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. One thing wrong with the Act of Succession is it’s out of order. and incomplete. therefore inaccurate. The first after the Vice President should be the Senates President Pro Tempore as it was designed to be the Senior house in age and experience and invariably represents more people who voted. Representatives perhaps should come after governors who should come after who only represent a very small slice of the country and the land mass and the least experience in age etc. Next shouldn’t it require ‘of the same party? Otherwide it certainly smacks of a palace coup worthy of Europe but having no business in our Representative Constitutional Republic whose founders also rejected a Democracy system.

    Zero cabinet secretaries for one simple reason. How many votes did they get? Answer …None.

    The entire Act and it’s parent Amendment were written to encourage a Coup d’Etat which leaves only the protection of the military’s oath ‘to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign.

    Which in this case shows the wisdom of the founders as a quick counter revolution an even quicker military tribunal and then a return to our Representative Constitutional Republoc which translated means Of The Populace and a quick end to this Marxist Lenist activity.

    1. No, you don’t want the President pro tempore of the Senate in the line of succession because it’s invariably allocated to the figure in the caucus with the most seniority – i.e. some creature like Robert Byrd. We don’t need a senile nonagenarian in the presidency.

      It makes perfect sense to have cabinet secretaries (and only cabinet secretaries) in the order of succession. They are executives. Having the Speaker of the House in the order of succession is gratuitous.

      The Vice Presidency as is is a 5th wheel and should be abolished.

  2. Much of this is the democrat establishment shooting with both barrels to make the public angry at President Trump to shoot him down for nothing legally substantive while at the same time smoke screening the fact that they have offered almost nothing themselves.

  3. At some point democrats are going to have to accept that Donald Trump won the general election and this was the result of the voters’ choice. If half the voters chose Mr. Trump who they, a few dozen individual democrats wanting to dismiss millions of voters? How arrogant and elitist.

    1. Hillary led the Popular Vote by 2.8 million or 2% of the total vote. But Trump won the Electoral College because of 70,000 votes in 3 states.

        1. Allan- your last response to me was about Trump being a “rich boy.”’ You suggested this was envy.
          I don’t think you get it. Not everyone wishes they were born rich (or on third base, as it is commonly put particularly in regard to libertarians). Some of us are actually proud of accomplishing things on our own merit.
          If I were born on third base like Trump I guess I’d be different. I’d probably be more pompous, I’m sure I’d be less understanding of those who actually worked for their success, rather than inheriting it.
          Still, that’s not the story of most Americans. Perhaps that’s why many of us prefer a President who worked for their success, and why we would like our children to be able to say the same. That way, if we do become a political leader, or even President, we have a genuine understanding of what it’s like to be an average person,
          Call it envy if you like, but I’ve never wished I was born on third base. I’m proud of my understanding of, an empathy for, average people.

          1. Trump has a lot to be proud of and he is a workaholic. I really am not interested in how you think you would act. We have a live person in Trump who is striving to make the country better. If you disagree with policy disagree with policy in a fruitful discussion where whole sentences are used that contain fact, not fiction. You can be proud of your empathy, but remember people would prefer jobs and higher wages than all the empathy you can provide. Trump is providing jobs and higher wages.

            1. I know how much you like Trump job & stock market numbers but I think you are forgetting his very low approval ratings in spite of that.
              Many of us aren’t feeling the economic boost of which you speak, and stock market is starting to go down with doubts that tax bill will pass.
              Furthermore, you can disregard my opinion all you want, but many others share my view- we’d prefer an actual self-made President, not a trust-fund baby. I don’t know of any real evidence that Trump has actually produced a whole lot out of what he was given and/or inherited. If so, why all the bankruptcies.
              Most Americans are wage earners- not inheritors, and so we don’t really relate to Donald. Disregard if like, but it’s true.

              1. Karen, I like those that secure our nation and help families and individuals be able to care for themselves. That means I like American jobs and higher salaries for Americans. I like a President who is President of the people of the United States. I don’t like a President who wishes to be President of the world.

                1. That’s just a bunch of jargon. Sounds like Fox News talking points. Didn’t you ask for substance?

                  1. You told me what you wanted and I responded to what wanted.

                    I guess you prefer fewer jobs and lower salaries for Americans.

                    1. Karen, what I find amazing is that as an attorney you seem to have such a poor understanding of bankruptcy. Admittedly a lot of the laws need to be changed and I think Trump would agree, but the basics of bankruptcy are important. Firstly there is not just one type of bankruptcy rather reorganization (11), total bankruptcy (7) individual reorganization (13).

                      Your primary concern seems to be jobs and that is a good concern. What happens in bankruptcy (or is supposed to happen in corporate bankruptcy)? Reorganization permits the present company to reorganize its debt so the company can continue to function and the employees can continue to be paid. In total bankruptcy, what happens to the company? It can be torn apart where even the chairs and fixtures are sold or it can be purchased without a lot of debt by a new company and that frequently preserves many of the existing jobs. Who are the biggest losers? The investors in specific order (until Obama changed the order after the fact and scared capital away)

                      You seem to not like rich folk. Why don’t you invest your money in these enterprises? Because you don’t have enough money to take such a risk. I guess you prefer the nation to give up on large businesses which would lower the standard of living of all Americans. You don’t see the rise in incomes, but the BEA does. Are we supposed to rely on your ignorance or the BEA and others that have more knowledge?

                      This is in response to more than one of your entries.

                    2. You should knock w that attorneys specialize. Have you been to a reputable law library?
                      Would you actually expect any single attorney to have mastery over all the things in all of those books (not to mention the stuff on Westlaw & Lexis).
                      I know a little about bankruptcy law. Admitted in backtuptcy ct. of western district of ny only for purpose of representing my former cereditor (labor union fund) clients). I know there is a difference between 11 & 7, legally speaking. Practically speaking, however, my union health & pension funds never made out any better under either chapter. Even under 11, which would seem more beneficial to creditors, the union funds take a big hit under the “reorganization”. Debt preference ALWAYS goes to secured creditors, and labor doesn’t enjoy that status under the law. It’s the banks that get repaid first. My clients would often justifiably be apprehensive of doing business with these bankrupt employers again.

                    3. “You should knock w that attorneys specialize. Have you been to a reputable law library?”

                      I am very aware of what attornies do and their specialization. Some people have legal minds and some don’t. It is not all in the books.

                      Yes, I have been to superb law libraries many times and have loads of law books in my home along with access to Nexis if I wish, but only seldom desire. I use lawyers all the time, but if a contract is needed I write most of it since the principal of a business knows the most about his needs. The lawyers cover all other bases.

                      I expect my attornies to have broad knowledge along with high-quality specific knowledge. Without that broad knowledge, they can’t write a decent contract and I have seen plenty of those. There isn’t that much one needs to know about bankruptcy law unless one is in active practice doing bankruptcy. But I expect one to know that a person goes bankrupt for many reasons and bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily mean a person is a bad businessman to invest with. Israeli’s look at things differently and invest even with persons who have gone bankrupt as long as their ideas are solid and logical. Check out the book Start-Up Nation if you are interested, but that discussion is only a small part of the book.

                      At one of the banks I dealt with decades ago (before the law was changed) I advised those people that always helped me to quit because their pension funds were buying stock in a bank that was not doing well. I’m not an attorney, but I knew that they would lose their pension funds if the bank went under. The bank went under and they lost their pensions and their jobs. Broad knowledge is essential in business and life.

                    4. That’s an interesting dissertation, Allan.
                      GP attorneys are great for simple matters. If, however, you find yourself charged with capital murder are u going to hire your GP attorney, it are u gonna find a top criminal defense attorney. And once you find them, are u really gonna ask what they know about bankruptcy law (or even if they are admitted in bankruptcy court because that does require a separate admission, FYI).
                      When I had breast cancer, I wanted a great oncologist & a great plastic surgeon. I didn’t care much about what they knew about sports medicine, psychology or brain surgery. And I didn’t even ask what they thought about sprained ankles or diabetes.

                    5. ” u going to hire your GP attorney, it are u gonna find a top criminal defense attorney.”

                      It turns out that good attornies have broader knowledge than you feel is necessary. I guess denying that is one way of hiding one’s deficiencies. I don’t deal with criminal attorney’s but my generalist attorney and specialists seem to be a bit more on the ball than what you project.

                      ” I wanted a great oncologist ” “I didn’t care much about what they knew about…” But the oncologist I am sure had more than a minimal knowledge about the human body including areas such as cardiology, hypertension etc. Treating just part of the person in medicine and in law can be quite dangerous.

                      You sound like quite a superficial person.

                    6. And you sound like quite a pompous prick.
                      Superficial? Yeah, you are right. When I got my breast cancer diagnosis I was only thinking about superficial things. Did you even read my post, or are you just so argumentative u can’t shut up no matter what. Like I said, I wanted a great oncologist and yes, a good plastic surgeon. They operated on me together. My oncologist found that my cancer was more widespread than originally diagnosed.
                      Am I superficial cuz I wanted to keep my breasts? Well, I didn’t, that wasn’t possible, just so u know.
                      Why are you so hell-bent on being right all the time? My breast cancer & how I handled it isn’t a subject for you to belittle me with your superior knowledge.

                    7. Sounds like you are talking about contact attorneys only. Contact attorney is a specialty in itself, with sub-specialities within it- it’s not general practice.

                    8. And are you suggesting that you have a contract attorney’s knowledge because you warned people. Sounds like you are a financial advisor (which my son plans in becoming). Has nothing to do with being a GP attorney, so I’m not sure what your point is, other than to toot your own horn.

                    9. And no, I have not seen a rise in my pay. I work for a non-profit. I’d like to see more investment in non-profits, as many of us are highly educated, very experienced & underpaid. We are also doing a lot of the work that government agencies can’t handle anymore courtesy of “austerity.”
                      I used to work for county government. It was great, but Rep. Chris Collins (then Erie cty. Executive) cut employee budget 20%. The pay sucked, but I loved the work and I had good benefits.

                    10. “And no, I have not seen a rise in my pay.”

                      Not everyone gets a raise. Time to move laterally if you are worth more than what you earn. Or find another field.

                      Non-profit is a tax designation and means very little. There are a lot of non-profits that are scams and others where the principals are paid high salaries and the charity work is sub-par.

                      Your future is in your hands and no one else’s.


                    11. I know how these construction bankruptcies work from my experience as a labor attorney. The last people to get paid (and they usually don’t get any money at all) are the workers, because they aren’t “secured lenders” like the banks.
                      I represented lots of union construction workers who’s health & pension funds got completely boned when bankruptcy was declared. They’d get mad at me, because As their lawyer I couldn’t get their money. It was hard to explain to them that we just couldn’t get the money, because the banks who funded the projects were secured & got paid first from whatever was left In chapter 11. It wasn’t fun to tell them this.

                    12. Actually, I’d most prefer if rich developers like Trump didn’t screw my clients out of their benefits when they claim bankruptcy.
                      And Btw- I don’t know a single person who’s gotten any substantial, unexpected raise since January. So I guess it just takes time to “spread” to where I live.

                    13. Who do you know who’s making more money?
                      What jobs have come back to the US that you are aware of?

                    1. No. Under ERISA employee heath funds and pension funds have no priority. They only get money after the “secured creditors” (big banks) get paid.
                      I’ve never had a case where there was enough money left over for employee health & pension funds. Usually, the secured creditor bank doesn’t get paid nearly in full either.
                      That’s bankruptcy. It’s a big fat F-you to the people you owe & Trump has loved it.

                    2. Karen – my wife works for a major bank where she handles businesses with bankruptcies or near bankruptcies. It is her job to get the best deal for the bank, but sometimes the best deal is zero. Most of hers are mid-size businesses, so they do not have pension plans, though. Those loans are handled by another division. She does try to keep the business alive when she can because it is in the best interest of the bank, however sometimes that is not possible.

                    3. I know that. I’ve never spoken to a lawyer from secured creditor bank that was willing to just give a little from a bankrupt company to my clients’ pension or health funds. And they shouldn’t- it would be malpractice if they did.
                      The fact is there is rarely, if ever, anything left from a bankruptcy for non-secured creditors,
                      If you would like to provide me examples of where Trump’s bankruptcies have resulted in any money for workers I’d be open to that. But based on my past experience as an ERISA attorney I can tell you there was never anything left for my union clients. I got a lot of shit for it, and that’s why I stopped practicing in ERISA. There were no wins.

                    4. Karen – I am unfamiliar with Trump’s bankruptcies, except that they exist. I am not even sure that they include pension plans. His records are public, if you would like to dissect them, go ahead and pass on the info. I do know that 1 in 3 businesses fail every year. This is actually higher for bars and restaurants. Right now my town is breeding restaurants and seems to be able to support them. We are getting people coming from other communities here to eat because of the wide variety of eating establishments we have. We have historic to brand-new. Still, some of them have already failed. A great BBQ place moved into a better location because another restaurant failed. Now it has patio seating. 🙂

                    5. I may look them up this week if I have time, but I figured you would know since you keep saying what a successful businessman he is.
                      A lot of restaurants fail, and I worked at some before I went to grad school, but Trump wasn’t in the restaurant business.
                      I have to think there is a reason why reputable NY & NYC businessmen like Bloomberg have called Trump a con-man for years now. Trump University? C’mon. Seems to me he tries to make a buck on anything he possibly can.
                      Btw- you didn’t reply about why we need corporate tax cuts when profits are so high.

                    6. Karen – 525 businesses and 6 bankruptcies? I think that is an above average record. BTW, Trump is in the restaurant business in each of his hotels and casinos.

                    7. Trump doesn’t own 525 businesses. Many “Trump” businesses just carry his name due to licensing agreements where Trump has allowed them to bear his name in exchange for receiving payment. He doesn’t run them, nor did he build them.

                    8. Karen, I think it was you who said I was being selective in the U6 results which weren’t true. The U6 is out again and under Trump, it has fallen dramatically with this past month’s fall being the largest of all.

                      You are right Trump doesn’t own all of the businesses. His name is used and he is a partner with many others and sometimes not the controlling partner yet you blame him indiscriminately for the bankruptcies. You have to be more careful when casting blame and make sure of the facts before climbing out on a limb. You have climbed out on a limb many times and fallen off. That means what you say cannot be trusted.

                    9. It’s my understanding that he did actually own the businesses (casinos) that went bankrupt.
                      I don’t hate rich people. I just prefer Presidents and congresspeople who come from humble roots, or, if they don’t, have worked with or have a strong association with average people. The vast majority of Americans cant get a “small million dollar loan from their dad.
                      Trump has always been privileged, and he’s clearly out of touch with ordinary Americans.

                    10. Karen, Why don’t you list the Presidents and see where most came from. From the start, George Washington was one of the richest Americans and some have said that at one time he (with his wife) was the richest in the country. Strike him from the list of good Presidents and substitute someone else. Do you think this country would exist today in its republican form?

                      Take the Great FDR. Do you think he came from a poor family? How about our beloved JFK? You really have to study history and learn a bit more about what created this great country. That is unless you think this is a lousy country and you would prefer a country like Cuba.

                    11. I believe I said that while I prefer leaders who come from humble roots, I also prefer those with exposure to average people.

                    12. Trump has had a lot of exposure to average people. Who do you think he dealt with when he went to one of his construction sites? He was hands on.

                    13. How do you know he was “hand on” at construction sites? And how many of Trump’s properties actually involved building from the ground up?

                    14. “How do you know he was “hand on” at construction sites?”

                      How do you know he wasn’t? He didn’t lay the mortar, but he was on site talking to workers for some of the buildings he was involved with. People that worked on his buildings have confirmed that.

                    15. “What “people” have confirmed this?”

                      Do you want names? I’m not going to provide the names of individual people that have worked with him but it is common knowledge that he was quite hands-on with some of the buildings he was involved with. You do know what hands-on means in his circumstances, don’t you?

                    16. I do know what “hands on” means. I just don’t really believe that Trump was “hands on” without specific examples. Maybe you shouldn’t either.
                      This wasn’t a response, btw.

                    17. “I do know what “hands-on” means. I just don’t really believe that Trump was “hands on” without specific examples.”

                      How does one prove what is commonly known? I’m not going to do your research. I just so happen to know people that dealt with some of his projects. He would be on the site and speak to not only the bosses but the workmen. He hired and fired a lot of his own people and was integrally involved in the planning and execution stages. As I said before, he didn’t lay the mortar.

                      You can believe what you want for that doesn’t change the facts.

                    18. For someone who wants to make themself seem so important and hard-working you suture have an awful lot of time on your hands to respond to blog posts.
                      Just sayin’.

                    19. I don’t believe for ten seconds that you are as “special” and “smart” as u pretend to be… let alone that you and everyone you care about are as well-adjusted as you want to claim.
                      You’re full of shit.

                    20. “You’re full of shit.”

                      You are a very angry woman. I don’t know why you bother to communicate with me.

                      “I don’t believe for ten seconds that you are as “special” and “smart” as u pretend to be”

                      Am I smart? Who knows. I communicate with you and that appears to be a pretty dumb thing to do. But, I am happy, my wife is happy, my children are happy. Who cares about smart?

                    21. Oh and it’s Allan “I’ve never had a bad experience in my life nor has anyone close to me” responding.
                      You are a lucky person, as are those you love. I happen to work with people who haven’t had such great luck. I’m sure you will say it’s all about individual responsibility, and that bad things only happen to those who deserve it. You keep on believing that. Hope no one you love falls on hard times like mental or physical illness. Doesn’t sound like u know anything about that. I’ll bet even if itchapoened to your kids they wouldn’t tell you.

                    22. ” I happen to work with people who haven’t had such great luck. I’m sure you will say it’s all about individual responsibility, and that bad things only happen to those who deserve it.”

                      You think you are at the center of the world where bad things happen. In my career, I have worked with people that are poor and those that are poor and had bad luck. Many of them never complained near as much as you do. I believe in charity and helping those who can to get on their feet.

                      Stop bragging how charitable you are. You aren’t. You have a job and you are paid.

                    23. I haven’t complained. You said I complained because I chose not to practice law. I haven’t complained on my own behalf- I’m doing just fine.
                      I tell it like it is- YOu are full of shit. Shouldn’t you be busy making money &/or being “charitable” right now instead me of trying to prove yourself to a shallow, Whiney stranger?

                    24. “I haven’t complained.”

                      Maybe you are complaining less than normal so it seems that way to you.

                      “You said I complained because I chose not to practice law.”

                      I never said that though you did complain.

                      “Shouldn’t you be busy making money &/or being “charitable””

                      I’m doing both so that should make you happy and help you stop complaining.

                    25. “you suture have an awful lot of time on your hands to respond to blog posts.”

                      I certainly do and perhaps spend too much time. However, instead of spending my time complaining I spent it providing for my family and my own needs present and future. I worked my butt off where 80 hours a week looked simple and some good luck so I don’t have the typical worries. I started off my marriage in a dangerous slum where there was a rape-murder our first night living there plus bars on the windows I paid for. 15 amps of electricity, water seeping from the apartment upstairs, muggings, cockroaches galore and not even enough money for a bus ride. Anything more than that looks great to me so I never complain. My greatest incentive in life was that first apartment. I never wanted to return.

                    26. It’s very telling that you seem to think I haven’t worked excessive hours. Hello? I’ve was an associate atty. in a law firm for 5 years.

                    27. “I’ve was an associate atty. in a law firm ”

                      That doesn’t prove squat. You could be an eggplant sitting on a desk for thirty years 24/7 and accomplish nothing except drying out.

                    28. Oh Allan. You just have to be right, don’t you?
                      You want to make me out to be a lazy complainer. When I prove you wrong on those points, you just make silly conclusory statements to the contrary.
                      Perhaps not everyone fits your little mold of “failure.” You just want to be above other people, and you will say anything to put people into that “beneath you” category.
                      Have you ever questioned this? Do people who disagree with you you necessarily have to be “beneath you”, really? Maybe they can be equal to you, and just have different values. Has that ever occurred to you. It must be exhausting to be so competitive all the time.

                    29. “You want to make me out to be a lazy complainer.”

                      A complainer, yes. Lazy, I don’t know but a top can spin on a desk for a long time and do absolutely nothing.

                      “Perhaps not everyone fits your little mold of “failure.” ”

                      I don’t call you a failure (though perhaps I should because you called me a piece of shit) because I don’t know you and can only deal with what you say with your own words.

                      “Do people who disagree with you you necessarily have to be “beneath you”, really? ”

                      Disagreement is great. One can learn things, but generally Karen it is best to know what you are talking about.

                      ” It must be exhausting to be so competitive”

                      There is no competition here. We both started on level ground, but you keep digging a hole for yourself and when a ladder is thrown in you continue digging.

                    30. Exactly the response I would expect from you: shallow, unreasoned and conclusory.
                      Face it Allan, you think you are above other people. Perhaps you should should ponder why you hold such thoughts.

                    31. “Exactly the response I would expect from you:”

                      Then it was dumb of you to ask.

                      Let me give you a bit of help. Put your anger away. You are not on a street and no one can knife you in the back.

                    32. But you still haven’t explained how Trump’s policies have caused this change in the U6.
                      Furthermore, it looks like his “cut,cut cut” bill might be in trouble. What will happen to stock market if it fails?

                    33. “But you still haven’t explained how Trump’s policies have caused this change in the U6.”

                      Karen, I am not your personal tutor. He has pushed certain economic policies that led to good results. Just look at a list of what he has done and pull out those things that have to do with the economy. Look at the things that hindered our economy from growing. Regulation is one of them. Confidence is another.

                    34. Karen here are some recent quotes by Michael Bloomberg. If one is so accepting of Michael Bloomberg’s opinions then listen to what he says.
                      Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said America should “get behind” President Trump because “the public has spoken, whether you like the results or not,” during an appearance on ABC’s “The View.”

                      Bloomberg said that opposing a president just because of one’s alignment with another party is the wrong approach. He referred to a 2010 interview with The National Journal in which Mitch McConnell, at the time the Senate minority leader, said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

                      “That’s my country. That’s my kids and grandkids,” Bloomberg said of his reaction to McConnell’s statement. “You have to make it work. We have an election — whoever wins, you got to get behind.”

                      “He’s our president, and we need this country to be run well. I didn’t vote for him,” Bloomberg added. “Let’s just all hope that Donald Trump is a good president of the United States.””
                      Apparently, the left isn’t helping America. Its efforts are to destroy America and Trump at the same time.

                    35. When were these comments made by Bloomberg?
                      I also tried to get behind Trump and have accepted that he is our President. Unfortunately, he just keeps on showing that he is unqualified to be POTUS. He has no class, no impulse control and a short attention span. Furthermore, he incessantly insists that people should apologize to him for saying things he doesn’t like when he has shown himself to be incapable of admitting when he has been wrong.
                      He claimed he was going to “drain the swamp”, but look at his cabinet chock full of former Goldman Sachs executives.
                      I don’t think he ever wanted to actually become POTUS, and his ignorance really showed when he commented that he didn’t think it would be so hard. What did he think it was gonna be like?

                    36. I believe they came from ABC and his appearance on the view a couple of months ago.

                      You can pick out characteristics you don’t like on any person. One has to look at the totality. Decreased unemployment, a GDP that hit 3% when Obama said we would have to learn to live with less and rising salaries. That is just a glimpse of the economic picture. Your approach is very shallow.

                    37. You keep saying Obama’s said we’d have to deal with low GDP. When did he say that, exactly?
                      Also, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that my POTUS is s smart person who knows how to speak the English language in a coherent, intellible way. Sorry, but you’re just not gonna convince me that I should accept idiocy as the new normal. You can accept it if you like. I don’t.

                    38. “You keep saying Obama’s said we’d have to deal with low GDP. When did he say that, exactly?”

                      Karen, try looking it up. I am sure you will see it in writing and possibly in a video. I am not your research assistant.

                      I think you are wrong about the President. Though he doesn’t hide under the sophistication of language he is knowledgeable and has a great deal to offer. You look for characteristics that are of low importance. Being articulate doesn’t mean one is smart or can make good decisions.

                      What you think is idiocy and wrong reflect your own personal deficiencies. Perhaps that is why you have low pay and low job satisfaction. I wouldn’t normally make such a comment but you seem to like being in one’s face.

                    39. That’s an interesting response, Allan.
                      You have mentioned Obama’s statement that we should “learn to live with less” about four times on this forum, yet you can’t recall when you heard it. You make that statement a cornerstone of your arguments against him, but you didn’t remember when you heard it? Hmm. Perhaps you made it up?
                      As for my pay, I didn’t complain about it, I just said it hasn’t gone up. You really read way too much into things. You seem to want to see everyone as wanting to make more money or have more things, and if they don’t you can’t understand why.
                      It’s not rocket science, Allan: some of us are just happy doing what we do, even if underpaid. Some of us even trade in pay for knowledge that we are making a positive difference in the lives of others. It just makes us feel more fulfilled.
                      I say “us” because I know I’m not the only one. I’ve met many others like myself, who traded in their chances at senior partnership at a law firm for simply feeling good about we do everyday.Why don’t you get that? Life is long. Why spend it doing something you hate? Many, many people leave law practice. It doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with them. It probably just means they have chosen a career where they can a greater difference in the lives of people they work with.

                    40. Let’s make it clear Karen, I wouldn’t know about your low salary if you weren’t complaining about it in so many separate replies. The latest reply was that your salary didn’t go up, but you had complained long before. Yes, you make sure to let us know you are not complaining.

                      You made a whole host of other remarks about money. In fact, money is one of your dominant themes. Even here you say there is a lot of talk about money including the gratuitous ” some of us are just happy doing what we do, even if underpaid.” I don’t disagree with following one’s dreams but stop the complaining.

                      You can choose what you want to believe about Obama. I think you chose not to believe the U6 numbers and then if I am correct you tried to disprove what I said by using quarterly numbers. I had to explain why the use of quarterlies wasn’t helpful and had to provide you with the U6 number that has fallen even further.

                    41. I’m not getting why your wife would have anything to do with worker pension (&health plans). As a bank attorney, she wouldn’t have anything to do with that when a construction project goes bankrupt.

                    42. Why do you suppose Trump is so unpopular in New York, especially NYC? It’s because he’s weaseled out of paying people for their work.
                      I don’t know where you live, but in most of New York Trump is known as a con-artist. Just see what former NYC mayor Bloomberg has to say about him.
                      Incidentally, Bloomberg also didn’t take pay for his service in public office.
                      Like I said, I think Trump supporters may give him way too much credit for his “outstanding” record as a businessman. He was given a shitload of money from Daddy, and went bankrupt at least 6 times. He says it was “smart.” I say he was shirking his financial responsibilities to, among others, average working people. Not cool.

                    43. Maybe I misspoke. Employees are priority UNSECRED creditors but in the real world, after bankruptcy is filed, there is almost never enough to pay even the secured creditors, so the secured creditors might get a piece, but unsecured creditors, like employee health & pension funds don’t get sh@$.

                    44. Banks don’t lose. They lend money at an interest rate, and they figure in their expectation of how much they might lose due to bankruptcy filings. Those interest rates get passed off to all of us, so they never really lose anything.
                      It’s like stores & shoplifting. If a store suffers a loss due to shoplifting, they just raise the price on all customers. They don’t eat the loss, and the highest up (CEO) is always the last to see any loss in compensation.
                      That capitalism- and Drumpf has taken advantage of all of his life. The worker bee loses, he wins. That is apparently what defines his great “success”.

                    45. And then we get a stock market rise in anticipation that a tax cut on corporations is going to result in huge PROFITS for the corporations. Not based on increased pay for employees of the corporations, because that’s not PROFIT. Profit doesn’t include what they pay workers, in fact it’s subtracted from profit, just like energy costs, production costs, etc.
                      Accordingly, an increase in stock prices does not equal an increase in wages.

                    46. “How does one prove what is commonly known?”

                      So asks Allen — the newest brainiac to falter and stumble after copious posts claiming logic for himself while denying other’s use of such for reasons that suited him.

                      “I just so happen to know people that dealt with some of his projects.”

                      Yada, yada, yada.

                      Anecdotal tripe – valid from Allen – but lacks in persuasion when offered by others.

                      So, Allen, if your argument is ‘commonly known’ you should be able to commonly, and easily, convince others of your argument.

                      Else, your words are the wasted space they have long appeared to be.

                    47. WWAS, “commonly known” was stating where my knowledge came from. I couldn’t care less if you believe what I say or not. In fact, it is not terribly important to my life or yours. I can’t help it that your involvement in certain things is non-existent, but perhaps it is better that way because you don’t sound like you have much to offer.

                    48. Allan- You make yourself sound like a pompous ass once again.
                      Why is it that you can draw conclusions about others based on short posts but somehow you are above this standard?

                    49. “Why is it that you can draw conclusions about others based on short posts but somehow you are above this standard?”

                      Karen, apparently I am not based on what you and WWAS said. Are you not able to converse civilly without the use of words like “shit?. You sound like you come from the gutter. I don’t believe you don’t so maybe you should rethink how you behave.

                    50. Really, Allen?

                      I always thought ‘commonly known’ referred to the general populace of being in agreement of some claim, factual or otherwise.

                      I’ve never seen the phrase ‘commonly known’ used as a singular parsing conditional.

                      I guess you’re special.

                    51. “I can’t help it that your involvement in certain things is non-existent, …”

                      What ‘certain things’ would this be, Allen?

                      How do know that I’m either involved, or not, in ‘certain things.’?

                      What are these ‘certain things’?

                      It seems to me that you are just filling whitespace now; babbling with your fingers.

                    52. “What ‘certain things’ would this be, Allen?

                      How do know that I’m either involved, or not, in ‘certain things.’?”

                      WWAS, Because the way you express yourself, is of such low quality.

                    53. “Are you not able to converse civilly without the use of words like “shit?.” [sic]

                      Karen’s right though, Allen. You are full of it.

                      This is a phrase that is ‘commonly known.’

                      After your insults and non-civil comments of some months, we are now to believe your exasperation at the use of a ‘commonly known’ phrase?

                    54. “Karen’s right though, Allen. You are full of it.”

                      Says WWAS? That is a badge of honor. I’m still waiting for you to say anything that demonstrates a thread of intelligence.

                    55. “Well, WWAS you are wrong.” — Allen

                      Nothing else offered in that comment. I am impressed.

                      “WWAS, Because the way you express yourself, is of such low quality.”

                      Yeah, my writing is terrible. So do me a favor and count the ways that, “the way you express yourself, is of such low quality.”

                      Point them out, or is this another example of what you refer to as, ‘commonly known’, and hence needs no further substantiation?

                    56. “Yeah, my writing is terrible.”

                      It’s not your writing rather the mind behind it.

                    57. “I’m still waiting for you to say anything that demonstrates a thread of intelligence.”

                      I would suggest reading this thread.

                    58. Allan wrote: ““I’m still waiting for you to say anything that demonstrates a thread of intelligence.”

                      WWAS wrote: “I would suggest reading this thread.”

                      WWAS, the discussion revolved around Trump and Karen became a bit angry so the conversation degenerated into what it is now, cr-p. You entered and I checked your entries. Not one intelligent thing said by you. In our last discussion, it was more of the same cr-p and you added not one iota of intellect. You are a bore, but perhaps your lousy performance will give Karen the ability to gain self-esteem and maybe think about not being so angry.

                    59. “WWAS, the discussion revolved around Trump and Karen became a bit angry so the conversation degenerated into what it is now, cr-p. You entered and I checked your entries. Not one intelligent thing said by you.” — Allen

                      I read the thread multiple times before I wrote my first comment, Allen. Your comments deteriorated rather quickly, as they are so doing again.

                      “. . . I checked your entries . . .” — Allen

                      Good for you, now maybe you should read them with your persistent claims of being the savior of argumentation being in your mind as a backstop.

                      With your eyes so bright with self-adulation it’s possible you don’t see the muddy trail you created and pursued in this thread, but others do; it is ‘commonly known.’

                    60. “Good for you, now maybe you should read them with your persistent claims ”

                      WWAS, what you wrote was cr-p. You were the one that told me to read what you wrote apparently so I could take note of your intellect. There was none. You just added more cr-p to the cr-p being written. I haven’t seen any of your arguments that actually involved the happenings of the day. You are more interested in pulling people off the ladder than climbing it. You sound like a fool.

                    61. “You were the one that told me to read what you wrote apparently so I could take note of your intellect.”

                      I wasn’t interested in my intellect, I was pointing out the lack of yours, and more specifically your instinctual impulse to jump in the gutter — that you claim all are in while excluding yourself.

                      Start again, from the beginning.

                    62. “I wasn’t interested in my intellect”

                      WWAS, apparently you were very interested in the portrayal of your intellect and that is why in an earlier response you challenged me “I would suggest reading this thread.” to prove that what you had written was worthwhile. It wasn’t. It was garbage and added nothing except to demonstrate you had very limited intellectual resources. Your comments are all available for you to look through and prove something different. They are in black and white. Maybe you should change your name.

                      “your instinctual impulse to jump in the gutter ”

                      If you can read you will see that I called the entire conversation cr-p which it is and you lent what little intellect you have to such cr-p. Gutter language such as “sh-t” came from Karen, but she doesn’t need your help. You tried to come to her aid as her white knight. Very gallant, but in argument, you need her more than she needs you.

                      “Start again, from the beginning.”

                      Why? Are you looking to resurrect your being?

            2. Ok. It seems to me that if stock market is so high than maybe we don’t need a 15% corporate tax cut. What evidence is there that this tax cut is actually going to inure to actual working people, rather than just increase The compecation of heads of corporations?

              1. I don’t suppose you noticed how jobs have left this country and how much money is parked outside of the nation. If you would like to see more unemployment and lower wages, just keep doing what Obama did. Your children will step down a couple of notches on the economic scale, but who cares.

            3. He’s not a workaholic. He’s a slacker. That’s why he declared bankruptcy so many times, leaving employees and creditors holding the bag. That’s why he hasn’t been able to get American banks to lend to him for decades. That’s why he had to borrow from Deutsche Bank and then get sued by them when the bills came due.
              He’s a failure. His only success was his absurd reality TV show. I assume that you, like me have never seen it. I don’t watch silly reality TV.

              1. “He’s not a workaholic. He’s a slacker. That’s why he declared bankruptcy so many times”

                Karen, I get it bankruptcy according to you is there to protect slackers. If the slacker bought the business for $10Million and then goes bankrupt who is out of the $10Million? The slacker. Let’s say the business profits lead to a business value of $100Million and the slacker sells 50% to an investor. Who loses money when the business goes bankrupt? Both the slacker and the bank. Why did the bank invest with the slacker? To make money. If the slacker went bankrupt before why did the bank invest money? To make money? Why? Because they made more money in good ventures than they lost in bad ones.

                Do you think banks invest with slackers?

                Prove your statement: ” His only success was his absurd reality TV show.”

                The truth is whether he is rich or poor his buildings still stand to help generate profits that increase the GDP of the US. That is known as success.

                  1. Trump is a promoter and a builder. You are the one climbing out on the limb so you are the one that should have all the facts together. I don’t have the slightest idea how many properties he owns today. He gets an idea, buys the rights to property, is frequently involved with building the property and getting in partners that help finance the property and very frequently is then out of the picture.

                    I was just at Trump Tower. He built it and it is still standing. There is no empty hole in the ground. People are living there having purchased the individual condominiums. Trump lives there as well. I don’t even know if he is part of the management or not. The one thing I know is that if it were up to you Trump Tower would not exist and the value of NYC would diminish. He has about a dozen buildings in Manhattan that display his name in large letters, but how much of each property he owns today is not known to me nor is how many other properties he may have developed or owned. His work extends out of Manhattan and even out of the US. I think the price at Trump Tower (one building) is almost $3,000 a square foot with 700,000-800,000 square feet available. All of that space is taxed which helps fund the City of New York which spends money maintaining the city and maintaining social services including low rent housing.

                    Do you really think he could raise capital if people weren’t making money off of his work?

                1. Karen appears to not understand concepts like ‘equity capital’ and ‘corporation’. Neither Trump nor the Trump Organization have ever declared bankruptcy. Particular businesses he’d invested in applied for re-organization.

                  1. Thanks, DSS. I believe you to be correct. I don’t understand Karen. A lawyer should be familiar enough with bankruptcy that they don’t make the types of statements on bankruptcy that Karen makes.

            4. Even his “made in China” merchandise has been discontinued. This is not a successful businessman. He blew daddy’s money.

              1. I see you went to law school for the same reason Tom Perez did: you’re bad at math.

                1. I did fine at math. I sucked at science, but I don’t think that’s relevant.
                  Actually, some math courses, logic in particular, are very conducive to success in law. In fact, it’s recommended to undergrads to majorbin political science and minor in philosophy (which is verbal math) if you want to go to law school. That’s what I did and it worked.
                  Are you just talking out of you ass?

                    1. Allan – even the ancient Greeks complained about the youngsters coming up. Education was never what it used to be. 😉

                    2. Paul, Victor David Hansen just wrote an article about education within the past 3 days. It was interesting. I have had to deal with a lot of people that were highly schooled but remained uneducated.

                    3. I don’t know what that is supposed to mean but I am a 47 year-old grown ass woman. I took 4 NY state regents math courses as required by my accelerated magnet honors school curriculum at City Honors School. I did well in all of them.
                      What do you know about the relationship between math and law?

                    4. Again, pompous, too-good for everyone Allan is judging someone for using the word “ass”.

                    5. “Allan is judging someone for using the word “ass”.”

                      I repeat “ass woman”. You said it. I didn’t.

                      Go play with your kids.

                    6. “It’s wonderful when people prove their own point.”

                      And what point was that? I haven’t heard anything that represents intellect associated with your name.

                    7. DDS, SOT, et al.,

                      Excuse me if I find humor in your efforts.

                      But I love watching, reading in this case, people fall on their sword of earlier claims of logic and what they think constitutes valid argumentation only to expose themselves over time as vile mudslingers easily ruffled when their script is derailed.

                    8. “I have had to deal with a lot of people that were highly schooled but remained uneducated.” — Allen

                      This was your point that you’ve proven — so at least you have an inkling of yourself. I knew you’d cough it up while slapping someone one the back, with knowing winks as to the brilliance you think both exhibit.

                    9. ““I have had to deal with a lot of people that were highly schooled but remained uneducated.” — Allen

                      This was your point that you’ve proven ”

                      WWAS You are right and you are one of those that prove my point. I am glad you came in to assist Karen because she needs a boost and gets one as soon as she recognizes that she is more on the ball than you.

                    10. “WWAS You are right and you are one of those that prove my point. I am glad you came in to assist Karen because she needs a boost and gets one as soon as she recognizes that she is more on the ball than you.” — Allen

                      It’s nice that you take my point to prove your point, Allen. You are dense, and lack the skills to argue your own mind.

                      Do you feel dizzy, not sure where the exit is, or why you even entered?

                      Seems so.

                    11. “Do you feel dizzy”

                      WWAS, you can’t even stay on point. I am waiting for you to quote anything you said on this thread that demonstrated intellect. You told me to search and I did. If you believe you demonstrated your intellect then you are a bigger fool than I thought just a moment ago.

                    12. “I am waiting for you to quote anything you said on this thread that demonstrated intellect. You told me to search and I did.”

                      So there you go.

                      I guess you don’t get ridicule.

                      Maybe this is because you expect every word you write to be read as the epitome of truth and righteousness, while relegating differing opinions, such as Karen’s, but many other’s over your brief time here, to your dustbin of ignorance simply because it is convenient for you; making ideas that don’t agree with yours silly and irrelevant because then you can just make light of, or ignore them.

                      As I stated — you don’t get ridicule.

                    13. I guess you don’t get ridicule.”

                      WWAS, the ridicule you were entertaining requires more intellect than you seemingly possess.

                      “you expect every word you write to be read as the epitome of truth and righteousness,”

                      I expect my words and deeds to be read fairly. That is something your type has difficulty with and leads to many interesting discussions regarding politics that degenerate into these crappy discussions.

                      When parrying the idea that what you said on this thread demonstrated intellect, you lied. I reviewed every posting and found only mindless responses from you. Reality disappears from Karen’s argument on bankruptcy and Trump. Why would anyone loan or partner with Trump unless they thought they would make money? You are a very hollow white knight riding a very lame horse.

                      “to your dustbin of ignorance”

                      Ignorance is very easy to demonstrate as has been shown here. All you have to do is quote a few of my lines and demonstrate ignorance. You don’t do that. You enter the crappy side of the discussion so you can throw your crappy bombs. You threw your intellect away a long time ago.

                      I suggest you resurrect yourself by entering the discussion on a high note and providing input whether it proves me right or wrong so that a real debate can occur.

                  1. Yes. DDS, SOT, et al. excels at this.

                    Snark is acceptable in DSS land as valid commentary.

                    As one can see from DSS’s, Allen’s, and PCS’s comments they prefer insulting people while ridiculing the same as proof of their open minds and superior knowledge. After their juvenile wordsmithing, they congratulate themselves as a triad of brilliance.

                    It’s hilarious, really.

                    1. Indeed. I’ve wasted far too much time trying to illustrate to these two how conceited they are.
                      You can’t have a real discussion with someone who isn’t open to anyone else’s point of view. These two have closed minds: They are right no matter what because in their own minds they are smarter than anyone else.

                    2. “These two have closed minds:”

                      Karen, read your own drivel and then you can see if there is anything worthwhile. I would love to have an intellectual conversation with you, but your anger interferes. It’s your own words that are being used against you. Why don’t you use this as a learning experience?

                    3. It’s hilarious, really.

                      Actually, it’s called projection WWAS, and you’re giving everyone a demonstration.

                    4. Whoops, should have put this here:

                      DDS, SOT, et al.,

                      Excuse me if I find humor in your efforts.

                      But I love watching, reading in this case, people fall on their sword of earlier claims of logic and what they think constitutes valid argumentation only to expose themselves over time as vile mudslingers easily ruffled when their script is derailed.

                    5. You can’t have a real discussion with someone who isn’t open to anyone else’s point of view.

                      No, Karen, I rejected your point of view because you’re factually wrong and fundamentally emotions-driven.

      1. Yeah, California and New York should run the country along with some urban centers in the Midwest like Chicago. Look how great they doing. LOL

  4. Nobody could’ve predicted that a mentally unstable narcissist with no government experience would instantly be a failure running the most complex government office in the world. Except, anybody that thought of country before party. Trump is and always has been a con-man. His total incompetence and being unfit for the office is dangerous for this country and the world. I worry about the willfully ignorant supporters that still see nothing wrong with this reckless kakistocracy. The swamp had been drained and every slimy creature that was left is now in charge of what was the most powerful nation in the world.

    1. Interesting ignorance. Rise in GDP and salaries along with the stock market and therefore increases in retirement plans. Increased employment. Just a couple of the domestic issues that demonstrates Trump’s policies are a lot better than the policies of the last 8 years.

        1. More than a few years ago and the Democratic Party has since radically changed. Trump is a successful businessman and innovator. He seems to be an independent so his registration depends upon the politics of the day. NYC demands Democratic allegiance and he did a lot of building in NYC.

          His viewpoints haven’t changed that much over a long span of years. There are tapes of him decades ago saying he might be forced to run at which time he spoke about some of the policies he favored. I believe the Democrats have been foolish as have the Republicans because as I said long ago he is pragmatic and deals with either side or both to move the nation in what he believes to be the appropriate direction.

          1. Allan, I voted for Trump for the precise reason that he is obviously an independent. Exactly what this country needs.

            1. That is understandable. Neither party is doing their job.

              There are certain issues and it has been shown that people voting for Hillary will agree with any side of an idea they think is supported by Hillary.

            2. “…an independent. Exactly what this country needs.”

              While true, I doubt that Trump is the right guy for the job. (I’ll happily be wrong, though.)

              1. Trump has the appearance of an independent and acts that way. He has been a member of both parties and as you have seen he is not well liked by Republicans or Democrats. He breaks the mold and will deal with whoever will move the country in what he perceives to be the correct direction.

                Therefore, I am sure I will not have total agreement with Trump. Bernie supporters that voted for Trump won’t have total agreement with him either yet on the issue of Trump supporters on both sides of the isle seem to find him to be the best we have at the present. I think that makes him more of an independent than anyone else.

          1. Means absolutely nothing, eh? Have you cleared that with Prof. K?

            In the Sulzberger Bird-Cage Liner, one year ago:

            By Paul Krugman Comment 2016-11-09T00:42:44-05:00 12:42 AM ET. It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear. Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

        2. He was a registered Republican from 1969 to 1985. In the intervening years, he’s changed his enrollment more than once.

      1. Have you no shame? You apparently profess to believe that such irrelevancies are somehow a rational response to the reality show horror we witness daily with a lunatic residing in the White House. So, a healthy stock market somehow minimizes the devastation that even a minimal nuclear exchange would bring? Have you no shame.

        This is to “who needs Hawaii” allan

        1. Marky Mark Mark – you are plagiarizing. Bad boy. Ad hominems are bad enough but plagiarism is beyond the pale.

          1. When the shoe fits, you should wear it proudly. Trumpism is the half-brother of McCarthyism.

            1. Marky Mark Mark – never forget, McCarthy was right. He caused the State Dept to strip the security clearances of hundreds of suspected Communists. Now State did not report them to the FBI, they just quietly fired them and shoved them out the front door. It was a major housecleaning.

              1. Excellent. An inability to discern right from wrong. to quote a “great” “thinker”, “SO SAD.”

                this is to “but mussolini made the trains run on time” paulie

                1. Markie Mark Mark – you are probably too young to remember the Red Scare, etc. but it was real. Soviet sleeper cells existed. Stalin knew about out atomic bomb before Truman told him about it. There were agents in the Manhatten Project sending Top Secret materials to the Soviet Union. The Rosenbergs were guilty.

        2. DummyMark , I did not mention the stock market alone rather mentioned several aspects of the economy. Multiple President’s have set us up for a potential disaster with Korea. Perhaps you forget WW2 and don’t recognize political realities and the idea behind a balance of power.

          Read some history. I understand some pretty good history has been written in large print suitable for a grade schooler

  5. Somehow, nothing is going to happen to Hilary. The establishment will never let her down.

  6. Trump had barely taken office when he wildly asserted that Clinton’s popular vote lead was due to Illegal voting. Not one shred of evidence was ever presented to justify this charge. An extraordinary leap for a new president. Then a few weeks later Trump asserted that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower Again, no evidence whatsoever; just a wild claim. And that’s been the entire pattern of Trump’s presidency. On Sunday Trump asserted that the mainstream media has run “billions of dollars of fake news” to discredit him. In a normal world, that one tweet alone would qualify Trump as either a liar or a lunatic.

    1. Peter Hill – they were wire-tapping Manafort, which would have included his conversations with Trump. Trump was being wire-tapped and they now admit that in a roundabout way he was. He was also unmasked by national security for no particular reason.

      I find it interesting that so many states refuse to give their public voter information to the feds. We know there are cases of voter fraud every year, it is just catching them. They catch a few each election.

        1. David Benson – no one has ever done a real check of voter rolls to stop voter fraud. Arizona cleans its rolls ever 10 years, but some states haven’t done it in 50. That is why they want to voter information so they can cross-check it against other states. For instance, we have ‘winter visitors’ who may register here to vote but also vote in their home state. You are not supposed to, but who knows. We do know that during the 2012 election there were people registered in 2 states who voted in both and got caught.

          1. Paul, If you had a major increase in Southwest Airlines flights from Chicago to Phoenix every election day that might be a clue.

            1. Diane – Arizona has absentee ballots that are sent out about 3 weeks in advance. All they have to do is ask for an absentee ballot.

                1. Diane – in the olden days to get an absentee ballot you really had to go through hoops. Now you just check a box.

          2. Ah, the millions of Americans (or are they?) whose fervent desire is to vote in multiple states; likely for some commie symp who doesn’t even look like a “real Merican.” That’s the narrative, I’ll reckon. At least according to Pravda Faux News, amIright?

            This is to “one fraud vote in a country of 315 million is too much” paulie

            1. Marky Mark Mark – one fraudulent voter is always one too many. There was a situation here in Arizona where the vote for mayor was tied between the candidates. They decided to cut cards and the lowest card would be mayor. The name of that town is now Showlow.

    2. Yes, evidence was presented which revealed voter fraud. Yes, the FISA warrants were revealed which showed that wiretaps occurred. And yes, the media routinely makes up stories to discredit their old friend Donald.

      1. No evidence has been presented on any of those issues. None that Trump could offer when asked by reporters. Nothing his Press Secretary could offer. I don’t know where you’re getting that evidence.

  7. Another fantastic article, sir. Would you be interested in allowing your work to be shared on American Digital News with proper credit and hyperlink?

  8. Where do we start? There’s so much. The difference between being unfit and unqualified for office and being unpopular is easily discerned by looking at the overwhelming number of clues to fatso’s personality and his agenda. He suffers from severe narcissism. He is racist, misogynist, xenophobic and unpatriotic. He wants to stink up the White House by playing President for personal aggrandizement, pure and simple. He is not patriotic, there isn’t an altruistic bone in his fat body, and he doesn’t even understand the federal government or role of the President in our system of government. No one in his family has ever served in the military. He wants to be the biggest big shot of the big shots. Being a reality TV show host wasn’t enough. Being wealthy and getting away with serially sexually assaulting women wasn’t enough. Instead, he wants to be in the history books, right up there with Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, etc.. Well, he’ll be in the chapter with people like Nixon.

    He thinks he can insult and bully anyone he pleases–leaders, domestic or foreign, elected members of Congress, or those hosting a media program or writing for prestigious newspapers, Gold Star spouses and parents, even a Senator who is a war hero. No one is immune, especially when they say anything not flattering to fatso. He panders to White Supremacists, and loves to keep the pot stirred with his ridiculous tweets attacking anyone and everyone, which takes the place of a news conference because he can’t think on his feet and doesn’t want a dialogue–he wants to dictate his message without any chance for the media to hold him accountable. His entire “agenda” is directed toward creating the cheering crowds his pathetic mental illness requires him to experience. Most of all, he is not a good or honorable man. He is a serial liar. He is a serial sexual assaulter. He politicizes everything, including the deaths of American service personnel. He absolutely never, ever apologizes, because that is perceived as a sign of weakness, instead of a sign of character, of which he has none. He can’t let go of disputes, especially when it has been proven, over and over again, that he has lied. His administration is in disarray, with constant firings and leaks. He insults unstable people like the N. Korean leader, which could well end up causing nuclear war. There is no doubt that he acquired the Presidency by collusion with the Russians. He doesn’t belong in the Oval Office because he is unfit. That has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with him and his lack of integrity.

    1. Another time, another place, maybe Natacha will learn that throwing around one paragraph of epithets and one paragraph of media-fiction-de-la-semaine do not constitute an argument.


    2. Natacha – John McCain is not a war hero, far from it. There are reoccurring stories that McCain was given favorable treatment and food at the Hanoi Hilton for information he fed his jailors. Being shot down does not make you a hero. And even he admits he was not that great a pilot or a person.

      1. Thank for demonstrating yet again that wackjobs have no shame or common decency. It makes it much easier to ridicule you rather than feel sorry for you.

        This is to crazy paulie

        1. Do you have proof that McCain is a war hero? Please don’t use Wikipedia or his official bio for confirmation. Use some official source.

          1. One of my degrees is in history. I can reference multiple primary materials, synthesize the materials from different sources, and come to a conclusion based on an analysis of the facts derived from those materials utilizing rational thought, logic, and evidentiary principles. Thus, Pravda Faux News doesn’t make the cut, which is probably where you derived today’s marching orders that McCain was now verboten. I would recommend such practices to you, but I can see that “facts” aren’t something you have any type of grasp of.

            this is to “lost in space” paulie

            1. Marky Mark Mark – I have 3 majors and several minors. History was a major. I am willing to go toe-to-toe if you actually bring something to the table. And thank you for getting off most of the ad hominem track. If you lose that last bit we can have a civil conversation.

              1. “Marky Mark Mark – I have 3 majors and several minors. History was a major. I am willing to go toe-to-toe if you actually bring something to the table. ”

                The only thing Mark can bring to the table is his lunch.

    3. Natacha said: “There is no doubt that he acquired the Presidency by collusion with the Russians.”

      I’d love to know what ‘collusion with the Russians’ you have seen actual evidence of so far to make such a definitive statement. Do tell.

  9. Some Republicans had all these useless hail mary fantasies during the eight years of Obama that drove them crazy. The Republic will survive. Study, former presidents this nation has had. Then again technology never gave people instant press releases via Twitter or Gab.

      1. Flake was pretty much crickets about Lois Lerner and the IRS, about the blatant lying by BO and Hellary re Benghazi, about Obergefell, about Mitch McConnell scamming around lying to members of his own caucus about the ExIm Bank. Somehow I don’t think ‘decency’ per se is what interests him.

        1. Haha. Benghazi….maybe, just maybe, Congress should hold hearings and investigate…Oh, wait…

          This is to tinfoil spammy

      2. Flake is a flake no matter what his speech writers write. Flake should have done his job better.

        1. He isn’t a Flake. My guess about Flake is that he’s a desert version of Rob Portman – a careerist lawyer whose attitudes are those of his social class. The rest is filler.

    1. I suspect Flake’s problem is that he never had the established rapport with his constituency that would make his criticisms of Trump injurious to Trump because his constituency trusted his judgment. Instead, he looked like a wanker siding with the Washington establishment and media establishment contra a Republican president.

      Compounding that is that True Conservatives (TM) have the last six years demonstrated a talent for failure theatre and not much else.

      1. TSFS – little Jeffy Flake was John McCain’s buttboy while he was in the Senate. The voters of Arizona were not fooled. He was a RINO just like McCain. He has been running ads on FB for money for his re-election campaign, however, the comments from the Arizona citizens are beyond cruel. He just kept losing ground against Dr. Kelli Ward, who is a true conservative in the old Barry Goldwater fashion.

        1. He was a RINO j

          The problem is not his voting record (per the American Conservative Union, he votes their way 93% of the time), but his loyalties and dispositions. When the Supreme Court issued Obergefell, he rolled over and played dead. (Rob Portman allowed himself to be jerked around by his son). These geldings take stances, but accomplish nothing.

          1. Markie Mark Mark – still cannot create a joke, can you? You must be a load of fun at the office parties sitting by yourself. You can buy books full of jokes for all occasions.

            BTW, Markie Mark Mark, I have grown tired of your continual attacks on the people on this blog. So, I have decided to make you my special project. Every time you comment, either to me or someone else, I am responding. I am going to continue this until you end the juvenile ad hominem attacks on people. Either move the conversation forward or move to another blog.

            1. Paul, Mark doesn’t have the mental capacity to move a conversation forward or backward. He is like that piece of toilet paper that gets stuck on your shoe and follows you around.

            2. Hear, hear!

              Markie Mark is an out-of-control, narcissistic troll who must be banned for incessant, irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

              “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”

              Individuals with this disorder exhibit a lack of ability to empathize with others and an inflated sense of self-importance.


              “The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

              People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an “injury” in the form of criticism or rejection.”

              1. Please post more of this type of materials. You may derive awareness through osmosis during your cut-and-paste interludes.

                this is to “this stuff sounds familiar” georgie

                1. Marky Mark Mark – I am not sure who told you that you were funny, but they were just trying to make you feel good about yourself. They were not being honest with you.

    2. mespo – little Jeffy Flake finally read the writing on the wall and the fickle finger of fate said you are going to lose the primary big time. So, my understanding is, he is no longer running for re-election in 2018, which leaves only Dr. Kelli Ward officially running as a Republican. I think Bannon coming to Arizona to support Ward was too much for little Jeffy.

        1. mespo – using his Constitutional privilege to bad-mouth the President is a little chicken, but so is not running for re-election. He cut his own throat. He has a decent pension coming, but I am not sure when that kicks in. I can only hope he has to go on Obamacare.

          1. He’s 55. His pension likely doesn’t kick in for 7-12 years. He can reactivate his law license. Not sure what the market would be for his services as a lawyer in Phoenix or Tucson or Washington as he hasn’t practiced in a while. There’s likely a spot in a lobbying business waiting for him, or a berth in a law firm with a ‘government relations’ practice.

            As for Obamacare, the individual market has imploded so many places, that may not be an option for him.

            1. TSFS – Erick Ericcson had a great comment today about Flake. “He broke the hearts of 5 or 6 Arizonans by announcing he was not running for re-election.” Probably just the office staff in Phoenix. I am not sure he is not toxic in Arizona right now. He may have to hang up his law license in DC.

              1. I could have sworn he was a lawyer. The capsule biography I’ve found indicates he was an NGO functionary for 12 years and never attended a professional school of any kind. Most of his adult work life has been holding a seat in Congress. The smart money says he’s hired by a lobbying firm.

      1. Flake is self-contradictory. It’s odd that he can’t see the error of his ways. Flake is wrong and losing in the polls, by his own admission in the form of his resignation, while Trump sits in the White House and most often turns out to be correct. The guy that is wrong is criticizing the guy that is right.

        “That dudn’t make any sense” – George W. Bush

    3. Mespo,…
      I guess he blasted Trump in a speech to the Senate.
      Privately, he blasted Schulte, too.😉

      1. Tom Nash – I can stand being privately blasted if it means Jeffy Flake is out of the Senate.

        1. Not until January 2019. Bunch of wusses in the Senate. And Bob Corker. Somehow he thinks the man he helped elect isn’t the one in the White House! Senators have a bad attitude about how a President should be.

          But look at what has been done and more to come before year-end!

  10. This is war in America and it always has been.

    The corrupt parasite class feels its “entitlements” are threatened,

    “Affirmative Action Privilege,” Generational Welfare and Illegal Invasion being three examples.

    The corrupt parasite class has lost its mind.

    Impeachment is decided by 435 elected officials.

    Those elected officials will base their votes on the

    certain benefit to their indivdual reelections.

    President Donald J. Trump just won a majority of 50 state elections.

    Congress will fear voting for his impeachment.

  11. Trump said in the campaign that if I voted for Clinton, I’d be stuck with a criminal President under constant federal investigation from day one. Turns out, he was right, I voted for Clinton and I’m stuck with a criminal president under federal investigations since day one.

    1. This is what Trump actually said:

      “I’m now convinced that we will be facing the very real possibility of a constitutional crisis with many dimensions and deleterious consequences should Secretary Clinton win the election,”

      He was right and the further along the investigation of Uranium One goes the closer to the potential prosecution of Hillary. That is something you know little about.

      1. I do know that one out of three Trump supporters are just as stupid as the other two.

        1. In other words, you don’t have the slightest idea what is going on?

          Why don’t you inform those Trump supporters of the truth behind Uranium One? We are all waiting, but it seems there is only a motor connection from your brain to your fingers. Did the intellectual part of your brain die or are you just letting it wither away?

          Let’s hear the truth about Uranium One.

        2. You know that? Do you also know that Progressive’s who were supporting Bernie voted for Trump after the DNC primary corruption was revealed? Or that Progressive Libertarians voted for Trump? Or that blue collar Democrats voted for Trump? Blacks voted for Trump? Independents voted for Trump? Hispanics voted for Trump? White women voted for Trump in greater numbers than Hillary? But they are all stupid in your mind.

          1. It seems the Steele Dossier was paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC, Manafort worked for the Podesta Group and the Uranium One deal is very closely linked with payola to the Clintons. I asked Fishwings to provide its story of events, but so far Fishwings has been mute. I wonder if that is based on stupidity or pure embarrassment?

            1. Yes, the ‘Russian collusion’ tables seem to have turned on Hillary, but here are some interesting points to ponder…

              “First, do not think the Washington Post is ever going to frame a damaging article against the Clinton’s or DNC; it is beyond their inherent ideology to do so. Therefore the motive of any media expose’ must be kept in mind.

              Second, while the article itself states the Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid Fusion GPS to contract Christopher Steele, the researcher and dossier author, the article also tries to lend some credibility toward the content therein. This is another possible angle.

              Third, the judge in case of the congressional subpoena into Fusion GPS bank records -to discover the funding of the dossier- gave Fusion GPS until Friday of this week to work out an agreement with congress that would eliminate the need for a judicial decision. It is entirely possible this WaPo article was advanced by a risk averse Fusion GPS in order to dilute the need for the bank record inquiry. No doubt the bank records would contain far more information than just the Clinton Campaign and DNC.

              Fourth, with #3 in mind, and considering this report is from within the Washington Post, there is a strong possibility the other finance mechanisms for the dossier might include the U.S. government (FBI and CIA). Additionally likely – knowing the WaPo has a history of defending, and working on behalf of, the intelligence community.

              Fifth, the sourcing within the Washington Post article is weak, vague and disingenuous with verbiage such as: “people familiar with the matter”, “according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity”, “people involved in the matter“, etc. Notice how the term “matter” repeats. That familiar term is frequent throughout the article.”


              1. Tbob, I agree, but this means that things are getting hotter and that total denial will not last for long. The WP is positioning itself so that they can have the appearance of “truth tellers” when they actually are spinning the news.

      2. Who knows little about? I’m watching her interviewed by anybody willing. She might work herself into a breakdown (saving herself from punishment)?

        1. Let’s see how quickly Hillary shuts down her never-ending “I’m a sore loser and a victim” book tour now that journalists may be forced to ask her some serious Q’s about HER Russian collusion.

      3. Excellent. “Uranium One.” The day Congress subscribed to some wackjob fantasy first articulated by some disguised guy at a tinfoil hat convention. What about this fluoride thing?

        This is to “the CIA has bugged my molar” allan

        1. Msrkie Msrk Mark – you don’t even use original material. I know you don’t read or keep up with the news but Clinton, Obama, etc sold 20% of our uranium to the Russians. Supposedly, all that uranium was to stay in the country, but now some seems to be missing. Oh, and the Clintons were paid 145m while she was SoS. You see how ignorant this makes you look? That is what Mueller is looking at right now. 🙂 And given the way that Hillary has blamed everybody but herself, the libs and MSM will abandon them like rats on a sinking ship. And the State Dept reports it still has 40,000 Hillary emails to release. There is so much more fun ahead.

          1. Yes, much more fun ahead. Did you see the news that Paul Manafort actually worked for John and Tony Podesta, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

            1. TBob – yes, I saw the stuff on the Podesta brothers. We can only hope for the best. 🙂

            2. Manafort’s been making a living as a Capitol Hill greaseball for a generation or more.

          2. Locking Hillary up won’t do Trump any good, Paul.

            Besides, Uranium One was originally a Canadian company that bought uranium mining companies in the US and South Africa and years later the sale of Uranium One to the Russian company Rosatom had to be approved by the Secretary of State. But, years before HRC became SoS, the CEO of Uranium One donated money to the Clinton Foundation.

            So how did the CEO of Uranium One know that HRC would be in a position to approve the sale to Rosatom? And how did HRC know at the time of the Uranium-One CEO’s donation to the Clinton Foundation that Rosatom would make a bid to buy Uranium One?

            If Trump still wants to lock Hillary up, he’ll need answers to those and a few other questions as well.

              1. So the FBI knew about the Russian bribery plot they had been investigating since 2004 when Mueller was Director through 2014 when Comey was Director; and Rosenstein knew about it, as did McGabe and Holder; but none of them told anybody else about it until 2015; and even then they only issued a press release about the Russian official and the American businessmen involved in the kickback and extortion part of the scheme. And now Congress is on the case in 2017.

                Where’s the connection to Uranium One? Did I miss it in the linked article from The Hill? Where’s Autumn when you need him? No. Not the videos, Autumn. The connections between the dots, please, Autumn.

                1. It appears the Russia scandal though not starting in 1992, saw its foundation laid at that time. The time period, though not the federal scandal, runs through several administrations from George Bush Senior all the way to the Obama administration.

                  Here is a blurb that approximates when the scandal started:

                  “The inflated payments served two purposes: They enriched Kremlin-connected energy officials in the U.S. and in Russia to the tune of millions of dollars; and they compromised the American companies that paid the bribes, rendering players in U.S. nuclear energy — a sector critical to national security — vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.”

                  It starts under George Bush and Clinton (no involvement of the President’s being suggested at this time): “Naïvely viewing Russia as a “strategic partner” rather than a malevolent competitor, the Bush administration made a nuclear-cooperation agreement with the Kremlin in May 2008. That blunder, however, was tabled before Congress could consider it. That is because Russia, being Russia, invaded Georgia.

                  In 2009, notwithstanding this aggression (which continues to this day with Russia’s occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton signaled the new administration’s determination to “reset” relations with Moscow. In this reset, renewed cooperation and commerce in nuclear energy would be central.”

                  The Russian side of the assumed conspiracy needed a lobbyist whose name has not been disclosed but is being represented by the counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee. That lobbyist contacted the FBI and revealed what he knew and became a confidential source for the FBI led at that time by Mueller. The investigation was run by Rod Rosenstein, the present deputy Attorney General.

                  “Equally important: According to reporting by John Solomon and Alison Spann in the Hill, the informant learned through conversations with Mikerin and others that Russian nuclear officials were trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons.”

                  “In 2005, former President Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire friend and benefactor, Frank Giustra, obtain coveted uranium-mining rights from Kazakhstan’s dictator. “ … “a $3.5 billion windfall. Giustra and his partners thereafter contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

                  The story gets deeper and more sordid as Hillary Clinton is now Secretary of State.“
                  “Alas, Putin, the neighborhood bully, also wanted the Kazakh uranium. He leaned on Kazakhstan’s dictator, who promptly arrested the official responsible for selling the uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company. This put Uranium One’s stake in jeopardy of being seized by the Kazakh government.

                  As Uranium One’s stock plunged, its panicked executives turned to the State Department, where their friend Hillary Clinton was now in charge.”

                  That leads to the reset button and all sorts of Clinton payoffs and meetings.

                  “Keeping Congress in the Dark”

                  “Clearly, in this atmosphere, disclosure of the racketeering enterprise that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was, at that very moment, carrying out would have been the death knell of the asset transfer to Russia.” …
                  “ That was not going to be allowed to happen. It appears that no disclosure of Russia’s racketeering and strong-arming was made to CFIUS or to Congress — not by Secretary Clinton, not by Attorney General Holder, and certainly not by President Obama. “

                  “A Sweetheart Plea Helps the Case Disappear”

                  “Still, a lid needed to be kept on the case. It would have made for an epic Obama administration scandal, and a body blow to Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes, if in the midst of Russia’s 2014 aggression, public attention had been drawn to the failure, four years earlier, to prosecute a national-security case in order to protect Russia’s takeover of U.S. nuclear assets.”

                  Arrests were made but kept quiet and lesser charges were utilized. That involved Rosenstein again. This kept the facts secret despite the fact that our national security was being undermined.

                  “Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia.”

                  “There was still one other problem to tamp down. That was the informant — the lobbyist who alerted the FBI to the Russian racketeering enterprise back in 2009. He wanted to talk.

                  Specifically, as his attorney, Ms. Toensing, explains, the informant wanted to tell Congress what he knows — about what the FBI and the Justice Department could already have proved in 2010 when CFIUS signed off on Russia’s acquisition of American nuclear material, and about what he’d learned of Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton. But he was not allowed to talk.”

                  “It turns out, the lawyer explains, that the FBI had induced him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Justice Department warned him that it was enforceable — even against disclosures to Congress. “

                  “This stinks.” The rest of the article is below.


                  1. Allan, I read all of that stuff back in 2015 without the spin the National Review is putting on it now.

                    The question is why didn’t The FBI tell the CFIUS about their investigation of Mikerin’s bribery, extortion, money-laundering scheme in 2010 or 2011? The counter-intelligence division of The FBI didn’t even tell the criminal division of The FBI about its investigation of Mikerin until 2015.

                    Meanwhile, Attorney General Holder was a member of the CFIUS at the time the committee approved the sale of Uranium One to the ARMZ subsidiary of Rosatom. Plus, the FBI informant represented by Toensing claims that he signed a non-disclosure agreement with The FBI that prevented him from telling anybody else what he knew about the Mikerin scheme.

                    So. What did Holder know; and when did he know it? What did HRC and the rest of CFIUS know at time of the Uranium One sale to ARMZ/Rosatom? If neither Holder nor HRC were informed about the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation of Mikerin, then the FBI counter-intelligence division withheld vital national-security information from the AG, the SoS and the rest of CFIUS that could’ve prevented the sale of Uranium One to ARMZ/Rosatom.

                    Why would they do that? Well, perhaps Holder, Hillary and the rest of CFIUS were informed by the FBI about the Mikerin investigation. If so, then the CFIUS approval of the sale of Uranium One to ARMZ/Rosatom would be highly suspicious and might lead to criminal charges against Holder, HRC and the remaining members of the CFIUS. But, were that the case, one would have to wonder why The FBI didn’t go public with everything they knew way back in 2010 immediately after CFIUS approved the first sale at issue?

                    Just think how different the subsequent history would’ve been had the public been informed years before the 2016 election.

                    The only plausible reason that occurs to me at this juncture is that the FBI counter-intelligence division was over-zealously guarding its intelligence assets for future investigations into Russian money-laundering networks. The alternative explanation falls into the usual deep-state conspiracy-theorist category; namely, the FBI counter-intelligence division gathers dirt on pretty much everybody all of the time and banks it all for that rainy day when the FBI criminal division becomes the next-to-last to know about it.

                    And, yes, that would leave us the last to know. Nothing new about that; I suppose.

                    1. ” I read all of that stuff back in 2015 without the spin the National Review is putting on it now.”

                      What spin (provide substance, not tangential material)? The facts appear valid and the author lacks some of the information that we all lack. He is providing his own opinion to fill in some gaps. He is not spinning anything of substance unless you have an overly broad interpretation of political spin based on your ideology.

                      “The question is why didn’t The FBI tell the CFIUS about their investigation of Mikerin’s bribery, extortion, money-laundering scheme in 2010 or 2011? ”

                      None of us can be sure, but we can also ask how come all the people involved have been involved throughout the President’s first few months? How did the Obama administration not report this to Congress? How could the justice department stop a man from revealing what Congress is supposed to know? Of course, we have an idea, unproven, but one that makes sense. Just think of the meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch the attorney general. That meeting that should never have occurred was easily dismissed. I believe we have people who think they are above the law and those people saturated the Obama administration.

                      “Just think how different the subsequent history would’ve been had the public been informed years before the 2016 election.”

                      Trump might not be President. The public as a group is not as dumb as many on left believe. There is an interesting book on part of that subject called the Wisdom of the Crowds. That book might open up new avenues of thought about the public’s ability to think.

                    2. Diane, you asked a question “Why”. Below is an interesting interpretation of events to the best of that person’s knowledge since all the data isn’t in. The author has been ahead of the curve many times. The article may have to be read more than once and you will have to put down all your preconceived notions to actually understand what he believes to be true. How close he is to the mark can only be evaluated after more data comes in, but based upon his writings over a long period of time he cannot be easily dismissed.


            1. Diane – the answer to all your questions will soon become clear. You might try watching the film, Clinton Cash, which I think is still available on YouTube.

              1. Schwietzer, schmietzer. I put his book in the same category that you put the Steele/schmeele dossier. Oh! But who paid for Schwietzer’s “Clinton Cash”?

                P. S. None of this he-did/she-did stuff is going to get Trump re-elected. It just makes him look less and less distinguishable from Hillary every day now.

                1. Diane – The President is pretty much the Teflon Donald. Nothing really sticks to him. He got elected because a certain amount of people wanted a major and a certain amount hated Hillary. Then there was my group, we both wanted change and hated Hillary. Some voted for Stein, but she was never a viable candidate. I decided I didn’t want the Clintons stealing furniture from the WH again, so I voted for Trump. The Republic has survived a number of rather incompetent Presidents, even if we assume that Trump is incompetent, the Republic will survive. Right now the Dims are trying to roll the Prez over amnesty, which I hope he doesn’t cave because he will not have a 2nd term, but like Lyndon Johnson he is used to the Art of the Deal.

                2. “I put his book in the same category that you put the Steele/schmeele dossier.”

                  Diane, what major facts did Schweitzer lie about. Why don’t you list them? Comparing his work that has been mostly proven correct to something that was totally dreamt up indicates a person who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. Are you that person?

        2. Markie the ignorant, why don’t you tell us your version of Uranium One and the Steele Dossier? You can’t. That is why you are still in charge of filing Unimportant Papers for your bosses.

          1. Why, there’s nothing there to have an opinion on. For context, I also don’t have an opinion on who the Yomiuri Giants start at third base next year. I guess you do, however. Good luck with that.

            This is to “.but this IS my hobby” allan

            1. In other words Mark, you are admitting you don’t know what you are talking about. I’ll accept that as the most honest comment you have made.

            2. Marky Mark Mark – the Yomiuri Giants don’t know who they are starting at 3rd base next year, so who cares. You have to get off this ad hominem train. It is helping my typing skills, but I had hoped to get some reading in today.

  12. Trump is truly an ugly person but the worst of his acts has been his cabinet appointments, each of which is a known enemy of the cabinet position held. Mueller’s task is probably what will result is Trump’s removal from office but that won’t occur quickly. In the meantime, Trump is keeping Pence from that office.

    1. If fantasy helps you get through the day bettykath, ’tis harmless. You are a pest.

      1. DSS, Is she all there? Probably not. Sounds like a parrot repeating what she is told and understanding none of it.

        1. Yep. Talking points all the way down and can not defend any of it.

      2. bettykath, accept the truth. There will be no impeachment of Trump. Maxine Waters threats of “taking Trump out” might see her being investigated by Secret Service, and they might find her cache of money! Smene explain to John McCain his beloved “process takes to one!

    2. Ahh, the mellifluous tones of the voice of the artifice of “Affirmative Action Privilege” and generational

      welfare, zealously executing the duties of the Feminazi Gaystapo.

      Merit shall have no bearing here!

  13. One of the oddities in our current system of government is we have to vote for policies indirectly through our vote for individuals. If the voting for policies were kept separate from the vote for competent leader/managers, it would be easier to replace a leader based on mental incompetence, because people would not feel insecure about policies being undermined.

    Pres. Trump is a reflection of the compromises to personal fitness the People will sometimes tolerate in order to obtain desired policies.

  14. JT: “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.”

    Well, I also have been critical of many of those comments/tweets, and find them, variously, deeply amusing, somewhat annoying, usually worthy of ignoring, much ado about nothing, sometimes noteworthy, and generally by now unshocking.

      1. But then again, I guess we both have a life outside of Twitter, unlike some who post here.

    1. Gary, How critical have you been towards Hillary who sold the American people down the drain for profit (Uranium One)? How critical have you been towards the justice department that has hidden major crimes from the American people? How critical have you been towards the IRS that discriminated against conservatives?

      Everyone gets a bit annoyed at some of Trump’s tweets. That is because he is honest and transparent. He even changes his mind. Yet everyone forgets that is part of the deal with this President since in the past we complained so much about a lack of transparency and politicians with ideas rooted in cement. Which is preferable? A lie or a truth that is sometimes too blunt?

      Forgetting the hack at the DNC do you have a transcript of what Trump actually said to this most recent gold start wife? Without one, how can you make a judgment? Have you noticed that many of the tweets that were complained about actually represented the mindset of the American public? Maybe you don’t mind multi-millionaire football players that call cops pigs and can’t stand for the flag, but standing for the flag really represents those gold star families you are presently concerned about.

      1. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Joseph Goebbels

        1. What is the lie?

          Why don’t you tell us what you believe about Uranium One. Then in a couple of months, we can see how your version matches up to the truth. The money transfers are well known and proven occurring concurrently with each other. The money donated to the Clinton Foundation were not appropriately disclosed while Hillary was Secretary of State.

          Hillary Clinton depends upon Joseph Goebbels’ statement, but the FBI already has records and the transfers are in black and white.

          Let us hear your version or do you live only in a world without facts?

    2. Nobody has trolled North Koreas little God-King the way Mr Trump has. It has worked pretty well. Nothing like making the cult guru have to address the world complaining. Donald Trump knows an extortionist (North Koera) when he sees one.

  15. As the Clintons become more radioactive we hear mindless calls from the left that is thinking of impeachment. Impeachment for what? Increasing the GDP after the former administration says we have to learn to live with less? Increasing salaries, decreasing unemployment?

    The left has been sold a bill of goods and doesn’t recognize how the Clintons stole from the nation compromising our national security spreading their criminality throughout the Obama administration. The news denied by the left is slowly creeping out and will not stop. Things go slow as people within the deep state realize they too have been tarnished by what happened. However, eventually, things have to come out since this sale of uranium and connections with the Russians were slowly being investigated by the FBI for years. The corruption extending backward from the Obama attorney general’s office is astounding.

    For a summary of what happened https://jonathanturley.org/2017/10/19/orange-is-the-new-black-clinton-complained-of-being-shivved-by-comey/ search for As promised to Enigma:

      1. Marky Mark Mark – I suggest you use Duck Duck Go. It can be your friend for information.

  16. A slice of Capitol Hill Republicans , academics and denizens of the legal establishment (and Jennifer Rubin in particular) cannot help themselves. Trump is adept at getting his enemies to make revealing remarks, remarks that do not enhance any impartial person’s assessment of his enemies’ perspicacity. In effect, he shows us that our political class has been shot through with fools and hollow men. The lawyers among them are shysters.

Comments are closed.