                      How can Trump endorse or criticize legislation if he has no understanding of it? That’s why he looks like such an idiot when he’s asked even the most general questions about policy or proposed legislation.

                    13. Karen – Trump has spent his business life as a delegator. He signs the contracts, but other people negotiate them and then attorneys read and approve them. I watched 2 hours of him being questioned about his business practices and it was fascinating. That is when I finally decided to vote for him. He was gracious to the opposing attorneys and spoke highly of the person suing him. He explained exactly what the problem was that this person had put his corporation in and what it was going to cost his corporation. He was very calm about the whole thing. It was amazing how hands off he was.

                    14. “”Trump doesn’t even want to learn. He just wants to pass everything off to congress.”

                      What are you talking about? I think he passed more executive orders than any other President in recent history. He cannot pass legislation. You are talking through the wrong orifice.

                    15. as William D. Cohan reports in the April Atlantic, the mogul has sued a book author, a Miss USA contestant, a comedian, and global financial institutions. A round-up of his most noteworthy

                    16. EO’s are bad unless they pertain to executive agencies. Got it Karen? Probably not. You tend to come here in this forum to parade for moronism ooops, l meant to say liberalism, for all to see.

                    17. OK, you have provided 4 suits, and according to DSS Trump has over 500 companies. That is not many suits. I’ll bet your dad as an electrician had to sue a good number of clients in his career when they didn’t pay him and he was involved in only one enterprise.

                      But, let’s take those suits. Suits are the way conflict is settled. You called them frivolous suits so you have to show us evidence that those suits were actually frivolous. I’ll bet the author was sued because Trump believed the author was engaged in character assassination. Not a bad way to protect one’s reputation and keep writers honest. I’ll bet the Miss America wasn’t living up to her contract.

                      Prove the case of frivolity or admit you lied.

                    18. Hello. He sued Bill Maher for saying maher would give him $5mil to prove he wasn’t the child of an orangutan when Maher didn’t pay. Maher’s bet was a challenge to TRump’s birther claim against Obamacare.
                      Need I say more? None of these are real estate claims. TRump’s Birtherism is truly deplorable. For me, it was more of a disqualifier than the access Hollywood tape.

                    19. Are you the one who insulted me for being a social worker? If so, what is it that you do that makes you so much better?
                      I’m underpaid, I help people and I like it. Furthermore, there are not many people with my education & experience who would do this necessary work.

                    20. “I thought EOs were bad. They were when Obama did them.”

                      Executive orders can be bad, but Trump isn’t passing executive orders in lieu of legislation like Obama did. Many of his executive orders are to end Obama’s executive orders including the illegal ones and the ones that should have been part of Congressional legislation. Other executive orders clarify rules and regulations many of which were never passed by Congress.

                    21. “Maher’s bet was a challenge to TRump’s birther claim against Obamacare.
                      Need I say more? ”

                      Absolutely you need to say a lot more and provide a lot more proof to back up your claim or you lied.

                      The one story you provide seems like a dispute that is on the borderline and could have been an abuse. What did the judge say in his decision? You have at least 500 plus to go since according to DSS he had over 500 companies. How many times did your electrician father sue a client?

                      I wish Obama provided his birth certificate right away to end such a problem. I think Hillary’s campaign was making the same charge against Obama. Today some feel there are discrepancies in the birth certificate provided and have legitimate concerns. I personally don’t care because with or without the birth certificate I feel sure he was born in Hawaii for a lot of other reasons. The actual claim being considered is that his real father was Frank Marshal and thus the “alteration” of the certificate. That wouldn’t change his ability to be President, but it is of interest. His history has a lot of strange things involved. I read his books and based upon his own words having little to do with his ideology I felt he was not a good Presidential candidate.

                    22. My father never sued a client. He was a union man.
                      Just look it up. I’m not gonna spell it out for you. If a TV celebrity jokingly says they will give u 5k to prove your father wasn’t an orangutan would you actually see that as a contract? No legal analysis needed- just common sense. It was a joke.

                    23. “He lost them all. He got a default against the miss USA cuz she didn’t show.”

                      You lied again and you are an attorney. If miss USA didn’t show he didn’t lose. We are left with three cases involving winning or losing. Of the four cases selectively picked out he won one case and lost 3. 2:2 could be considered average. Let’s hear some more cases. I won’t bother to ask the details because one can lose a case that isn’t frivolous which was your claim and proves that you lied.

                    24. Did I not already explain to you how frivolous it is to bring a case against Bill Maher for not paying 5mil. To show your father wasn’t an orangutan? Would you sue for that? The man is a moron, plain and simple. His birtherism was a silly publicity stunt and a lie.

                    25. “Are you the one who insulted me for being a social worker? ”


                      You still haven’t told me what your husband did for a living.

                    26. “My father never sued a client. He was a union man.”

                      In other words he was an employee. You are an attorney and you should know that business suits are made by employers or unions. How many times did your father’s one union sue or use the threat of suit to get what they wanted? How many times did his employer sue?

                      You have lied again because someone else sued on behalf of your father. You are racking up the lies.

                    27. “I think you got the wrong link. Send it.”

                      I don’t know how that applies to my response.

                    28. “Did I not already explain to you how frivolous it is to bring a case against Bill Maher for not paying 5mil.”

                      It may have been a frivolous case that had the effect Trump wanted. You don’t seem to understand marketing or how one can use something that lacks value to make a point. You definitely are not a business person.

                      I have given you credit for one frivolous case, but you have many more to go. Trump won one and lost 2, but you haven’t yet proven those to be frivolous. That was your case. Prove it or we have to recognized that you lied.

                    29. I think I already said I’m done with you. The article is self-explanatory. If you don’t know why it’s frivilous look it up or ask a lawyer.

                    30. “I didn’t lie about anything.”

                      Of course you did. I am holding you to the same standards as you hold Trump. You just don’t like to be judged in the same fashion you judge others. That is a problem. You must think you are better than others not to be judged in the same fashion. With all your degrees and graduating high in your class you haven’t learned humility and think that you are better than others so that you are entitled to call them liars when you act in the same fashion and demand to be called honorable. Do you get the point?

                    31. No, because I didn’t lie about anything. I don’t recall calling anyone else a liar, either.

                    32. “I think I already said I’m done with you. The article is self-explanatory. If you don’t know why it’s frivilous look it up or ask a lawyer.”

                      The debate is with you, not the writer of the article. You made a claim that you could not back up. That makes you a liar by your own standards.

                    33. “No, because I didn’t lie about anything. I don’t recall calling anyone else a liar, either.”

                      You have said a whole bunch of heinous things that you haven’t backed up. That makes you a liar. You want a double standard. One for other people and one for old entitled you because you feel you are entitled to say those things without proof.

                    34. Did you get the link. If so, have fun reading. Note that is the appeal of the initial frivilous suit.
                      I can look up other cases tomorrow for you if you like, but not all cases are published. Also, Not all of the suits Trump has brought or threatened are in the article.

                    35. Karen – having read the appellate court’s decision, it was not a frivolous lawsuit. Both courts had to wade through Trump’s financials before making a decision. NJ really had to work at this one to find against Trump, although I think they were correct. Although I do have problems with NJ shield law.

                    36. “Karen – having read the appellate court’s decision, it was not a frivolous lawsuit.”

                      I gave Karen that one and now have to take it back. So far out of the four Trump won one, lost a second that was not frivolous and we haven’t even gone through the last two.

                      Karen drew the wrong conclusion, but her mind is shut tight despite being an attorney and graduating cum laude. Education is supposed to open people’s minds, not shut them. Despite the lack of proof, she will continue her “lies” because the truth is secondary to what she wants to believe.

                    37. Allan – Trump lost, but it caused both the lower court of NJ and the appellate court to do a lot of work to decide against him. I am with the court on this one. Still, Trump had a case, just the defendant had a better case and was a great researcher who kept accurate notes. It is those notes that the court relied on.

                    38. Paul, thank you for the explanation. I am sure Trump has lost a significant number of cases. However, Karen’s claim without proof or in-depth knowledge was that he was abusing the court system with frivolous cases. That is what she wishes to believe because she has a double standard and feels entitled to be judged favorably while she judges others unfavorably even if the two are virtually identical. She should read “Coming Apart” by Charles Murray to help her understand what group she belongs to.

                    39. When did I ask to be judged favorably? I wouldn’t expect a Trump sycophant to judge me favorably.
                      The man acts like a child. He can’t even let a satirical piece from The Onion go without threatening suit. He has no sense of humor and sees every little slight as a war against him. This is why he can’t stay focused on anything- he’s a drama queen and a whiner not fit to serve as POTUS.

                    40. “The man acts like a child.”

                      Karen, the man with no experience as a politician, very little money, the media and many of his own party against him won the Presidency. It is true that sometimes he tweets too much and sometimes what he says is not to everyone’s liking. People voted based on the package and intelligent people look at what he has done and not at hit pieces and distortions of the truth. I can’t help it that you are so naive and so biased.

                    41. He’s thin-skinned. He can’t let any criticism go. He prides himself on being a “counterpuncher” but doesn’t like it when others (like the MSM which he has called the enemy of the State) counterpunch back.
                      He blames the Republicans in Congress for not getting legislation passed yet he shows he’s ignorant of the very legislation he claims he wants.
                      His success as a small business owner is debatable, but even assuming he was successful this does not necessarily qualify him to run the US.
                      And yes, being a community organizer, coupled with intelligence, integrity, diverse life experience and law practice is likely more conducive to being a good President. I’d take this over some self-entitled old man who got all his money from daddy all day long. I prefer Presidents who weren’t born with silver spoons in their mouths. They tend to just care more about average people.

                    42. “He’s thin-skinned”

                      You are repeating yourself. Trump is thin-skinned but effective. Obama was thin-skinned and ineffective.

                      “like the MSM which…”

                      How come the MSM hasn’t been writing about all the scandals up till now?

                      “He blames the Republicans in Congress”

                      Again you are repetitive. The Republicans voted to repeal ObamaCare over a half a dozen times. They couldn’t repeal it when they had the majority even after the repeal was radically softened. Read the Constitution and see whose job it is to legislate. At present, the President is pushing forward a tax bill to promote economic growth. He already without the wall fulfilled a lot of his promise to slow immigration. I gave you a big list, did you ever read it?

                      This President is no more ignorant that the prior President. In fact thirty years ago and intermittently since then this President made policy suggestions explaining what would happen if the US continued in the fashion it was moving. He was right thirty years ago.

                      I am sure if this was Reagan’s first term you would be saying the same things because this is what the media has been doing for decades.

                      “His success as a small business owner is debatable”

                      I don’t think so, but his work product was astounding and of great benefit. Assuming he never earned a dime he still contributed greatly, much more than you or I.

                      “And yes, being a community organizer, coupled with intelligence, integrity, diverse life experience and law practice is likely more conducive to being a good President. ”

                      It didn’t work out that way and Obama is neither the smartest or most honest person. His life experience gives one pause about him being a good leader. His law practice was minimal. He was one of the most unqualified Presidents who was pushed along.

                      Obama has linked himself to the largest corporations to the disadvantage of the American people. Who benefitted most from Obamacare, the little guy or the big guy? What has Trump focused on? The worker. You are all mixed up.

                    43. What? That makes no sense. Did you mean a caricature?”

                      No I meant exactly what I said.

                      Trump is a character means that he is outside of the norm which can be interpreted in many fashions.

                    44. Do you happen to have posters or images ohms Trump hanging in your place of residence? Maybe in your car or workplace? Is there a shrine to him where you go and worship? I’m starting to think you might be a little obsessed.
                      I liked and admired Obama, but I didn’t worship him.
                      “Trump is character” sounds a little beyond liking him. I’m a little worried about you now. Are you in a cult? Do you need help?

                    45. “Do you happen to have posters or images ohms Trump hanging in your place of residence? Maybe in your car or workplace? Is there a shrine to him where you go and worship?”

                      That is not a requirement for one that supports Trump, but from what I have seen from you and others you pray at the Temple of Obama and Clinton while Bill Clinton preys on anything with a skirt.

                      You are starting to get punchy Karen. Time for you to stop writing and start reading.

                    46. “Please. You are in love with Trump. It’s not normal.”

                      I am in love with this country and dislike crooks and liars. Trump is President and I hope he does a good job. I hoped the same when Obama assumed office.

                    47. It’s about character and sincerity. You may not care, but a lot of people do.
                      Trump is lacking in character. He hasn’t faced any challenges in life that I can relate to. He’s a self-entitled rich boy who still manages to whine an awful lot about petty slights.

                    48. “Trump is lacking in character.”

                      Trump doesn’t lack character. He is a character. You believe the scandalous HRC is an honest woman of character?

                    49. Very little money? Are we talking about the same guy who enjoyed bragging about how rich and successful he is throughout the campaign?

                    50. “Very little money?”

                      Yes, compare how much money HRC spent to what Trump spent.

                      Also, take note of how in one post you claim he didn’t earn much money yet in another post you side with his bragging as to how much money he has. You like to pick and choose what facts you wish for what argument. You seem to lack principles.

                    51. I never said he didn’t earn much money. I’m sure he did since he started out with a big fat loan and later a big fat inheritance from his daddy.
                      In fact, I’m pretty sure I said I prefer leaders not born with silver spoons in their mouths. I’m fact, I think community organizing work (like the social work I do) is very admirable and character-building, even though it’s not lucrative.

                    52. “I never said he didn’t earn much money. ”

                      I didn’t say you did. One of the things they are supposed to teach you in law school is how to read.

                    53. Yeah, you did.
                      I think you might be losing it a little in your love-of-Trump mania.
                      Time to take a time out. I get it. You love him. Good for you. It’s gonna be okay.

                    54. “Yeah, you did.
                      I think you might be losing it a little in your love-of-Trump mania.”

                      You are becoming a little nutty. All I have done is place your emotion in perspective and questioned your facts. Where you asked I provided answers. Where I asked you provided little except for responses that more frequently than not were erroneous.

                      You do have stamina. That is a good beginning. Get your tuition money back and I will teach you how to think.

                    55. And what is it that you do, Allan? I mean besides being a condescending Troll? What is your expertise? Being a nudge?

                    56. “And what is it that you do, Allan? ”

                      I give advice and am generally paid big bucks for it.

                    57. Be more specific please. Also, see my essay assignment. Should be easy for you.
                      I really don’t care how much money you make. Why are you so concerned with that?

                    58. You wanted me to be more specific in explaining why Trump’s lawsuits were frivolous. In fact, you seemed to suggest that I should look up every single suit involving Trump to prove my point. Accordingly, I don’t think I’ve asked too much of you. I’m not an economist and I assume you were never a lawyer.

                    59. “Accordingly, I don’t think I’ve asked too much of you. I’m not an economist and I assume you were never a lawyer.”

                      You can assume what you want.

                    60. I guess that means you aren’t going to respond.
                      That’s fine, but let the record reflect that you called me a “liar” for saying Trump has abused the judicial system with his frivolous lawsuits. You also claimed that I expect to be treated as “better than” others to expect to be taken at my words.
                      I suppose your own reasonin requires that you will remain an above- others “liar” until you can answer my questions.

                    61. What planned Parenthood attempt to profit off of sale of fetal tissue? What Trump accomplishment?

                    62. “I guess that means you aren’t going to respond.”

                      I responded accurately.

                      “called me a “liar” ”

                      I was pointing out your double standard. It makes no difference to me if you lie, make mistakes or tell the truth.

                    63. What double standard was that? I was under the impression that you were dissatisfied with my sending articles & caselaw on Trump libel cases rather than to provide you with a graduate dissertation on the matter. You called me a “liar” for stating that Trump has brought several frivolous claims.
                      Incidentally, just watching the liberal MSNBC with clips of the Donald accusing Cruz’ father of being involved in JFK addasination because the National Enqirer suggested so. True or is Trump full of it? You

                    64. “What double standard was that? ”

                      How you judge what is truthful and what is a lie. How you judge evidence. Etc.

                      The article that formed your opinion regarding frivolous lawsuits was soft, but acceptable to you because you don’t like Trump. The opposite is true with Obama.

                      You were a little dense. I didn’t want you to go through all the suits. I wanted you to read the article more critically and recognize the author didn’t. Or, if you found true documentation to present it. As a lawyer, the first thing you should have done was to define the term “frivolous” and to set fixed criteria as to numbers in comparison with others in the same industry and with the same number of companies.

                    65. Says the guy who can’t cite U6 and U3 numbers from the past 18 months.
                      You are a liar.

                    66. Do you really not know what “frivolous” means? I don’t need to look that up. A frivilous lawsuit is one that is brought with little or no merit and cannot have any reasonable expectation of success.
                      Example: Suing a tv personality (Bill Maher) for saying he will give you $5million to prove your father wasn’t an orangutan when he doesn’t pony up the $5million after you (plaintiff Donald Trump) provided your birth certificate.
                      In the above article example, the plaintiff,Donald Trump, cannot reasonably believe that he had a contract with defendant,Bill Maher. While contracts need to have consideration (give and get) on both sides, in this case the Court wouldn’t even look at such a matter as this was obviously just a joke.

                    67. “Do you really not know what “frivolous” means? ”

                      You are showing complete ignorance. You need some metrics that a case must meet to be deemed frivolous so that you can compare one group of cases to another. Every person will have a different view on cases so we need a standard.

                      You are using an authors standards that are poor intermixed with your standards that are not reproducible by reviewers.

                    68. Maybe if you were a lawyer you could see that the cases are frivolous- that they have no reasonable expectation of success.
                      You just don’t want to admit that I might know more than you about something. You are evasive about what you do (although you have bragged about making a lot of money), so it’s possible you can’t see a case as frivilous because you don’t know the standards of proof.
                      Being rich doesn’t mean you know everything. If you haven’t practiced law you wouldn’t know. To be fair, im sure you know about a lot of things I don’t.

                    69. ” reasonable expectation of success.”

                      What are your metrics to make that determination so one can compare the results from one place to another and from one observer to another?

                      “although you have bragged about making a lot of money),”

                      No. I said I am paid a lot for my advice. I didn’t say whether or not I make a lot of money. You need to learn how to read. You need to learn about how studies are done. You are very naive and think that our knowledge of the very narrow field of labor law makes you smart. What makes you smart is what you read and your critical reasoning skills that appear embryonic.

                    70. How studies are done, huh? I know how social science studies are done. I’m concerned here only with Trump frivolous suits against those who criticize him (libel, slander & defamation of character suits). You tell me why any other types of suits would be relevant to my “study.”
                      And you are very condescending and insulting. You and “Turley’ssmamfiltersucks” should get together. You are both pompous know it alls. He even seems to think anyone can be a Social Worker, even though it takes a Master’s degree in NY to practice. Perhaps you two can commiserate on how stupid everyone else is while defending a POTUS who can’t speak a complete sentence.

                    71. Karen – actually next to a Masters in Education, an MSW program needs the lowest number of points on the GRE to get into. All Masters degree programs are equal.

                    72. This doesn’t make any sense. You say MSW & MEd programs require lowest GRE scores and then you say “All Masters degree programs are equal.”
                      Either way, I’d like to see the statistics behind your seeeping claim that MSW and MEd programs don’t require high GRE scores. I’m pretty sure that would vary by school, like any other course of study.
                      Furthermore, I noticed you like to personally attack people. I wonder what makes you believe you are so superior?

                    73. Actually, Paul’s one of the nicest commenters on this blog. He’s one of the few that takes the time to joke with people and welcome back commenters who have been absent for a while, including those with whom he often disagrees!

                    74. Karen, I think everyone has had their intelligence insulted on this site, mostly by the drive-by poo-flingers. They’re easy to ignore. IMO, most of us are here to have an honest discussion of the issues and get some exposure to other perspectives.

                    75. “I guess I’ve been communicating with he wrong people.”

                      You’re communicating with the right people because you seem not to understand a variety of opinions and you make comments that are indirectly insulting to those that disagree with you. You make almost no attempts to prove your comments to be correct and then you continue with your offensive speech.

                      When the tables are turned and your type of speech is used against you, you howl and cry foul. I’ve told you this several times in our discussions so you have had plenty of time to moderate what you say. You didn’t and that is why some of us have placed you on the receiver line.

                      It’s not that you disagree. It’s how you disagree.

                    76. Karen – I didn’t insult your intelligence, I insulted your job and degree.

                    77. You’re right. Social work is crap. It’s dangerous to work with mentally ill & developmentally disabled in a social work capacity. I’ts dangerous that I’m helping them to become more independent.

                    78. Paul says ” I also insulted my degree if you were reading carefully.”

                      That is self-deprecation.

                      Comedians do that and sometimes deprecate the audience as well. It promotes introspection.

                    79. Allan – my degree field is not known for the brightest bulbs in the drawer so the scores have to be lower. However, even as low as our scores were, I had classmates got over to Education to get a Masters because they would take even lower scores.

                    80. Paul, in the schools we are schooled. In life, we are given the chance to become educated. I think you took that chance and passed.

                    81. Allan – sadly I know too much crap and keep adding to it. 🙂 I am beginning to wonder if I will hit a point like Kelly Bundy and when I learn a new fact I will lose an old fact. That would be sad because I love learning new stuff.

                    82. Karen – I think faster than I type these days. That should have been Not all masters programs are equal. Missed the NOT. Good catch on your part. My college, which is also academically challenged, did not require the GRE but some other analogy test you could take. After the test was over they told they could score it immediately if we were willing to wait, so I did. Another student and I were the last to get our results. The lady waited until everyone else was gone before she handed us our results. Along with our results were invitations to Mensa and some organization that is for the top 1%. For my college, I needed a score of 65, for the college of education 45, for social work 55. I scored a 93 and I am horrible at math. All my score did was unnerve my professors, still, it kept them on their toes. So, yes, in a way, I am special. 😉

                    83. Well congratulations. But that was for your school. Different schools require different GRE scores for their Masters programs. I honestly don’t remember what my GRE score was, but since I hadn’t had math since high school I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that great. I know I didn’t do nearly as well as I did on the LSAT.
                      Still, if there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s people who think they are better than others. I grew up middle class, I went to a public merit-based admission magnet high school that was very diverse and chose to use my three degrees helping people because I Am a down to earth person with a talent for establishing a good rapport with people in need. Although I was always well above average in intelligence I was always taught to value all people.
                      As a public defender I was told countless times by my poor clients that I was the “coolest” lawyer they ever had.
                      I personally consider my empathy and ability to help people to be an asset, not a liability, so maybe you can see why I don’t appreciate being insulted based on my profession.

                    84. Karen – call it what you want, but I think social work is a ‘crap’ degree and a danger to society.

                    85. Well that is a very thoughtful response. I can see why you would be a Mensa contender, although I’ve never heard of anyone being invited to join Mensa based on a GRE score.
                      I suspect you are full of more than just yourself.

                    86. Karen – actually it surprised the heck out of me, too. I did give them a call but they seemed too snooty for my taste so I never joined up. The lady who scored the test asked both of us if we thought we would score that high, personally, I thought we were waiting because we failed the test, although I finished it early. Since I had had problems with the math I did not expect a high score, so I must have done some good guessing. 😉 And it wasn’t the GRE, I was allowed to take the Miller Analogy, which was only $17 at that time. A lot cheaper than the GRE. I had just started graduate courses and was whizzing away when my department realized I was not signed up in the Graduate College or had taken an entrance exam. So, I had to do all that stuff that regular grad students do while I was already taking grad courses. Who knew? It’s not like they tell you in advance. I was in my 3rd semester when they caught me.

                    87. Goody for you. Thanks for insulting social work. Someone on this forum said you were one of the nice ones. I respectfully disagree.
                      I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t comment to any of my responses to anyone else on this forum. I’ll extend you the same courtesy. I’m just a “dangerous” “crap” social worker after all.
                      Have a nice weekend.

                    88. Karen, I hate to interject, but why do you blow up just because Paul doesn’t see the value of a social worker? A lot of people feel that way, but social workers do certain work that is absolutely necessary. However, that doesn’t mean all that is done by social workers is good.

                      Since you know more about the subject than he why don’t you make your case factually as to the most important things done by social workers?

                    89. Did you see what he said? He said social work was “crap” and “dangerous”. And that was after he gratuitously asserted that MSW programs don’t require high GRE scores. So yeah, I don’t want to hear anything he has to say.

                    90. Take a lesson from that. I am not a fan of a lot of social workers, but I recognize an important need. Many people look at social workers as mindless busybodies. Why do you think that is? Where does it come from? The written word, television, movies and other popular culture. The social worker is frequently ridiculed by that culture even if it may not be true.

                      Social workers do a job that someone has to do and without that work being done a lot of things in the healthcare sector would slow down or come to a stop. A lot of people would be in trouble.

                      Let’s assume you weren’t a social worker, but your daughter was who you supported. You would be angry and get pissed when her field was ridiculed with nonsensical garbage even though you would accept legitimate criticism of her field.

                      Guess what? That is exactly what the media has done to Trump and there are many people that support Trump just like you would support your daughter. They are pissed off when nonsensical garbage is thrown at him but would accept legitimate criticism.

                      I don’t think Paul is familiar with everything social workers do so instead of getting pissed explain it to him and debate the true criticism. If after you do so and he can’t prove his case or demonstrate justification for what he says and continues to unjustly ridicule then you can blow up and respond as you wish.

                    91. I explained to Paul what I do. I work with mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals to help them become more independent. I can’t imagine a less controversial sector of social work practice, yet Paul remains non-apologetic.
                      As for your make believe analogy to my daughter as Trump (I have a 17 year-old son, btw), I can’t teally go there. My son would never be like Trump. First of all, he will never get a million dollar loan or multi-million dollar inheritance from me & his dad. He lives in the real, middle-class world and he’s been taught to respect all people, not just the rich.
                      Even assuming, arguendo, that he did become rich (and he does plan to study business in college), I’d always be around to keep him down to earth, as would his dad and his friends.
                      He’s 17. We live in an apartment, but he has everything he needs and more love than most kids get. He’s not an entitled rich boy. He goes to the same diverse merit-based magnet high school I went to.
                      I’m his mother. I’ll know if he’s turning into a jerk, and I’ll put him in check. I would love to see him successful, and I have no objection to him making a lot of money, but I do believe, and I’ll make sure, that he always keeps tethered to his middle-class roots. If he ever starts thinking he’s better than other people (like Mensa Paul) because he makes more money I will give him a little reminder.

                    92. ” I work with mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals to help them become more independent.”

                      You didn’t tell him what “work” meant and why certain training was needed. Anyone can do the same thing, but will their lack of training lead to good results.?

                      I know you have a son, but I didn’t want to bring your son into the discussion so I used a fictitious daughter instead. Your son doesn’t have to be like Trump and he doesn’t have to be given money to become successful. That is a victimhood approach. …And no you can’t keep him down to earth. He will be down to earth if that is his mindset. The best thing we as parents can do is set good examples, but our children become their own people.

                      “but I do believe, and I’ll make sure, that he always keeps tethered to his middle-class roots. If he ever starts thinking he’s better than other people (like Mensa Paul) because he makes more money I will give him a little reminder.”

                      I’d be very careful moving in that direction. Ambition isn’t bad. It’s good. Competition isn’t bad. It’s good. Becoming rich isn’t bad. It’s good. Of course, all of that assumes moral and legal appropriateness.

                    93. My son is 17. His personality is pretty much developed at this point. I have little doubt he’s gonna do a 180 and forget where he came from.
                      As for competition, please. My son is super-competitive. He’s been playing baseball since 6 years old and now plays varsity is on 3 teams during summer so I don’t think he’s gonna stop being competitive. And I already said I certainly don’t mind if he becomes rich- I hope he does. At this point, however, he’s never gonna be a born-with-a-silver-spoon in his mouth kid, because he wasn’t. He’s always had everything he needs, but he’s no rich boy like Trump- he’s just middle class and there is nothing wrong with that. He has good values. He respects people. He doesn’t think he’s better than everyone else. I’m happy with that. He doesn’t need to be pompous and conceited to be successful.

                    94. ” but he’s no rich boy like Trump-”

                      He’s richer than the vast majority of people in the world and richer than many people in this country. You are too hung up on what others have or don’t have.

                    95. Really? Because it seems to me I’ve been insulted quite a bit on this forum from going from lawyer to social worker, almost as if I’ve become a loser by choice. And of course I took a cut in pay.
                      Are you denying that Trump was born a rich boy?

                    96. “Are you denying that Trump was born a rich boy?”

                      So what? Envy is one of the seven sins.

                    97. Karen – oddly enough, one does not need an MSW to teach the mentally ill or the disabled in public schools. You do need extra training, but not an MSW. And some of those students go on to be productive citizens. I had a disabled brother and I taught some disabled students and some mentally ill students every year, depending on their IEP. I did not need an MSW. My brother was a very productive member of society without the help of any social worker. And my IEP students hit their goals and better in my classes.

                      Part of my problem with social workers comes from the fact that Arizona had to close down its Child Protective Services because of the continual mistakes they were making. Children were dying in foster care. They closed it, fired everybody and rebuilt it from scratch. And the fault was all on the social workers, they weren’t doing their job.

                    98. I’m sorry to hear that Arizona had a bad experience with CPS. Here in New York, Erie County at least, we have similar problems with CPS. However, here CPS workers don’t need an MSW, just a bachelor’s degree (in any field).
                      They train them, but not long enough. It’s a tough gig, the pay is shitty (32k/yr.)and they will hire anyone who scores over 75 on their very easy test. Most people don’t last long. Personally, I wouldn’t want to do it. I did test for it, got a 95 and declined after hearing horror stories.
                      In New York, you need a Special Education Masters degree to work with disabled students. I don’t do that, but I did consider it years ago before I went to law school. Frankly, I just prefer not to work with kids because I’m not good with them.
                      I work with adults for a non-profit agency that helps the mentally ill, many of whom are also developmentally disabled (specifically MR). I won’t get into details- just help them with becoming more independent.
                      I can see why CPS might be a turn off, but I doubt they are MSWs in Arizona either. They probably should be MSWs at least, with s preference for MSWs with a concentration in child welfare. That might help.
                      You may want to consider, however, that the profession of Social Work is very broad. It includes School social workers, Health care social workers (who help place people with care outside of the hospital), therapists (yuck but that’s personal preference), addiction counselors and people like me. CPS workers are generally not MSWs unless they are supervisors.

                    99. I don’t accept completely non-informed, unthoughtful criticsm of social workers. Paul claims to be MEnsa material. Surely I don’t need to explain to him how broad the social work field is.
                      He sounds older than me as well (I’m 47). He should know better. I chose social work over law. You can both speculate that I was a failure at law if you like but it’s not true. Fact is my predominant talent (even above legal research & writing) is my ability to empathize, relate to and communicate successfully with people in need. That’s all. No failure, no disbarment, just a talent.

                    100. “I don’t accept completely non-informed, unthoughtful criticsm of social workers.”

                      You shouldn’t and neither should supporters of Trump accept completely non-informed, unthoughtful criticism of Trump.

                    101. Why do you always have to throw Trump in there?
                      Why don’t u tell your buddy Paul he’s been an ass?

                    102. “Why do you always have to throw Trump in there?
                      Why don’t u tell your buddy Paul he’s been an ass?”

                      Because if you want respect for the things you believe in you have to give respect for the things others believe in.

                    103. Paul hasn’t shown me anything he believes in. He just goes on about how smart he is and how great his standardized test scores are. I honestly don’t remember mine. I’d think he wouldn’t either.

                    104. Karen – I remember my score on that test because it was the first time I found out how smart I really was. 🙂 Some things are seared into your memory. Later I would take an IQ test which would confirm this. However, there are people smarter than me, more productive than me, etc. Certainly better at math than me. 😉 My problem is that my mind is constantly working, making connections, always moving to another subject. Sadly, as I have gotten older aphasia has started to kick in so sometimes I finally remember something about 3 am. I can describe it, just cannot name it until then.

                      I am a great teacher, but a terrible boss. My standards are too high. I expect others to have the same high standards I do and that is too much. Elon Musk and I could run for the worst boss of the year and it would be a toss-up. However, now I am retired and my dog is the boss of me. My dog is pushy, but not too demanding.

                    105. Karen – I have no reason to apologize for belittling you because I did not belittle you, just your degree and your job. I have nothing against you. You should be proud of your law degree and what you did with it. Nor did I belittle your work with the handicapped and mentally ill, you should be proud of that, just that it requires an MSW, which it shouldn’t.

                      You are not the things that you do. We play many roles in our lives, for yours, wife, mother, blogger, worker, etc. Some we are better at than others, some we are just crap at. I am crap at being an auto mechanic. Never going to happen. I have an excellent mechanic I trust with my car and I take it to him, but other than putting gas in the car, that is about it for me. I am used to being called names on here. When I first joined this blog there were two bloggers who tried their best to drive me off the blog. I am here, they are gone. I am not a better blogger, just more persistent. So, if you want to stay on here, you need to grow a thicker skin. 🙂

                    106. I actually always wanted to be a professor. Being a professional student has always been appealing to me, as I love to learn. I might still do it, who knows.
                      I love dogs, but I can’t have one in my apartment.

                    107. Karen – there are a lot of free university courses online (no final exam) you just have to look for them and have the patience to get through them. I just finished The Great Courses series on Classical Archaeology: Greece and Rome. 30 half-hour lectures on DVD from the library. Fascinating. They used to have them on CD and you could download them to your iPod, so you could listen to them on the bus or when you were walking. This is the first time I have seen this.

                      Hillsdale College runs a series of free courses, usually about 10 or 12 lectures each with additional readings. I am in the midst of 3 of them right now. The one I watched today was the 2nd lecture on American Heritage. I know I have one on the Constitution and I think the other is Western Civilization. You have to the first lecture before they start sending you the other ones, which come one a week.

                    108. The lectures are archived so that one can get any archived lecture whenever they want.

                      Paul, if you haven’t tried, try podcasts as well. Uncommon knowledge is one of the best. Also the Libertarian Tradition. I love the person who does the reading of it. One doesn’t have to be a libertarian to learn from it because it is talking about different people who so happen to be libertarians and they come from more than both sides of the aisle and some belong in jail, but it is our history and provides an understanding of what individual freedom means.

                    109. Allan – just checked my library system this morning they seem to have a lot of them, but I am not sure how they were advertising them. I found this one because it was listed with new DVDs for the week. However, the others have not been. Now I know they are there, I have many to pick from. 🙂 Thanks for the suggestion on the podcast.
                      I just ordered a new course on Amer History Part 1 of 4. Should be fun. It is the not taking the final that is the icing on the cake. 🙂

                    110. Hillsdale College has some excellent course on line. The are not for credit and free.

                    111. “Paul hasn’t shown me anything ”

                      Paul just made a substantive statement about social work. I’m not saying I agree or disagree because there are arguments on both sides. In that argument “And the fault was all on the social workers, they weren’t doing their job.” didn’t seem to attack the degree as much as how those having a degree carried out their work.

                    112. Ksren – I just am not a fan of your degree or of your job. I will continue to comment on your other comments on this blog though. I don’t take orders from anyone.

                    113. And I happen to work with the mentally ill and developmentally disabled to help them become more self-sufficient.
                      How is this dangerous and “crap”? Would you just prefer to see them back in institutions? To you feel they are responsible for their disabilities? I

                    114. I don’t. Allan suggested I reach out but I doubt that it matters. But if I were you, Mr. Mensa, I’d feel like a pretty big loser right about now.

                    115. Karen – this is probably going to hurt your feelings, but I never take attacks on me personally. Isn’t worth it. 🙂

                    116. It doesn’t hurt my feelings. Why would it? It just proves what I thought- that you are an elitist ass. You’re the one who looks like a fool.

                    117. “How studies are done, huh? I know how social science studies are done”

                      Hopefully, that taught you how to distinguish fact from fiction and how to grade evidence. You see to use anecdotal type evidence as fact.

                      “You tell me why any other types of suits would be relevant to my “study.”

                      You included in your four examples one suit that cannot be called frivolous because the evidence wasn’t heard. You seem to utilize very low evidence when making your claims. Maybe that is training related to your profession since lawyers take whatever evidence they get and swear up and down that proves their client’s position to be the correct one.

                      “And you are very condescending and insulting. ”

                      Look at your comments about others whether directly or indirectly utilized against them. You wish a double standard and you don’t like it being thrown in your face. Are you too entitled?

                      “You are both pompous know it alls.”

                      I’m not a know it all. You act as if you are because you are so ignorant of the facts. My mind is open to being proven wrong. Your mind is shut tight even when you contradict yourself.

                      “think anyone can be a Social Worker, even though it takes a Master’s degree in NY to practice. Perhaps you two can commiserate on how stupid everyone else is while defending a POTUS who can’t speak a complete sentence.”

                      I think the President is a lot smarter than you and has a better understanding of how things work along with ideas. Not every partially intelligent person can do what Trump has done, but most of them could get a master in social work. Neither getting into most law schools or masters programs especially Social Work is all that difficult. I’m not demeaning the profession as there are a lot of smart people doing that type of work. The only thing I am cutting down is your idea, by itself, that having a law degree or a master in Social Work is such a big deal that it makes you smarter than others. Those degrees may make you more schooled, but they certainly don’t make you educated.

                    118. I never said having degrees made me smarter than others. And I should hope my POTUS is smarter than me.
                      I did, however, send the wrong link related to his lawsuits. Sorry.

                    119. “I never said having degrees made me smarter than others.”

                      That is debatable since you used those degrees to demonstrate that you were smart. I didn’t accuse you of bragging like you erroneously accused me when you didn’t get the context right. I think you get very worked up and lash out before thinking.

                      I think you should tone down your rhetoric and stop using stupid complaints against the President for which you have no real defense. I am sure one can make a case against him using much better material. You can accept my advice or not as you wish.

                    120. I only mentioned my degrees because someone, I believe it was “Turley’sspamfilter”, called me an idiot.
                      But I do stand corrected, I see now that I did not send the links about Trump’s lawsuits that I thought I had. I readily admit I’m nit even remotely sophisticated at sending links to multiple sites using my iPhone.

                    121. “But I do stand corrected,”

                      Karen, I don’t hold that against you and I don’t think you are a dummy. I think in frustration you respond poorly and without thinking.

                      Maybe after you write a reply you should put it down and reread it in 5 minutes and see if that style really suits the person you really are.

                    122. Thank you. As I have stated previously, however, I am disgusted by Trump’s litigious nature. All courts are overflooded with cases (hence the pressure to settle) and I have little patience for those who add to that backlog simply because they want to make a point or flex their muscles.
                      I had hoped Trump would rise to the occasion, behaviorally speaking, once he got into office. Like many others, however, it appears to me he just can’t stop with the obnoxious tweets and the divisive behavior.
                      You seem to be mainly concerned with his economic achievements, and I’m not going to quibble any further with that, as the economy is doing well. I just wish he’d be more civil. You may disagree, but there is a reason why so many think he is dishonest, unstable and divisive. Frankly it makes me sad.

                    123. Karen, I don’t know that he is that litigious based upon the number of companies he has been involved with and the type of business he is in. Only 2 of the 7 items in that article were lost by Trump. He seemed to get what he wanted in 3 of them and in 2 no suits were filed. Reading them over quickly I seem to remember most if not all of the cases. The article might make him seem litigious, but making someone look bad is what a lot of partisan writers do.

                      I like honesty and knowledgeable debate with substance. When Obama was in office I would quickly state when I agreed with him and why. When he strayed from what I believed I would criticize his positions generally without insulting characteristics of the man not germane to his being President. When Bush was in office I criticized him a lot. The criticism was based on principle and I judge Trump in the same fashion.

                      “I had hoped Trump would rise to the occasion, behaviorally speaking, once he got into office.”

                      I think everyone would like that as well, but as you have seen the newspapers have not been kind and the Democrats keep talking as if they are going to impeach him. Then again we have Maxine Waters who says “I would take him out”.There is a lot of craziness coming from the left so Trump has to make his stance clear. Sometimes it isn’t clear what he is doing, but after we forget about what he said we start noting changes. His football statement came out of nowhere, but it changed the dialogue and much of the country is now siding with Trump. His tweets on Russia and other things initially laughed at become truer and truer.

                      I would like to see our government acting in a better fashion all over, but neither the news media nor the politicians will permit that. If you note when Trump isn’t attacked unfairly we don’t see as much of what you might think to be his craziness because he probably doesn’t find it necessary.

                    124. Karen, I note you sent the Atlantic article again to prove how many frivolous suits Trump has made. After such a long discussion I looked at this a tad deeper and laughed so hard I almost peed in my pants.

                      Your claim had no backing from this article where he brought up 7 stories. That’s 7 stories, not cases, as your proof that Trump engages in so many frivolous lawsuits despite the fact reported on the blog that Trump has over 500 companies. Trump won one suit and on another settled with the opposing party for what he had asked in the first place. Three more never seemed to be filed. That left 2 potentially frivolous law suits.

                      Karen, you really know how to make yourself look bad.

                    125. Karen, some stores dropped Ivanka’s products merely because she was trump’s daughter. I go to stores to shop and one of the few stores I did almost all my shopping at played that game. I told the manager my feelings and never advocated anyone else not shop there, but I haven’t been in the store since.

                      If they had done the same to Obama’s daughter also for no good reason I probably would have stopped shopping there as well. I want to shop and go to sports games peacefully. I don’t go to those places to be at a rally even though I have marched and rallied all my life.

                      One should live by principle and stand by them even if standing by them can mean difficulty, but one shouldn’t constantly be inflicting their woes on other people that are trying to live their lives.

                    126. “One should live by their principles and stand by them even if standing by them can mean difficulty, but one shouldn’t constantly be inflicting their woes on other people that are trying to live their lives.”

                      What is that supposed to mean?

                    127. Karen, what do you think it means? I’m not talking about you. I am talking about those that inflict their pain on others and disrupt their lives unnecessarily without care.

                      Let us assume you and I wish to hear Alan Dershewitz ( the leftist lawyer. I assume you know about his suit against a university). Does an Antifa or BLM crowd have a right to interfere with what we wish to do? Do they have a right to prevent you from listening to Milo speak?

                      They have grievances whether real or false, but that doesn’t give them the right to inflict pain on everyone else.

                    128. I think BLM and “Antifa” (this label tends to be used loosely) have the right to protest like anyone else, as long as they don’t injure people or commit any crime. If they do, they should be prosecuted.
                      I wouldn’t say either BLM/Antifa are imposing their misery any more than Milo is. Both have grievances, therefore I guess you can say they are both exposing their misery.

                    129. Karen, the right to protest is fine, but they have no right to prevent you or I listening to a legal speech by someone they don’t like.

                      Milo isn’t imposing his grievances. He was legally trying to speak in front of a group that wished to hear him. Antifa and possibly BLM were involved in riotous behavior starting fires and because they were afraid Milo would be shot the police came to evacuate him under a lot of police protection including, I think, a bulletproof vest.

                      I think you have your sympathies vested in the wrong type of people. Milo and the people that wished to listen to him were prevented by a bunch of people that should have been put in jail. How can you disagree?

                    130. It’s not a matter of sympathy. The situation you pose is a matter of free speech. I have never protested against anyone’s right to free speech, no matter how much I disagreed with it.
                      I’m honestly not that familiar with Milo, but he does espouse grievances and complaints, does he not?
                      History shows that many civil rights leaders have literally lost their lives for speaking in public. If Milo is as determined as they are I guess he should speak regardless of the hardship.

                    131. “not that familiar with Milo, but he does espouse grievances and complaints, does he not?”

                      I don’t think so. He takes an unpopular position for the type of person he is, but I don’t think he advocates harm to anyone. At times he is a bit graphic about his sexuality, but he is quite intelligent and doesn’t seem to get very angry at anyone even though his positions are quite unusual in many respects. His appeal is to college students and the younger set along with people that are interested in is politics and stretching the cultural norms.

                      Antifa and BLM have no right to block him or people like him or anyone from speaking. That is the basis behind Antifa and for much of BLM.

                      I used Alan Dershowitz since he is a leftist and a lawyer and figured you would know who he was, but did you know that he was discriminated against when he was supposed to speak, I think, at Berkely?

                    132. I have no problem with Milo. It’s my understanding that he was able to speak, but that some of his views are unpopular, particularly at a liberal college like Berkely. I’ve seen him in interviews since the event. To the extent he wasn’t able to speak to as many people as he wanted to he seems to be taking it just fine.

                    133. Milo’s life was in jeopardy when he tried to speak. Alan Dershowitz was forced to accept a smaller crowd being treated differently than usual because of the political climate. Though on the left all his life and a supporter of HRC he said some things that rubbed the left the wrong way. He is now suing and no, it isn’t a frivolous suit. David Horowitz hasn’t been permitted to speak in many places. He used to be one of the intellectuals behind the new left and exposed a lot of the terrible things they did. He learned his lesson while working with the Black Panthers in Oakland ( a friend and the secretary he recommended was killed and you can guess who probably killed her). Many people that are conservative have had their right to speak abridged, been denied 501C3 status, have been excessively audited and denied the right to work simply because they have conservative views.

                      That doesn’t affect you personally so you may not see it. You might not like Glen Beck, but he used to live on the west side in NYC. He left because his young children were told all sorts of things in the park simply because he has a different ideology than usual for a west sider.

                    134. Of course I know who Dershowitz is. I did lose a little respect for him after he represented OJ, but he’s still a fine attorney.

                    135. Why did you lose respect for him based on him standing up for OJ’s civil rights? My guess is he knew he was guilty, but some people believe attornies must stand up even for the guilty and when they do it prevents prosecutors from taking the easy way out which can lead to the conviction of the innocent.

                    136. As a former defense attorney of course I believe that every criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel.
                      The problem I have with OJ, aside from the fact that the evidence showed that he was guilty as sin, is that he gratuitously played the race card. While I do believe that there is racial bias in the judicial system, OJ is pretty much whiter than me (and I am white, btw).
                      I can see why the jury (especially so soon after the Rodney King matter and detective Mark Furman’s deplorable racist statements on tape) could believe there would be a racist component in the case, OJ should simply not have been the poster child for this.
                      I live in Buffalo. OJ was a Buffalo Bill. He lived in Clarence, a very rich suburb of Buffalo, before he divorced his black wife & married Nicole. I’m sure he experienced racism at some point in his life, but probably not anytime during or after college at USC.

                    137. Karen – I had the opportunity to watch the OJ trial gavel to gavel and the prosecution did not have a case. The evidence was bungled, Mark Fuhrman lied and probably planted evidence, the gloves did not fit and the knife (which was sealed by the court) did not have any blood on it.

                      Johnny Cochran pushed the prosecution into an early trial so they had less of a chance to prepare. The cops were cocky. Marsha Clarke believed she was a star but her witnesses got taken apart by the defense. Everyone thought F. Lee Bailey was an idiot going after Mark Fuhrman at length, but they had the evidence to destroy him. I kept telling people, it is a setup.

                      I was surprised the jury took as long as it did to acquit O.J. Now he is at the Bunny Ranch, enjoying himself.

                    138. Read The Run of His Life by Jeffery Toobin.
                      There is a reason why that glove didn’t fit, but it was a prosecutorial blunder still- in they should never have had him put it on.

                    139. Karen – they tried all sorts of excuses about that glove, the blood made it shrink was the best. Until it turned out that blood would not make that leather shrink. They also should not have put Fuhrman on the stand, but they did. And the pictures of the evidence collection went against them. Agencies all across the country changed their procedures after watching that trial. It was a mess. I think the current excuse is that OJ was wearing a rubber glove when he put the glove on so it didn’t fit, but it should have had plenty of slack to begin with.

                    140. His doctor instructed him to stop taking his arthritis medication so his fingers were swollen.
                      There’s no doubt those gloves were his. Very few pairs sold in that size, one pair sold to Nicole Simpson.

                    141. Karen – if you were white you thought he was guilty, if you were black you thought he was innocent. I watched the trial and the prosecution didn’t make their case. He was not guilty.

                    142. In addition to the arthritis swelling, next time you put your pants on, try putting them on over latex long John’s!

                    143. Point of interest to help one focus on the more important things instead of tweeting too much:

                      (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that the State Department revealed in a federal court hearing that it has yet to process 40,000 of 72,000 pages of Hillary Clinton records that the FBI recovered last year. The revelation came during a federal court hearing in Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails that were sent or received during her tenure from February 2009 to January 31, 2013

                      more: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-recovered-72000-pages-clinton-records/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newswatch&utm_term=members&utm_content=20171028124816

                    144. Allan – Judicial Watch reported yesterday that at the pace the State Department is releasing Hillary’s emails they do not expect to get them all until 2020 sometime. The State Department is releasing 500 a month. And they haven’t started on the ones on Weiner’s laptop.

                    145. I think BLM and “Antifa” (this label tends to be used loosely) have the right to protest like anyone else, as long as they don’t injure people or commit any crime. If they do, they should be prosecuted.
                      I wouldn’t say either BLM/Antifa are imposing their misery any more than Milo is. Both have grievances, therefore I guess you can say they are both exposing their perceived misery.

                    146. “sorry- woes and grievances, not misery. I can’t see your words when I respond.”

                      Not sure what you are trying to say.

                    147. Karen, I’m not going to bother to even scan this newest citation. Firstly, I don’t want to reargue something that has already been argued for such a long time. Secondly, I don’t find the Hollywood Reporter to generally be a credible source of anything.

                    148. Ah. Yet you find “Conservapedia” to be credible. I see. Bottom line, Trump dropped the case because it was ridiclous.

                    149. Karen, you asked for what he had done. Conservapedia listed what he had done. You might debate whether they are good or bad, but a list, in this case, doesn’t involve credibility unless you think they are making things up that never existed. Look at it again and you will see data that is able to be confirmed.

                      Sometimes people are trying to make a point so what you think was dropped because he thought it was ridiculous might be a ridiculous statement. Are you able to read minds? (Take note I don’t know which case you are talking about.)

                    150. The settlement there was that Trump was given the opportunity to prolong the payment of his Debt. He didn’t get the $5million he sued for.

                    151. The case was brought to court because he wished to delay payment. He had to declare damages, but that wasn’t what he had wanted. In the end, he got his delay in settlement.

                    152. Karen – in the one case where you submitted the appellate decision, it was clear that the Donald had a case, it was just that the defendant had a much better defense. And I agree with the court. However, you never know what a bunch of idiot judges are going to do.

                    153. Comparison with same people in same industry is irrelevant here. Trump sues when people make him look bad or hurt his feelings.
                      It has nothing to do with his business dealings, or what business he’s in. It’s about his character. He

                    154. “Comparison with same people in same industry is irrelevant here. ”

                      You are totally ignorant as to how studies are done.

                    155. Sorry but I disagree. I’m speaking exclusively about Trump’s libel and slander suits. I think it speaks to his character.
                      However, I have heard and read that he has been sued many times for failure to pay his bills. He skirts everything from legal bills to small business labor & commercial suppliers. Is this what you want me to include? The people who have sued Trump?

                    156. Can you not stay on one subject. You seem to drift all over. You said Trump has too many frivolous suits. You had no proof. You had no metrics so more than one person could get the same results and you could compare one person to another.

                      You are adamant that your opinion is fact and anything you wish to believe is fact. That is your problem and why you have said so many things that make so little sense.

                      I have no objection to discussing policy. But your idea of discussing policy is to say Trump is stupid. I use metrics such as the U6, the GDP etc. I look at the numbers to draw my conclusions.

                    157. Are you serious? I’ve been on Trump’s libel & slander lawsuits the whole time- but you keep demanding I give you some kind of “study” on all lawsuits within his area of business.
                      Also, I’m pretty sure you are the one who brought up the Clintons as murderers, Obama having a falsified birth certificate, Trump’s debatable “great success” and now Planned Parenthood.
                      I think it’s you who needs to stay on point.

                    158. Karen – you never defined the parameters of these suits. We now, after 12 hours, finding out you are concentrating on libel and slander. Your original blanket statement did not define the terms. No wonder you aren’t a lawyer anymore.

                    159. “Also, I’m pretty sure you are the one who brought up the Clintons as murderers, Obama having a falsified birth certificate,”

                      I can’t help it if you are a scatterbrain. You brought up Obama’s birth certificate and a whole host of other things. I brought up the Clintons to demonstrate why Trump uses the court system. It’s better than violence. You ought to learn context.

                    160. And I didn’t need the article to form my opinion that Trump is litigious and sues when ppl say or print things he doesn’t like. I knew this about him long before he ran for President.
                      Did you ever wonder why he has such an obsession with his hand size? Look up Graydon Carter and “small fingered vulgarian.” Trump has been loathed in New York City for decades.

                    161. “And I didn’t need the article to form my opinion that Trump is litigious and sues when ppl say or print things he doesn’t like. I knew this about him long before he ran for President.”

                      No one denies he is involved in a lot of litigation. The question was different.

                      Did he deal in a lot of frivolous lawsuits ? That requires agreed upon metrics.

                    162. How about compared to other US presidents who have been criticized and sued because they were criticized? Would that satisfy you?

                    163. You are the one who managed to inject spurious Clinton murder allegations and insults of Obama into a conversation about Trump frivilous lawsuits.
                      Like I said, look up libel & defamation law yourself. If you were actually taking this conversation seriously you would.
                      As for Project Veritas planned Parenthood ambush, there was nothing said during that “interview” that suggested PP was selling fetal tissue for profit.

                    164. “selling fetal tissue for profit.”

                      Did they sell fetal tissue? The alternative was to throw it away so they made more of a profit by selling it than by throwing it away. There is probably a lot more to that story, but Planned Parenthood isn’t known for its transparency. That is why so many people though mammography was a big part of planned parenthood. The words stated by Planned Parenthood employees are the words that one should remember.

                    165. Actually, it sounded to me like the woman interviewed was simply talking about how much it costs to donate the fetal tissue. There was no talk of profit. Any assumption that PP was making a profit based on this short interview was mere speculation.

                    166. “woman interviewed was simply talking about how much it costs to donate the fetal tissue. ”

                      Planned Parenthood can throw it away, donate it or get paid for it. Listen to the video again and take note that they were paid for it and that was a superficial inquiry.

                    167. “Send me a link. I know there is a cost even to dispose of it.”

                      The cost is relatively small.

                      Go to Project Veritas

                    168. No way. Send the link to me.
                      You demanded I provide you proof of my claims and I did my best to look them up. It wasn’t easy since google searches into TRump lawsuits are dominated right now on the lawsuits against him. There are a lot more older frivolous lawsuits Trump has brought and lost but I can’t find them anymore.

                    169. It appears the PP video was removed from the site. Perhaps it’s because Project Veritas lost a suit on this one.
                      I have to say, pretty poor research Allan. I’m disappointed. You led me to believe you are so much better than me.

                    170. “It appears the PP video was removed from the site.”

                      I haven’t been to the site for old videos so I am not sure what has happened if anything. I do know that liberal judges have attempted to block some of the videos by Veritas and that YouTube has been blocking a number of conservative videos. Did the site say no longer available or did you just not find it. I’m in conference tomorrow and then traveling.

                      If you provide the data that it was missing I will contact them and find out what happened. Conservatives are used to getting their video;s blocked, their taxes audited and their 501C3 not being approved.

                      Maybe Paul knows, but I want an answer more than you do. I only follow what is recent and right now it is the New York Times. The video I saw definitely had a person saying the embryos were sold.

                    171. It’s just not on there. But yes, they did get sued under privacy act because the interviewee didn’t consent to the recording.
                      I did see it. She did talk about selling fetal matter, but there was nothing to suggest she was selling at a profit. There is a scientific market for fetal tissue/aborted fetuses for research purposes, but there is nothing in the interview to suggest PP was seeking anything beyond their costs.

                    172. Karen – fetal tissue must be worth something, why continue to store it? And it costs PP nothing except storage costs, which are minimal (refrigeration).

                    173. Karen – the PP video may have been pulled because they are under litigation.

                    174. But since you brought it up, and since you have insisted on a legal analysis from me on all examples of Trump’s lawsuits, why don’t you explain to me how this interview shows PP was seeking to make a profit from donation of fetal tissue.

                    175. “why don’t you explain to me how this interview shows PP was seeking to make a profit from donation of fetal tissue.”

                      I just did. They were paid for the fetal tissue. Listen to the video again.

                    176. You have asked me for an analysis of all of the cases I have shown to you. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that you convince me that this interview shows PP trying to make a profit off of fetal tissue.
                      If you can’t it seems to me that you are just making “heinous” (your word) accusations that you can’t support.

                    177. “convince me that this interview shows PP”

                      AS I said go to the video at Project Veritas.

                    178. Karen – Project Veritas did 5 interviews of PP offices on fetal tissue and they were selling it for a profit. The problem was what to call it for the accounting ledger. PP only dealt with one attack on their offices and it was the most benign. The other 4 really opened them up to major problems.

                    179. Karen – the unedited and edited videos are all at their site. Go there and all will be revealed.

                    180. And are you talking about the same underfunded Trump who got free Coverage of his outrageous rallies by the MSM that he now calls the enemy?

                    181. “And are you talking about the same underfunded Trump who got free Coverage of his outrageous rallies by the MSM that he now calls the enemy?”

                      The MSM was dissing him and praising Hillary. Trump is a very smart man and didn’t let the MSM get away with it. But you hate the fact that he “counterpunched”. Of course you do because Trump was smart and Hillary was lazy.

                    182. If my dissing him you mean giving him free TV coverage I guess you are right.
                      I love how, throughout this way too long dialogue, you have tried to pretend to be unbiased and just holding me to prove every word I’ve stated. It’s quite obvious that no matter what I prove you are an unwavering Trump cultist.
                      So how is it that “Trump is character?” I don’t think that’s grammatically correct, but I’d love to hear it. Trump is character because: ———

                    183. “If my dissing him you mean giving him free TV coverage I guess you are right.”

                      They didn’t give him free coverage. He earned it by the way he played the media that was providing opinion rather than news.

                      “I love how, throughout this way too long dialogue, you have tried to pretend to be unbiased and just holding me to prove every word I’ve stated. ”

                      I’m not holding you to every word, rather I am looking for proof or principle. I’ve stated what I believe and when you asked I gave you a list of what Trump did. Your problem is a lack of facts and reliance on others to tell you what to say. Therefore if you get an unconventional response you suddenly are in trouble.

                      Though you call me a cultist you do so in frustration because there is no way I am a cultist nor am I a blind supporter of Trump. I didn’t think too hard when I had to vote because the choice was a liar and a thief or the other candidate.

                      “So how is it that “Trump is character?” I don’t think that’s grammatically correct”

                      It isn’t grammatically correct because you copied my words incorrectly and I didn’t bother correcting you except by repeating the statement with the missing article -Trump is a character- included. I don’t play your game of gotcha. I’m more interested in dealing with facts and principles. I also didn’t want to embarrass you again.

                    184. Well aren’t you swell? Giving me the benefit of the doubt and trying to be so polite.
                      Yet you badger me for more and more explanation of Trump’s immaturity and frivolous lawsuits. I have given you examples. I’m not gonna write a legal brief on each one for you- look them up yourself.
                      Between your condescending B.S. and “Turley’s Filter Sucks” direct attack on my intelligence and profession, I’m pretty much done here. Both of you just want to insult me and harp on the supposed corruption of HRC (mind you, I didn’t bring her up, nor did I vote for her).
                      Go back to your Trump-worshipping alter. If you have any sincere, non-condescending questions about Trump’s frivilous lawsuits I refer you to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (NYCPLR) and, for Federal Court cases, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
                      Happy Trolling.

                    185. “Well aren’t you swell? Giving me the benefit of the doubt and trying to be so polite.”

                      That is right. That is what I do. You should be so nice. Better yet you should learn how to think and be able to differentiate fact from opinion and fiction.

                      [Point of interest Ronald Reagan used to start a lot of sentences by drawing out the word “well”. He got a lot of laughs. You should read about him]

                      ” I’m pretty much done here.”

                      You were done at the start because you don’t have a grasp of the facts. I have been trying to help you along, but it appears your commitment to your ideology and your emotions is too strong for you to recognize how to support your position. You don’t have to instruct me in the law for one of my kids as a sideline writes books for West Law. That kid places thinking before typing.

                    186. Really? Have you asked your kid about libel & slander burdens of proof cuz I’ve tried to explain to you but it’s like beating my head against the wall. You just want to talk about Trump as victim of media, HRC as criminal and how BO should have proven his citizenship (even though no other president has been asked to do so). But yeah, you are totally open-minded. No pro-Trump agenda on your part.

                    187. ” Have you asked your kid about libel & slander burdens of proof cuz I’ve tried to explain to you but it’s like beating my head against the wall.”

                      You have done none of the sorts. You told me you would or could look it up and I told you not to bother. You might be able to gather the points of the law, but that is no feat. Knowing how to properly use the law is the important thing and that is something I don’t think you have had a positive experience with.

                    188. That’s what you think? While I was never a personal injury lawyer (which includes libel & slander), you learn the basic elements of these claims in Torts in law school. I practiced labor & employment law for 5 years, usually in federal court. I represented plaintiffs in many employment discrimination claims, and I was usually the attorney in my firm’s labor & employment dept. who did the research & writing for the legal briefs to the Federal court in our big cases.
                      Yes, believe it or not, I was pretty much the writer in our department. While employment discrimination claims might differ from slander/libel cases, the analytical skills to defend or prosecute these claims are similar.
                      There are pattern jury instructions for all civil claims. They set out all the necessary elements a plaintiff must prove to make their claim.
                      In the case of slander/libel (which is usually a state court claim), speaking only off the top of my head I can tell you that one element is showing that what the defendant stated or wrote is false. In the case of famous people, the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew that what they were saying/printing was false. Furthermore, the plaintiff has to show that they suffered actual damages because of the knowingly false statement.
                      Accordingly, a famous person, like Trump, has to show that what was written or stated is false ( and burden is on plaintiff to prove this), that the defendant knew it was false (again, plaintiff must prove this); and that the plaintiff acquired actual damages that can be quantified because of the knowingly false statement or writing.
                      So, in the case of the Miss Universe contestant who said the contest was rigged, Trump would have had to prove that 1.)it wasn’t rigged; 2.) the defendant knew it wasn’t rigged when she said it was and 3.) that Trump acquired actual monetary damages as a result of her statement.
                      Trump got a default judgment. I’ve gotten plenty of these when defendant fails to appear. When that happens I have have had to show the court, through written memoranda, affidavits, etc. what my clients damages are. My clients claim of damages were usually just monetary, without any regard to pain & suffering or loss of reputation, which are hard to prove and usually tough to get in a default judgment.

                    189. “So, in the case of the Miss Universe contestant who said the contest was rigged, Trump would have had to prove that 1.)it wasn’t rigged; 2.) the defendant knew it wasn’t rigged when she said it was and 3.) that Trump acquired actual monetary damages as a result of her statement.
                      Trump got a default judgment.”

                      The case is an emotional one that stokes anger in many people. That type of emotional plea is very frequent in malpractice cases and other cases where the plaintiff appears pitiful. That can sometimes sway a jury and it can also sway the reader. That is why the author used that case even though it wasn’t good evidence of a frivolous lawsuit.

                      If the author wished to prove his case he would have had to work hard to prove a lot of cases were frivolous and then show by comparison that Trump filed more similar frivolous cases than others. That is a time-consuming job without a guarantee of success. A lot of political writers especially on the left take shortcuts so we generally can’t rely on that type of article.

                      If he actually wrote it accurately no one would want to spend the time reading it. Mistruths by the news media leads to increased profits.

                    190. Karen – studies have shown that 95% of the press reports on Trump is negative. And the new Project Veritas expose of the Grey Lady shows they are out to get Trump. Their job is to have at least one negative Trump story on the front page every day. Wouldn’t you be a little touchy?

                    191. I don’t know who the “Grey Lady” is. I don’t follow project veritas, as I have seen some of their work and it is obviously highly edited.
                      Trump likes to defend his juvenile behavior by claiming he’s just “counterpunching.” Perhaps the media is just counterpunching against his attacks on them. If so, he shouldn’t claim to be a victim.

                    192. Karen – The Grey Lady is the NYT. You might check out their latest video dumps from the Grey Lady. Rather revealing.

                    193. What do you say about the “counterpunching” point I made? Trump supporters seem to love when Trump attacks those who criticize him, but then cry foul when he’s punched back.
                      I believe Trump called the media “the enemy of the state.” Are they not entitled to defend themselves? Is Trump so thin-skinned that he can’t just do his job without getting hung up on petty bickering? He can never let anything go. Not a good trait for a President. I don’t enjoy the drama. I find it rather exhausting and it clearly detracts from his ability to do his job.

                    194. Karen – I find it distracting that the MSM spends 95% of its time attacking Trump. What is he supposed to do, take it?

                    195. Yes, he should. Other Presidents have walked and chewed gum at the same time. Alternatively, he could stop acting like an adolescent drama queen, get serious about learning domestic and foreign policy and get to work instead of passing everything off to Congress

                    196. “The article I sent only gave a sample of Trump’s frivilous lawsuits.”

                      The article you sent had selected cases. Ones that were so selective I knew of two of them already. Your word “sample” is a lie because at this time you don’t have many more cases to provide and you would first have to search for them if they exist and then prove each of them frivolous. Then you would have to demonstrate an excessive number of suits filed on behalf of over 500 companies. (Not only do you lack the proof but 1 out of the four of the cases you provided was won by Trump.)

                    197. Btw- your assertion that I think I’m better than others is pretty rich coming from someone as condescending as you. I wouldn’t claim to be qualified to be President just because I have life experience and education.

                    198. “Note that is the appeal of the initial frivilous suit.”

                      Your argument was: “part of the reason I don’t like Trump is his abuse of the judicial system. He has a long history of bringing frivolous lawsuits.“

                      I asked you to prove your case and what you did was provide only 4 cases that were selected despite the fact that he has over 500 different entities according to one person writing on the blog. That is not a lot of cases and I am sure that your father (not an employer) was tangentially involved in perhaps as many suits and your father was one entity, not 500+. Some people don’t like Trump so they try to score on him with wild accusations. Take note of the Steele dossier in part paid for by the DNC and Hillary. Trump is a businessman so he must protect his reputation against slime buckets like Hillary because many people are ignorant of the facts as we have seen here on the blog.

                      Trump has a choice. He can kill people (some accuse HRC and her husband) or he can take them to court. Being a civil individual Trump took them to court. In court, half of those in front of the court will lose, but that doesn’t even prove frivolity. Your accusation was that as a lawyer you didn’t like Trump because he abused the judicial system with frivolous cases. You don’t have the slightest idea whether he did or not. All you did was read articles written by people who had no problem twisting the truth or even libeling Trump when they could. You mindlessly attach this nonsense to the man without much thought.

                      I called you on it and you provided four cases of supposed frivolity. This was your evidence against a man who has over 500 companies. Of the 4 selected cases he won one. Another I gave to you, but Trump had a reason for going to court. Someone was making fun of him and he wanted to demonstrate that he was not an easy target. There are two left. You would need hundreds of frivolous cases to prove your point and not every case that is lost is frivolous. In fact, most cases are not considered frivolous and cost money and time for the one that brings the case to court.

                      You didn’t prove your case. If the standards you use when assessing Trump were used against you, you would be considered a liar.

                    199. Libel (and slander) are legal terms and several elements must be present and proven by the plaintiff brining these suits. One cannot successfully sue someone just because they say or write something they don’t like. Bringing a case just to show that you aren’t going to take criticism doesn’t make it any less Frivilous.
                      Your suggestion that HRC killed people, and that Obama’s birth certificate was altered, are very telling. They are just silly conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up.

                    200. “Your suggestion that HRC killed people, and that Obama’s birth certificate was altered, are very telling. They are just silly conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up.”

                      Karen, as a cum laude attorney you should either read a little bit better or write better. I didn’t say Obama’s birth certificate was altered. I said “Today some feel there are discrepancies in the birth certificate provided ” and “some accuse HRC and her husband”. There is a major difference. By the way, the former comment was made by an investigative reporter and the idea creating it wasn’t my idea.

                      We see that difference in your claim of frivolous lawsuits. That was based on another’s opinion who could be quite biased and probably couldn’t provide adequate proof.

                      I think you need a course in critical reasoning. That would also help in your reasoning in the first paragraph of your response.

                    201. Why bring up HRC and Bill as murderers and altered birth certificate at all? You are just being coy.
                      I’m not writing legal briefs in this forum, so I’m not particularly concerned with writing perfectly. Moreover, if our POTUS can speak in word salad and his “followers” think it’s great than perhaps a typo or two just shows I’m just a common person, like him.
                      Finally, if you can’t intuitively see how silly and frivilous Trump’s Lawsuit against Bill Maher and threatened suit against the Onion are then it is you who is looking through a biased filter.

                    202. “Why bring up HRC and Bill as murderers and altered birth certificate at all? “

                      Because I was demonstrating in real terms why Trump uses the court system to resolve issues that negatively impact him. You should have realized that when I told you his 2 basic remedies were violence or the court system.

                      “I’m not writing legal briefs in this forum, so I’m not particularly concerned with writing perfectly.”

                      That is understandable, but the issue is not writing perfectly rather not writing imperfectly and erroneously. You are an attorney that graduated cum laude.

                      “Finally, if you can’t intuitively see how silly and frivilous Trump’s Lawsuit against Bill Maher and threatened suit against the Onion are then it is you who is looking through a biased filter.”

                      You apparently don’t read the written word. I gave you the Bill Maher and accepted it as a frivolous lawsuit (though it had a purpose) even though another dismissed your assumption of frivolity.

                      So far the score is one for frivolity and one for Trump with two remaining undiscussed. This was based on 4 selectively chosen examples. If out of 4 selectively chosen examples Trump won one of them then that is a strong indication that the opinion writer might have been attempting to write a hit piece. Out of over 500 companies, the 4 most selective suits should have had zero wins by Trump.

                    203. So we agree that suing Maher was a frivolous suit. That’s a good start. How about threats to sue The Onion, which everyone knows is satire. Would you agree that such a suit would be frivolous?
                      I can’t even make sense out of your statement against my writing abilities. Like I said, I’m not writing professionally here.
                      Am I to understand that you expect me to research each and every lawsuit Trump and his supposed 500 businesses has been involved in in order to show that he brings frivilous lawsuits?

                      I’ve already pointed out that he likes to sue people who say or print negative things about him. Any business related lawsuits are besides the point.
                      Here’s an idea: why don’t you do that research if you think it has any bearing on the subject at hand (a thin-skinned man who can’t stand criticism) to show me what an upstanding guy he is.
                      Like I said, Trump is a whiner. He wants to change libel laws to make it easier for him to sue people who criticize him. He wants apologies for every little slight, yet he refuses to even acknowledge, let alone apologize, when he’s wrong. I haven’t heard him apologize to Obama for his birther crusade.
                      I haven’t seen Obama or HRC sue for negative news coverage (including the Clinton Body Count publications) have you? Perhaps that’s because Obama and HRC realize that criticism just comes with the territory of being a public figure and they deal on.

                    204. Karen – suits have been successfully brought against satire before. Usually, it is fair game but if there is malice, then it is a new playing field.

                    205. “So we agree that suing Maher was a frivolous suit”

                      No. I gave you that one because I felt that one could consider it frivolous, but I am not sure it is. I wanted to bend over backward in your favor when I made this judgment. But the writer of your article called another frivolous as well where Trump won the case. Ask yourself why he included that case.

                      You desperately want agreement, but for knowledgeable agreement, you have to provide more data. I knew two of the cases. We didn’t discuss the other two so we both know that your selection process was flawed. Out of those 2, one was a win for Trump which immediately destroys your argument. I’ll repeat if he has more than 500 companies then to judge abuse based on frivolity would require proof in a large number of cases. You selectively provided 4 of which Trump won one.

                      “Am I to understand that you expect me to research each and every lawsuit Trump and his supposed 500 businesses has been involved in in order to show that he brings frivilous lawsuits?”

                      How many did the author investigate and how many did he explain? Why did he include a case that Trump actually won? He was appealing to emotion, not truth and you were sucked in.

                      “show me what an upstanding guy he is”

                      Trump is a human being subject to human frailties. He is, however, success oriented and has a fine understanding of people (that is how he got elected) and his career path demonstrates a man that can build upon what we have. His basic ideas conform with mine. If you prefer the cheating and lying of an HRC that is your choice.

                      You are making a lot of accusations that can be made about almost anyone, but you lack the proof and when you provide proof it is really opinion where the writing is appealing to emotion rather than fact.

                      “Perhaps that’s because Obama and HRC realize that criticism just comes with the territory of being a public figure and they deal on.”

                      HRC has to be more worried about wearing orange and seldom had to worry about the media that has protected her for decades. If you aren’t aware of that now that the Steele dossier has been revealed as has uranium one then you stay away from politics to prevent yourself from looking foolish.

                    206. The case you refer to that he “won” was a default judgment. The defendant Miss America contestant didn’t show up. A default judgment is hardly a win.
                      He lost against Maher and he lost against O’Brien.
                      You avoid the question of whether Obama should be able to sue Trump for his birther crusade. What say you? As for HRC, This uranium one thing is new. Should libel laws have been relaxed to allow her to sue Trump for calling her “crooked Hillary.” Should planned Parenthood been able to sue Project Veritas for their breach of privacy and highly edited videos? Should we just allow public figures to sue whenever they suffer “emotional distress” because people say bad things about them?

                    207. “The case you refer to that he “won” was a default judgment.”

                      Counsellor, that doesn’t matter. That is a reason why the author shouldn’t have used that case when he selected cases, but he realized that many fall for the emotional argument rather than the factual one. You are just another one that falls for emotional arguments.

                      “You avoid the question of whether Obama should be able to sue Trump for his birther crusade. ”

                      This is a dumb repetitive question that has been answered. Obama is able and under the present law should be able to sue Trump and lose. I’ve already said that changing libel laws would require a lot more thought and knowledge. You are not the one that understands the implications despite the fact that you are an attorney cum laude.

                      ” This uranium one thing is new.”

                      No, it is not. It has been around for awhile even though the MSM refused to provide it press.

                      “Should libel laws have been relaxed to allow her to sue Trump for calling her “crooked Hillary.””

                      Again you as an attorney should recognize that anyone can sue ‘a ham sandwich’.

                      “Should planned Parenthood been able to sue Project Veritas for their breach of privacy and highly edited videos?”

                      Those videos were accurate. What was left out that would change the meaning left by those videos? Let us hear your list and then evaluate the videos. If you can prove something substantial I’ll contact James O’Keefe myself and get a clarification.

                      “Should we just allow public figures to sue whenever they suffer “emotional distress” because people say bad things about them?”

                      Are you now advocating the limitation of suits? Which side are you advocating for?

                    208. I think it should be clear from my questions, and my opposition to Trump’s litigiousness, that I don’t think the laws should be relaxed to allow to make it easier for public figures to sue when their “feelings are hurt.”
                      Obama wouldn’t sue Trump. First of all because he has class and dignity and secondly because he knows his suit would probably be thrown out because, as a lawyer, he knows how hard it is for a public figure to prove libel/slander/defamation. That’s what Trump is just starting to get, after all these years of losing in Court.

                    209. “I think it should be clear from my questions, and my opposition to Trump’s litigiousness, that I don’t think the laws should be relaxed to allow to make it easier for public figures to sue when their “feelings are hurt.””

                      You are wrong. You don’t make anything clear and sometimes you use the same argument in an opposite fashion. Lawyers are supposed to be able to write clearly.

                      “Obama wouldn’t sue Trump. First of all because he has class and dignity ”

                      He wouldn’t do so because he would be made to look like an a$$. Trump is a lot smarter and knows how to deal with different situations. That is why he is President against all odds.

                    210. You are absolutely right🙄. And of course you aren’t a Trump sycophant. No way! 🙄

                    211. “You are absolutely right🙄. And of course you aren’t a Trump sycophant. No way! 🙄”

                      Karen, congratulations you are now taking baby steps in the right direction.

                    212. “So what do you do, Allan, that makes you so much better than me?”

                      I haven’t said that anyone of us is better than the other and I already told you what I do.

                    213. Well that’s a very intelligent and insightful response, Paul. You do realize you are just making yourself look biased by such a comment, right?
                      A simple internet search can point anyone to the proper Court to file a case. You don’t have to be a lawyer to find this out.

                    214. Karen – I am not sure Obama can use a computer. Besides, he would have some flunky do it.

                    215. Again, another intelligent and insightful comment. Thanks, but methinks you might be just a little biased, no?
                      Furthermore, Trump doesn’t use a computer, nor does he read. So what’s the point of this response? I’m pretty sure Obama uses a computer, considering he was a Law Professor before becoming POTUS.

                    216. James O’Keefe is a convicted criminal. I’ve seen his edited videos. It’s likewatching an 8th grade documentary film festival.

                    217. “James O’Keefe is a convicted criminal. I’ve seen his edited videos. It’s likewatching an 8th grade documentary film festival.”

                      Only the use of raw political power and money caused him to be placed under house arrest. What he did was prove that the Senator was lying to the public and that made the Senator very angry. The tape revealed that.

                      I await your analysis of the Planned Parenthood tapes where you find anything conceivably out of context. I believe the entire tapes were made available.

                    218. Your “ham sandwich” analogy refers to criminal indictments. Yes, those are easy. A lot easier than surviving motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment in slander/libel suits.
                      That’s why Trumpnever wins them, as well he shouldn’t. He should just put on his big boy pants and deal. He’s chosen public life. He’s chosen to be POTUS. Criticism comes with the job. I don’t feel sorry for him.

                    219. “Criticism comes with the job. ”

                      Who has he sued as President? Almost everything he said was reasonably correct especially when one considers he had to deal with only part of the facts. He is one smart cookie.

                    220. In all seriousness, are you a septuagenarian gay man? Your love for Trump seems to go beyond normal admiration.

                    221. “n all seriousness, are you a septuagenarian gay man? Your love for Trump seems to go beyond normal admiration.”

                      I love you progressives. When you become frustrated you bring out the race or gender card.

                    222. Also, would you, personally, like to see the standards of proof lessened for public figures to succeed in slander and libel laws, as Trump has advocated? Would you like to see our already burdened Courts allow litigation every time a public figure doesn’t like what is said or written about them?
                      Please answer the question without deflecting or going off on some little tangent about my grammar.
                      Should Obama be able to sue Trump for saying he wasn’t born in the U.S.? Do you really think Trump was being honest when he said his investigators were finding “unbelievable” things about Obama’s birth?

                    223. “Also, would you, personally, like to see the standards of proof lessened for public figures to succeed in slander and libel laws, as Trump has advocated?”

                      Trump’s advocacy is very generalized, but such a discussion is more involved than a two-second answer. One has to weigh a lot of different factors. In some country’s libel laws are different, but while solving one problem one might create another. There are also alternative ways of relieving the courts of overload so that has to be considered as well.

                      “Please answer the question without deflecting or going off on some little tangent about my grammar.”

                      I try my best and don’t care about your grammar or your spelling. I care about your content and its superficial nature along with your tendency to obfuscate knowingly or unknowingly.

                      “Should Obama be able to sue Trump” Anyone can sue anyone so I don’t know what your point is.

                      “Do you really think Trump was being honest when he said his investigators were finding “unbelievable” things about Obama’s birth?”

                      Do you know what puffery is? Do you know what judges say about a lot of the puffery that is involved in a lot of suits? example: ‘My used car is in the best shape’

                      How do you feel about the lies made by HRC and Obama (‘If you like your doctor …. You will save…..’) How do you feel about HRC destroying her hard drives and emails when requested by Congress?

                    224. You know nothing about the law. I don’t have the time to type out the burdens of proof for libel/slander law (note that the former is written, the latter is spoken). I will simply point out that you are wrong- not anyone can sue anyone for anything. They could file suit, and waste their time and money- but you Have to show some proof to to move through the case.
                      Cases can be dismissed simply on a motion to dismiss shortly after complaint is filed. They can be dismissed further down the road on a motion for summary judgment once discovery has been done and it’s still clear plaintiff can’t make a case.
                      You want me to explain to you, right here, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? The New York State Civil Pricedure law and Rules? I’ll just say this- No. It’s not a free for all. You have to have a case to move through the court, or you have your case dismissed swiftly. The Court doesn’t have time to entertain every claim of slight people (like Trump) might want to cash in on.
                      Notwithstanding HRC, do you think Obamacare should be able to collect damages from Trump’s birther claims? Last I checked, a good number of Americans still believe he was born in Kenya, thanks in large part to Trump’s “hyperbole.”

                    225. One thousand apologies… I meant “puffery” not “hyperbole” although I could argue there is no difference.
                      Do I think people should be able to sue Obama based on his statements about being able to keep their doctors? I’d have to consult law books on that. Also, there’s the matter of damages. If you have no monetary damages (even if you had to get a different doctor) then the answer is no, since damages are a necessary part of any suit.

                    226. “GDP was over 3% in several quarters of Obama’s term as well. ”

                      Karen, Apparently, DSS decided not to explain how GDP is measured. The typical analysis is real GDP growth year over year. You chose quarters because sometimes the GDP did so badly in one quarter that it went much higher the following quarter. That is why when comparing real GDP from one ad