Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the allegations against Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Yesterday, the controversy surrounding the Russian dossier deepened after it was disclosed that the co-founder of Fusion GPS (the company hired by the Clinton campaign to do the dossier) met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya before she met with Donald Trump Jr. Indeed, she met with the Fusion officials shortly before and shortly after she met with Trump Jr. in Trump Tower. Just hours before on June 9, 2016, Fusion co-founder and ex-Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson was with Veselnitskaya in a Manhattan federal courtroom. Simpson and Fusion GPS were hired by BakerHostetler, which represented Russian firm Prevezon through Veselnitskaya.
Here is the column:
In “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More was accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality. Roper declared he would “cut down every law in England” to “get after the devil.” More warned his son-in-law, “When the last law was down, and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?”
Similar winds are blowing in the Beltway. For months, President Trump’s critics have bent and twisted criminal provisions to accuse him of a “plethora” of crimes. Little thought has been given to the implications of radically expanding the meaning of crimes such as obstruction, election fraud or conspiracy. Now, experts are scrambling to find shelter in the narrowest of criminal definitions as Democratic figures are implicated in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as well as new campaign allegations by a former party leader.
Just as I have been skeptical of theories of Trump’s criminality, I am equally skeptical of such pronouncements of Hillary Clinton’s crimes based on current evidence. However, Trump would need to look no further than the interpretations of many experts to support calls for prosecution. It was recently confirmed that Clinton’s campaign paid a foreign national to dig up dirt against Trump from other foreign nationals, including Russian and foreign intelligence sources. Both Trump and Clinton have justified their actions as standard “opposition research.” Moreover, both campaigns insist the public had a right to know of evidence of illegality held by such sources.
Experts have spent months shoehorning Trump into ill-fitting criminal provisions. Some have argued that he can be charged under Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States “in any manner or for any purpose.” Former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason has argued, “Running a free and fair presidential election is a core lawful function of the federal government. Any agreement to secretly and dishonestly attempt to interfere with a federal election would fall squarely within Section 371’s prohibition on conspiracies to defraud the United States.”
Well, if seeking dirt from the Russians on Clinton is now a federal crime, how about seeking dirt from Russian sources against Trump? If that does not “fall squarely within” the criminal code, how about rigging the primary, as alleged last week by former Democratic National Committee head Donna Brazile? In her new book, she contends Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for controlling critical elements of the organization before the primary. Brazile was fired by CNN for unethical conduct in leaking debate questions to Clinton, then lying about it to the media. However, even Brazile balked at what she found at the DNC.
Brazile says she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and the Clinton campaign that the latter be allowed to “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” Brazile said the deal was legal, “but it sure looked unethical,” but still gave the Clinton campaign “control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.” The former DNC head now agrees the deal “compromised the party’s integrity.”
If Clinton gained critical control over the primary in a secret deal, how was the election “free and fair” for the purposes of Section 371? When the subject was Trump, defense counsel Tor Ekeland insisted that the Trump could be charged on “a whole plethora of areas of potential criminal liability.” When asked if Trump could be prosecuted even if he did not encourage the hacking of emails, but simply encouraged the release of information, Ekeland reportedly responded with an expression of profane glee and said that mere encouragement is potentially enough. Such abandon is characteristic of the “anything goes when it comes to Trump” approach to legal interpretation.
Yet again, nothing but barriers are seen to investigating Clinton, even after her belated acknowledgement of funding the dossier after it was confirmed by various newspapers for weeks. Clinton defended her actions by claiming, “You know, from my perspective, it didn’t come out before the election, as we all know.” Some have balked at that spin. Christopher Steele, the former English spy behind the dossier, was in Washington in September 2016 peddling the allegations to a wide array of reporters. The same information from the dossier began to appear in the media. Moreover, the Clinton campaign, including communications director Jennifer Palmieri, pushed the story.
Many Trump critics have insisted the pattern of concealing or lying about Russian connections is an obvious basis for investigation. However, Clinton never fessed up to paying for the dossier over months of coverage and speculation. In addition, journalists (including two New York Times reporters) have accused Clinton lawyer Marc Elias of repeatedly lying in denying any connection between the dossier and the campaign. Elias later sat next to the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, who denied any connection with the campaign in a formal interview with congressional investigators. It is a crime to knowingly give false information to federal investigators or to Congress.
Other criminal allegations against Clinton do not require linguistic gymnastics to fit the criminal code. Critics have charged that huge amounts of money were exchanged through the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees for Bill Clinton, including the $500,000 given to him by Russians before the State Department approved the controversial Uranium One deal under Secretary Hillary Clinton. While there are obvious defenses for Clinton, the allegation would fit a classic “pay to play” scheme. If true, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was sent to jail for far less.
Does this mean Clinton or her aides committed crimes? No. The point is only that a sharp disconnect exists between the interpretive approaches given to allegations about Trump as opposed to those about Clinton. A presumption of criminality exists for one, and for the other, a virtual immunity. A concerted effort is being made to get the law to fit the conduct, at considerable risk to our legal system.
As Sir Thomas More observed, “This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast.” The blind rage exhibited in legal analysis will leave us in no better of a position than the hapless William Roper when we have need of these laws again. Perhaps with the latest allegations, More’s words will now resonate with some in Washington. As he said, “If you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
A double standard created by Democrats bites the Democrats in the A$$.
.
Ahhh, I see JT threw out Hillary for the feeding time for his base, Because there is nothing to see with Don Jr, JBS, His son in law, Manafort, Carter, his hotel in DC, golf, any thing the man touches… oh hell, its a good thing this computer does not need ink to print because it would be running out by now……….. Just keep up the good work JT and deflect, defuse, spin, distract, and repeat.
JT is just being fair, but to those with a double standard, fairness is something new and something they cannot understand.
Fair to whom? His lack of writing about all Trump’s legal problems is glaring and one sided. I get about the attacks on Hillary and some of it she deserves, but his total disregard of Trump and his AG is blinding.
JT believes the law is clear and to date has stood firm stating there is no proof either side has broken the written law.
What is Mueller investigating? Before one investigates there is generally a crime. What was the supposed crime? These are the things you do not understand. No one has provided the basis for a crime that is legitimate. The interpretation and twisting of laws to create the idea of a crime are not good enough. Now the same criteria are being applied to Hillary and suddenly the same people have changed positions on what constitutes a crime. This is what JT is dealing with.
To correct the dysfunction in your logic clearly state the crime that you believe Trump committed and what the proof is.
Trump has no legal problems, Fish. Probably why you’re not seeing blog posts about non-existent topics you yearn for.
Bravo!
Maybe the most vitally important part of this issue affecting average Americans is that: online communications have never been secure and might never be secure in the future. Maybe important communications and proprietary property should never be put online. Maybe do your banking in person, use the U.S. Postal Service instead of email for important information. There is no government agency that can protect your personal information.
There is strong evidence to back it: every federal employee (and their non-governmental spouses) had all of their important personal information breached, even those with sensitive jobs. Some credit reporting agencies can’t protect your personal information either. If the best security in the world can’t prevent data breaches, none of us stand a chance in protecting our information.
What is Congress and your state legislature going to do about it?
Well, I don’t trust online transactions. But, just to clarify how I understand it. The Democrat emails in questioned, were LEAKED (as in someone GAVE them to someone else) as opposed to HACKED (stolen from a server or in transit to off-site storage). This is very important.
Clean house Dims or lose again! Tulsi Gabbard 2020
Tulsi is a “dim” dimwit.
Ken Doll – she is a Dim,but not an Establishment Dim – I should have differentiated. The Establishment hates her – tried to take her out during the last election in HI.
I’m in the group who believe that the US is seriously imperiled by rancorous, unproductive internal divisions, while at the same time vexed by adversaries who delight in advancing our downfall.
We have two problems to solve, and little time remaining to do it.
Before the Nov 2018 elections, we need to create a Rapid Response Office of Campaign Integrity, where allegations of campaign misbehavior are reported for immediate adjudication and response. The RROCI must be staffed by non-partisan, independent process-defenders. It must be suitably distanced from political interference from the White House or Congress. The goal is to deal with campaign misconduct rapidly, so that we don’t face election outcomes blemished by accusations of cheating.
And, before the May 2018 Russian Presidential election, it would be very advisable for Congress to put into statute a Standard for Non-Interference in Foreign Elections which the US unilaterally pledges itself to follow.
Once adopted, we lead a diplomatic campaign to prod other nations into adopting our Standard, or passing their own version. This is really the only path to solving a complex, global problem, and the only way for the US to regain a measure of credibility and authority on this issue.
pbinca said, ” The goal is to deal with campaign misconduct rapidly, so that we don’t face election outcomes blemished by accusations of cheating.”
pbinca, you’ve identified a goal worth pursuing. However, “immediate adjudication” in the midst of an election campaign might not be possible and could easily heighten the rancor of our internal divisions by casting a cloud over the campaign accused of alleged misconduct.
Moreover, the function of your proposed RROCI closely resembles the function of a free press; except that, your proposed RROCI would presumably be vested with judicial powers of some sort. As such I can foresee trouble alternative media sources making spurious allegations against candidates for public office then demanding immediate adjudication of the alleged misconduct.
If that happened, which seems likely, pbinca, we would still be facing “election outcomes blemished by accusations of cheating.”
Read this morning that CNN poll shows approval of DNC at 37% – lowest in 25 years. Imagine what it would be without MSM serving as their PR arm?
Whats the Republican congress polling right now? And where would you be without “FOX NEWS” And Sinclair Broadcasting? And talk radio? Are you talking about the same MSM media that did not do their job reporting facts on what a snakeoil salesman Trump is?
The same poll puts the republicans at 30 percent. The democrats polled at 54 percent in Virginia yesterday and better than that in New Jersey.
Republicans in US Congress at 30%. Maybe in the world of FOX.
Repubs are at 30%. Pretty good, actually, considering the constant lies and attacks from MSM.
Until the reelection rates begin to match the survey results then the surveys mean very little.
The problem with Congress is one a great many institutions have: the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Another problem is that people do not hold their individual member responsible for the stupidity. I turned on CSPAN the last couple of nights and what’s there but markup for some tax bill. You’d think markup would be fairly technical, but there was on the first night some jack-wagon from California wasting everyone’s time pontificating and another jack-wagon from Oregon doing the same. I tune in the following night and the jack-wagon from California is still pontificating. I’d vote against these repulsive clowns; surprisingly, perhaps, the distaff side around here agreed with me. The performances of these two are one reason Congressional committees can’t get jack done.
The thing is, you not only run from something, you run to something. There’s always a supply-side deficit in Congressional races. A great many of these clowns would lose if someone with funding and energy challenged them. Michael Castle in Delaware was 7 years ago taken out by the likes of Christine O’Donnell, a woman who is anything but capable. She was, however, willing to put some effort into a run.
Funny. As a lawyer you leave plenty of holes in your opinion. First you don’t mention that 8 other agencies had to approve the uranium ‘deal’ and not just Clinton’s State Dept. Secondly, the dossier was initially funded by a republican. I don’t see you mentioning that point at all. Thirdly, it appears, at least from what I hear at Fox News, that Clinton lost the election. Fourth, Clinton has been investigated by GOP henchmen for the past 25 years and they have found nothing criminal in her actions. If she was personally responsible for criminal acts then she deserves to be held accountable, but please don’t equate trump’s known (hey russia if you have the emails….) criminal actions before and after (fired Comey because of the Russia ‘thing’) he took office with Clinton’s intraparty feuds. If Clinton’s minions met with Russians then let them be held accountable. But, one has profound effects upon democracy and the other effects the dysfunctional party politics. Facts matter. To paraphrase a good lawyer, if the facts don’t fit, you must acquit!
“Secondly, the dossier was initially funded by a republican.”
I thought this was common knowledge at this point.
I invite you to read Pat Buchanan’s take on the whole thing. He is not blinded by the collusion of the neolibs and cons:
“… Then it was that the Washington Free Beacon, a neocon website, engaged a firm of researchers called Fusion GPS to do deep dirt-diving into Trump’s personal and professional life — and take him out.
A spinoff of Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard, the Beacon is run by his son-in-law. And its Daddy Warbucks is the GOP oligarch and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer….”
I invite (dare, for the echo-chamber prog folk here..) to read this damning analysis. It pretty much damns everyone.
http://buchanan.org/blog/plot-bring-trump-127802
The rest of your contribution sounds like a self-justification for continued support, not a defense of a lifelong career of questionable (at best) actions.
There was no dossier done for the Free Beacon. They had stopped the research before the dossier was started. “The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin.” Washington Post
If you are not part of the echo chamber here on this site, your opinion is not welcomed nor taken with open minds.
You’re opinion is not welcome because it seldom has more substance than an upraised middle finger. You want to be ‘welcome’, at least make an argument. Most of the starboard participants here (not me) are quite capable of treating Jill with indulgence, because she can actually address an issue.
Spinnin’ In Circles says:
“You’re (sic) opinion is not welcome because it seldom has more substance than an upraised middle finger.”
LOL, Circs. (FishWings comments are just as “welcome” as any…)
Now I know why you have that name. My argument is that this site is a echo chamber and thank you for your open mind.
You fancy I should have an ‘open mind’ to your juvenalia. When you’ve learned the distinction between topical commentary and puerile insults, get back to me.
Everybody gets to play; everybody gets to weigh in — even The Nasty Boys.
And you seem to have omitted the information that the criminal activity of the Russian actors in the Uranium deal was not passed on to the eight other agencies that approved it. I wonder which agency could have been considered the lead agency and how much WH approval went.
tes that commission should have known about these crimes. Why didn’t they? That is the question.
Gerry Tegmeyer, for the time being we can only guess at why CFIUS was either not informed at all, or not fully informed, about the FBI’s investigation of Mikerin’s bribery, extortion, kickback, money-laundering scheme. None of the guesses are good. Here’s one example:
The FBI’s counterintelligence division may have been zealously guarding its main intelligence asset in the Mikerin investigation so that that undercover informant could continue ferreting out the several Russian money-laundering schemes in Cyprus, Lativa, Switzerland and Seychelles.
The trouble with that guess is that it implies that Attorney General Holder, who was a member of CFIUS at the time, either withheld the FBI’s information from CFIUS or was not, himself, fully informed of the FBI’s ongoing investigation. Either way it’s equally bad, unless it’s possible for one vital national-security interest to override another vital national-security interest. So who gets to make that decision? I don’t know.
Lloyd Blankfein – Hillary has been investigated but she always has memory problems. The State Dept still has 40,000 emails it hasn’t released. We now find out that Comey cleared her of the email scandal before it even really started and gave immunity to all her people. She was never put under oath. Even with Whitewater, the billing records “disappeared” until the statute of limitation ran out and they were “found” on a table only she had access to. One of Bill’s gf was willing to do 18 months in jail for contempt rather than testify against them.
And should we talk about the number of suspicious and timely deaths surrounding the Clintons. It has coined a new phrase “Arkancide” to commit suicide in an impossible manner but helps to protect the Clintons.
And should we talk about the number of suspicious and timely deaths surrounding the Clintons.
You were doing well here before uttering this sentence.
James McDougal’s death would be worth examining, as he was in federal custody at the time.
AAWG – it is not something that I necessarily buy into, but I want to keep an open mind. The Clintons have no moral compass and murder would not be beyond them. If someone is going to buy a national political party and funnel all the money into her account, murder is not a real jump.
Vince Foster must have been the first and only personal attorney to a President in history who was so euphoric over winning the White House that he drove out to Fort Marcy Park and shot himself in the head. That does seem to be a typical reaction to global-class success such as your principal winning the office of the most powerful man in the world.
And John Kennedy can’t be seen in the Zapruder film, initially reaching for a bullet entrance wound in the front of his throat.
The Clinton compass points to power for power’s sake – full blown narcissism. They had ONE child solely for the political purpose of laying claim to “family” status. Bill is a cad. Hillary is evil incarnate.
Let’s all wake up and smell the coffee…with the exception of all those on the Clinton Body Count.com who will never wake again.
Vincent Foster committed suicide. There were four separate investigations of his suicide. His Arkansas doctor had prescribed anti-depressants for him.
Arkancide.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Stay thirsty, my friend!
O bother. More expressions of gratitude for AAWG are due. It’s becoming painful. Well, let’s just get it over with. Thank you, AroundandAroundWeGo.
Every now and then he deals in reality. He recognizes the stupidity in many of his cohorts logic if I can use that word.
As you were until, “James McD… ad nausea”. Why the flight from reality?
There’s no ‘flight from reality’ except in your addled head. The man died in federal custody. What happened?
” …by GOP henchmen …”
******************************
Funny, as a bankster, you don’t mention your bias in favor of the Dems but we know it all the same.
Information was withheld and potentially manipulated. Hillary did not disclose the origins of the $145Million as she was supposed to. The dossier didn’t involve the Russians until the DNC and Hillary became involved. When the “Russians” or whoever did the hacking hacked the Democratic computers along with refusing the FBI (normal in such a case) they refused to even shut them down permitting the hacking to occur for about a month. A lot of loose footwork there.
“Thirdly, it appears, at least from what I hear at Fox News, that Clinton lost the election.” Apparently, you are late to the party. She lost the election as soon as the electors were counted. Clinton has never been investigated in a professional manner, maybe she will be now. She might not have committed a crime based upon the law, but she has sold America down the drain, our soldiers down the drain, women down the drain and the American people down the drain.
After the most intensive investigation, Trump still hasn’t been implicated in any political dealings with the Russians, but we already know Clinton had dealings with the Ukrainians.
“one has profound effects upon democracy” That would be Clinton or are you again late to the party. Clinton was exposed completely by Donna Brazil. You seem to think Trump broke the law with regard to his campaign. List your contentions.
You were bitten in the A$$ by a reliance on a double standard and now you are trying to blame the messenger because suddenly you have to faith the truth.
Nice Joe Lauria article rescued from the Huffington Post by the Hedge. Huff Pro didn’t like it, so apparently they pulled it. It would be in Democrats best interest to cease beating this dead horse that is really a bloody mule and get a national platform. (And I don’t mean the lazy one–“because…ahhhh…. Trump!”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-07/huffpo-yanks-article-russiagate-hysteria-award-winning-journalist-joe-lauria-%E2%80%93-so-he
JT’s rendition of the famous quote is fine but Paul Scofield’s … well … it’s sublime:
https://youtu.be/d9rjGTOA2NA
I must admit that Turley’s a sharp one. Christopher Steele is, in fact, a foreign national–albeit a British one, rather than a Russian one. Presumably Steele recruited his Russian informants while serving in the UK’s MI6. Last I checked the UK and MI6 were still part of the Five Eyes alliance. In which case, various US intelligence agencies may have been apprised of the allegations in the Steele dossier. But that’s just a guess. Anyway, the other last time I checked, US intelligence agencies would not have been allowed to leak the allegations in the Steele dossier to the press–if they were made aware of them.
So, Turley is now suggesting that a certain US person may have committed a crime by paying for information that our own intelligence agencies may have acquired through a national security alliance with the UK and the foreign national whom the UK formerly employed at MI6. I’m sure Putin will appreciate the sharpness of Turley’s legal analysis.
Judge Napolitano said something like that months ago and got suspended from Fox. Time to find out where Napolitano got that. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/14/napolitano_obama_admin_used_british_intel_service_to_spy_on_trump_during_campaign.html
Karen Santal said, “Judge Napolitano said something like that months ago . . .”
No. That’s nothing like what I said. Turley drew a parallel between the Trump campaign seeking damaging information about Clinton from the Russians versus the Clinton campaign hiring a former MI6 agent to find out what ties the Russians might have with Trump. Turley drew that parallel with the phrase “foreign national” in the following sentence from Turley’s OP:
“It was recently confirmed that Clinton’s campaign paid a foreign national [Christopher Steele] to dig up dirt against Trump from other foreign nationals [Steele’s Russian informants], including Russian and foreign intelligence sources [some of Steele’s Russian informants must have had access to Russian intelligence, otherwise Steele could not have known ahead of time about Russian interference in the 2016 US election].
That Christopher Steele is a foreign national is true. But it’s also true that Steele was an MI6 agent and that the UK is a long-standing ally of the US. Likewise, that Natalia Veselnitskaya and her associates are foreign nationals is true. But its also true that she and her associates are Russians with ties to Russian intelligence agencies and that Russia remains just about anything else but a long-standing ally of the US.
But far more importantly, the Steele dossier tipped off our own intelligence agencies to the Russian attempts at interfering in our 2016 election.
Thus Turley has become so singularly obsessed with his own expertise on the law that he’s now turning a blind eye to the difference between a strategic ally of the United States [The United Kingdom] versus a strategic adversary [The Russian Federation] who interfered in our country’s 2016 election. Turley poses as Sir Thomas More with respect to the law, but behaves far more like William Roper with respect to the national security of The United States of America.
Great flick and column by JT.
I know that when I enter the gates of Hell that the photo of Hillary will be posted.
The premise of this column is that Democratic Party lawfare artists (including those on the federal bench) have any integrity at all. They don’t, and neither do their votaries in fora like this. They want what they want. They’ll strike attitudes in and out of court, but every stated principle will be an improvisation which functions as an excuse for them to get what they want.
I turn on the television last night and there’s this fellow named Steyer I’ve never heard of making a plea for impeachment of the President. I look him up and discover he’s a hedge-fund guy joined at the hip to the Democratic Party and the Obamas. And his excuse is a mix of tendentious rubbish (‘obstruction’, and, of course the emoluments clause) and charges the people who make them cannot define with any precision (‘collusion’).
The Democratic Party and it’s partisans have been having an emotional meltdown for a year because they lost an election to a man who managed to prosper electorally while telling their media component to go hang. There’s no amount of judicial freebooting they won’t endorse so long as they get their way, but then they suffer chronic agita over the few instances when their agenda is impeded by judicial opinions (Citizens United, wherein they were told that they could not write election law to permit political advocacy by their preferred corporations while prohibiting it by people not their patrons) and Heller (which tells them that ‘the right of the people’ refers to a personal right, duh).
They are increasingly unable to function when there are alternative opinions, so we have this collusive fan dance between college administrators (who are commonly intellectual and moral frauds) and juvenile delinquents to prevent any member of the opposition from speaking on a public university campus. We see more collusive fan dances between local politicians and the same delinquents when the opposition attempts to hold rallies and demonstrations.
Oh, did I mention the decades-long effort to pack the meeting by importing foreigners?
We are looking at wall-to-wall institutional breakdown and 97% of the responsibility is with one party. We can see where this is going, and that’s Spain in 1936-39. Idiots might remember that Manuel Azana died in exile.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/928204974974226432
swm – that is the biggest b.s. statement by the WaPo this week. All that money has been moving around for over a 100 years depending on the family and tax status. Same with companies. I blame it on Woodrow Wilson.
Why do you blame Woodrow Wilson?
AAWG – I thought it would be obvious. 😉
Paul, it’s not obvious. Unless you’re alluding to either The Treaty of Versailles or The League of Nations with its Wilsonian principle of self-determination for nationalities, or both, or neither, but rather some other connection between Montenegro tax havens and Woodrow Wilson that’s not yet obvious.
Diane – it just is not obvious to you. That does not mean it is obvious to many others.
It isn’t obvious.
Wilson takes a lot of flak from soi-disant ‘constitutional conservatives’ many of whom are quite confused about the actual contours of political practice at the time. He also gets flak from palaeo types for well-considered reasons and ill-considered reasons.
AAWG – Wilson gets well-deserved flak for being a racist and for kick-starting the KKK again with his review of Birth of a Nation. His failure at Versailles was inexcusable. He promised much and delivered nothing. And having the country run by his wife while he was incapacitated by a stroke (which was kept secret by the wife and doctor) just invalidates anything he might have actually stood for. I think he was probably a decent college President, but out of his depth as US President.
Wilson’s racism and naivete helped give the progressive name a direct linkage to racism. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the progressives gradually turned to the word Liberal and now many years later back to progressive. The ideology keeps pis-ing people off so the ideology has to keep changing its name. The only problem is those adopting the ideology don’t know their history or understand the political economy.
Diane, since you brought up a bunch of things that Wilson did including promoting the idea of self-determination of nations remember he didn’t promote self-determination of blacks in the US. Wilson was a racist.
Like he is exclusive to this? My point again. Keep whining. You’ll get good at it. You’ll have plenty of more time to whine after you lose again in 2020. Your political machine is rotten to the core. Time to reinvent yourselves and make “justice for all” a campaign promise, and you’ll probably win.
But, for Democrats, it’s seems to be easier to keep whining and point to Russians. Yeah… that’s going to work for you. I did post an analysis a while back. You lost the group who felt they disproportionally paid a higher cost for all these insane wars. Maybe instead of calling them “deplorables,” you could have even taken a page out of Slick Willies, “I feel your pain” or something.
Change your thinking or feel comfortable with whining.
Defeating Trump at the polls in 2020 is still the best solution. However, a grudge match between Trump versus Clinton would just be a replay of 2016. Clinton is not capable of getting elected President. And Trump will have a hard time getting re-elected President–unless he runs against Hillary again. That would be the worst of all possible outcomes.
Clinton will not be the nominee in 2020.
No kidding. Everyone knows there is only one candidate who could possibly beat Trump in 2020. Well, maybe two candidates.
swarthmoremom said, “Clinton will not be the nominee in 2020.”
Oh! Thank heavens. I was almost beginning to believe Schulte.
What names are you looking at for the Dems 2020 field, Swarthmoremom?
TBob – I think Warren is going to make a play.
If Rick runs, I’ll consider voting for him. 🙂
Olly – not sure who would want to take Trump on if he wants a 2nd term. The Dims could be a rat race, with all the rats coming out to play. I am sure Biden is warming himself up as we speak.
The best thing happening right now is the Democrats are providing the American voters an inside look at the political sausage-making commonly known as democracy. Unless the Democrats clean this thing up, we’ll have Trump steaks for another 4 years.
What we are seeing is not known as democracy nor does it represent the republic created by the founders. There is too much self-dealing going on with too many permanent residents in Congress. The federal government has grown too big usurping the rights of the people and the states and is bankrupting the nation while the Constitution disintegrates.
My mistake Allan. I should have place the emphasis on the word commonly and not democracy. How’s this for clarity:
The best thing happening right now is the Democrats are providing the American voters an inside look at the political sausage-making commonly misunderstood as democracy.
Olly, that sounds better to my ears. Of course, we both know that we are the Constitutional Republic that votes democratically and not a democracy for democracy is a terrible form of government and was something feared by the founders.
I think one of our friends will criticize me again for this remark.
Paul, if Warren runs I can assure you Progressives / Indies will NOT vote for her. She is an Establishment Dim – the DNC can look forward to another 4 years of the Trumpster.
BTW – OT – I just watched the Chinese opera they put on in Beijing for POTUS. I happen to love that genre, but it’s like green olives – either you love em or you don’t. I think the Donald looked very relieved when it ended. =)
I can assure you Progressives / Indies will NOT vote for her.
Just to be clear, Progressive is not the same as Independent. There are Independents and they span the political spectrum. For clarity purposes, I believe the correct term would be Progressive Independents. The other end of that spectrum would be Conservative Independents.
Autumn – I am a fan of Peking/Beijing Opera. The showmanship is outstanding. However, I agree, it is an acquired taste. 😉
Paul, I was thinking that only Oprah or maybe Michelle O would be able to beat Trump at this point. 🙂
TBob – Oprah has said she is not running. And with that photo out there, would Michele run as a male or female? 😉
Well, 2020 is a long way away. Many surprises to come, I’m sure. Like will the Facebook CEO or the Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban give it a go? Or Oprah could change her mind. 😉
You are absolutely correct on that, but I’m afraid your part just “doesn’t get it,” and it reflects very poorly on the party in general. Just like Natacha. All we hear (those of us who are not Democrats [I’m fiercely independent]), is the need for more instant gratification like flipping the channel or clicking another link to remove this guy from office. Whining. Day in and day out. Seems to be the root problem with you guys, and those of us who have watched your support for that greasiest of monitor lizards hiss and wiggle through the mud time after time are not buying it. Trump may be polling very low, but I assure you unless you change your tune, you will lose again in 2020.
slohrss29, thanks for not picking our candidate for us. We appreciate it.
Got to get past 2018 first. Democratic voters were energized yesterday. Not sure that Trump will run either. Many things can happen before 2020 so I am not predicting anything at this point. A war with Iran and oil at $100 dollars a barrel would be a very negative thing for the Trump administration in my view.
It’s about time to hear some rational discussion out of you lot. That will go a lot further than identity politics. I do think Trump in vulnerable, just not to any element dredged up by the DNC. It’s a shame issues have taken such a backseat. Talk about issues again instead of Russia, and people will start listening.
A war with Iran and oil at $100 dollars a barrel would be a very negative thing for the Trump administration in my view.
Iran accounts for about 3.7% of global oil production. Iran has been quite persistent about putting itself in the cross-hairs.
One can assume that Saudi production would also be affected.
No one cannot.
How about Iraqi production, instead?
The problem of war in the middle east makes important that the US be energy self-sufficient. We can easily be energy self-sufficient even after Obama tried to make us energy dependent upon the people he bowed in front of.
Oil is fungible. It doesn’t matter if we are ‘energy self-sufficient’ bar in wartime. Interruptions in supply are interruptions in supply, and they are manifest in commodity prices.
One might logically conclude that since oil is fungible it wouldn’t matter whether or not we were ‘energy-self-sufficient. However, history tells us otherwise for we have been overly involved militarily in the middle east because of oil.
Gee, mom, that’s nice of you to wish trouble on our country in order to promote your political interests.
swarthmoremom was not wishing for war with Iran. She was warning Trump against war with Iran.
I can understand such a warning since Obama opened up trade with Iran and gave them 150 Billion dollars that they have used to produce bombs to kill Americans and used to promote violent jihad by Hezbollah and Hamas. What a “wonderful” President. Obama redistributed taxpayer money to a rogue regime that wishes to use that money to kill us.
Today we are in a worse position than when Obama took office so yes we have to recognize the damage Obama did.
There is a backlash against Trump Pence going on whether you chose to see it or not.
Only in your circles. People largely don’t care about all this incessant whining. The poll numbers mean nothing. The Democrats will lose again in 2020 if they don’t clean up.
There is a backlash against Trump Pence going on whether you chose to see it or not.
Not seeing the rationality in it does not mean we don’t see it. Think of it more like a parent ignoring the child having a temper tantrum. As Slohrs stated, at some point the Left will need to abandon this tormented quest to get their way and settle into reasonable debate about actual issues facing this country. Stay on this same path and the deplorable adults in the room will continue ignoring you.
Fascinating analogy, Olly. I suspect that swarthmoremom might view Trump as an attention-seeker child trying to exhaust the patience of the responsible, mature adults in our country with endless temper tantrums about Crooked H and Fake News and the greatest witch hunt in human history and everybody’s being so mean to Trump . . . it’s, it’s, it’s soooo unfair. After all, she started it. She never should’ve been allowed to run in the first place. Lock her up. It’s like, you know . . . The Watergate of our times, or something. Why won’t anybody listen to Trump anymore? Boo hoo hoo hoo.
I do think there is a better criminal case against Hillary and her staff than Trump and his staff.
Paul:
Prosecutors are political folks and they loath bringing criminal charges against politicians without a damning tape. It’s always turns nasty and accusations of political motives almost always fly.
mespo – regardless, the better case is against Hillary, et al.
It’s called operant conditioning, Paul. Turley is the Ivan Pavlov of his generation.
Diane – in Hillary’s case it is called ‘crimes against humanity’ and she can be tried anywhere in the world.
Paul, The Clinton Foundation alleviates poverty in many places in the world and few right here at home.
Diane – the Clinton Foundation has not spent enough money to alleviate poverty in a bodega much less a whole country. Ask Haiti, they are still waiting for their Clinton money.
I meet a lot of Haitians. Almost all of those that haven’t been here forever hate the Clintons for what they did in Haiti. Diane is creating a fictitious picture of the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons. She seems to have wonderful memories of Stalin’s Russia.
Almost all of those that haven’t been here forever hate the Clintons for what they did in Haiti.
The Clintons are the least of Haiti’s problems, Allan.
Yes, DSS, but I was talking about the Clinton’s, not Haiti.,
Does anyone not believe that the Russians want to screw with our election process?
Yes, the Russians want to screw with out election process. But we seem to have a homegrown DIY talent for screwing with our election process without any help from the Russians.
I haven’t heard you complaining about touch-screen voting, promiscuous use of postal ballots, all the humbug about voter ID being unfair to blacks, the failure to purge relict entries from voter rolls, the failure to build databases of people convicted of crimes and cross check, the failure to audit rolls looking for ex-cons and aliens, the universal use of first-past-the-post, the perverse use of first-past-the-post in multi-member constituences, the pig’s breakfast the judiciary has made of the redistricting process, the Jacksonian antheap of elected offices, or the hopeless jumble which is the electoral calendar.
Put up or shut up.
Perhaps you missed it the first time around. Get Congress to enact a law that says any income-tax-paying American who is eligible to vote, but not yet registered to vote, forfeits his or her personal deduction on his or her income taxes for every tax-year they are not registered to vote. Any income-tax-paying American who is already registered to vote, but who does not bother to show up at the polls on national election day in a given national election year, forfeits his or her personal income-tax deduction for that tax-year.
Voter eligibility, registration and participation in the States would be electronically linked and reported to the IRS, which, in turn, would send income-tax payers notices in the mail along with their W2 and W4 forms either confirming or denying their eligibility for the personal deduction on their income taxes in the given tax-year. Any irregularities of the sort rocking your raft of complaints could be checked against the IRS records for voter eligibility, registration and participation.
More data is better data. More data analysis is better data analysis. More voter participation is the echt public good More citizens answering their summonses to jury duty ain’t bad, neither.. And, of course, more federal receipts might come in handy some rainy day as well.
Now let’s hear your new raft of complaints.
Diane – does this mean the more places I am registered and the more times I vote, the more deductions I get?
Paul, you’d have to test the hypothesis to find out for sure. But I’m guessing you’d have to pay income taxes exactly as many times as you claimed “personnel” deductions on your (plural) tax filings. It’s something or other about one 1040, one deduction.
“Perhaps you missed it the first time around. Get Congress to enact a law that says any income-tax-paying American who is eligible to vote, but not yet registered to vote, forfeits his or her personal deduction on his or her income taxes for every tax-year they are not registered to vote. Any income-tax-paying American who is already registered to vote, but who does not bother to show up at the polls on national election day in a given national election year, forfeits his or her personal income-tax deduction for that tax-year.”
It seems Diane is a person that doesn’t understand freedom. Freedom is when one has a chance to vote or not to vote. She would have been very happy in Stalin’s Russia. Additionally, she doesn’t understand why the IRS should be apolitical and not influence the actions of individuals. She believes it not to be just a revenue tool, but also a political tool to be used by the party in power. That is why she is so in love with Obama.
Allan said, “It seems Diane is a person that doesn’t understand freedom. Freedom is when one has a chance to vote or not to vote.”
No one would be compelled to vote. If they don’t want to vote, they forfeit their personal deduction on their income tax. If they want to keep their personal deduction on their income tax, they have to get registered to vote and then go vote.
Allan also said, ” Additionally, she doesn’t understand why the IRS should be apolitical and not influence the actions of individuals. She believes it not to be just a revenue tool, but also a political tool to be used by the party in power.”
The IRS would not tell anyone for whom to vote. Neither the IRS nor any political party would be in the voting booth with the voter. The secrecy of the ballot would remain inviolate. There is nothing in the post to which Allan is responding to warrant any of the accusations Allan is flinging.
Allan further said, “She would have been very happy in Stalin’s Russia.”
Allan is a trouper in a menstrual show, just like his dementor Trump, who both refuse to take the tampons out of their ears and put those tampons in their mouths where they belong.
Allan said, “It seems Diane is a person that doesn’t understand freedom. Freedom is when one has a chance to vote or not to vote.”
Diane replied: “No one would be compelled to vote. If they don’t want to vote, they forfeit their personal deduction on their income tax.”
Said like the true Stalinist Diane is. If the taxes don’t work then off to the gulag, starvation or a bullet in the head.
“The IRS would not tell anyone for whom to vote. Neither the IRS nor any political party would be in the voting booth with the voter. ”
Under Obama, those with political beliefs that differed from his were audited by the IRS or denied 501 c 3 status for their non-profits.
I will leave out a response to the insult because the important item in this posting is that Diane looks, thinks and acts like a Stalinist.
Allan said, “I will leave out a response to the insult because the important item in this posting is that Diane looks, thinks and acts like a Stalinist.”
In the first place, Allan, yesterday was “Scream Helplessly At The Sky Day.”
In the second place, I am the ring leader of a geriatric Lesbian motorcycle gang that roars across the countryside on our ruby red hawgs fomenting sexist women’s locker-room talk in the faces of every last Nasty Boy who denies the existence of sexism as the organizing principle behind men’s locker-room talk.
In the third place, there is no indication that Stalinism in the USSR had anything whatsoever to do with income taxes in the United States of America. There is, however, a clear indication that Holy Tax Martyrdom remains an ironic imposture for conservative Republicans to adopt whilst wheedling, conniving and chiselling out tax cuts for themselves and their corporatist uber-menchen.
P. S. Certain schools of thought in Christian theology might characterize the Holy Tax Martyr pose as an instance of black-letter blasphemy. Personally, I would ascribe said imposture to the Neo-Greek myth of the Promethean Narcissyphus. The delicate flower condemned to roll a boulder up a hill whilst geriatric Lesbian motorcycle gangsters peck at his liver.
Diane – Prometheus was punished because he gave the secret of fire to man. And he was no delicate flower, you need to read your Greek mythology again.
BTW, mixing myths is difficult if you don’t understand the background behind them. And don’t think coming out as a lesbian is going to get you any sympathy. Didn’t work for Kevin Spacey, not going to work for you. He actually got written out of a movie he had already shot.
Paul said to Diane – “Prometheus was punished because he gave the secret of fire to man.”
Paul, Allan is being punished for having stolen the secret of locker-room talk from The Olympian Trump, then leaking said sexist secret right here on this blawg.
Diane – according to Allan, you are the one with the locker room problem. Not sure why you are blame shifting.
Locker room talk is all in your domain. You are the one that admits to frequenting the locker rooms of all the sexes
Paul said, “And don’t think coming out as a lesbian is going to get you any sympathy. Didn’t work for Kevin Spacey, not going to work for you.”
When did Spacey come out as a Lesbian?
And why would anyone seek sympathy on this blawg?
” I am the ring leader of a geriatric Lesbian motorcycle gang that roars across the countryside”
Diane, I really don’t don’t care about your sexual escapades or your exhibitionism whether it be fictional or not.
Your ideas regarding voting reflect the ways Stalin thought about controlling the people.
I also don’t care how you view Republicans for I don’t find solace from either party.
Your attempt at sarcasm is seen as your lack of understanding and concern over individual liberty and your disdain for the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Stalinist you are in more than one way (At times Staling could be very personable and engaging even while killing people. He also could be quite funny.)
Allan – according to his daughter, Stalin was a very loving parent. And Hitler loved his dog Blondie.
Allan, Stalinism in the USSR was defined as forced collectivization and forced industrialization by mean of the infamous Five-Year Plans cranked out by the Central Committee. As such, it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the adoption of income taxes here in the US. Nor is my proposed tax-penalty for voter non-participation anything even remotely like forced collectivization, forced industrialization, nor Five Year Plans from a Central Committee. There would be no man-made famines, no mass deportations, no gulag archipelago of forced-labor death-camps, nor any of the other democidal policy-initiatives of Stalin’s vintage.
Your just playing a game of pin the tail on the donkey per usual, Allan.
You really are dense Diane, Stalinism along with what you said was a way of life. Outside of his economic policies was the policy that you do what Stalin (the State) says. If it made his power greater he would use a similar suggestion to yours. After all, Stalin said, “The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.”
“Your just playing a game of pin the tail on the donkey per usual, Allan.”
That is right, Diane, and you are the target.
I cannot see the point of compelling people to register to vote.
I can see the point of the IRS and state tax authorities providing lists of taxpayers and addresses to state boards of elections. A properly formatted database could then be cross checked with extant voter rolls and cards of inquiry sent to those on the rolls who were not on the taxpayer list.
Again, voter registration procedures in New York ca. 1982 were simple: go to post office, fill out form, drop in mail slot. If you’re not bothering to do that, you’re likely not bothering to read the newspapers either. Your vote won’t be missed.
AAWG said, “I cannot see the point of compelling people to register to vote.”
It’s not compulsory. If you don’t want to pay excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, don’t smoke and drink. If you simply must smoke and drink, you have to pay excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol.
Being eligible to vote without being registered to vote or otherwise not voting is a sin the privilege of indulgence in which should be taxed; because voter participation is the utmost public good; and because serving as jurors is a fine public service as well.
P. S. Allan doesn’t want to say why he’s really so upset about this proposal.
Diane – non-voting, even non-registering is voting with your feet. It is protected speech. What part of that do you not get?
Diane – in Arizona they use both the voter rolls and drivers licenses pool to select pools for juries. Does that solve some of your problems?
Paul, if the First Amendment protects apathetic voters, then why doesn’t the First Amendment protect reluctant jurors? If the government can punish citizens who do not answer summonses to jury duty, then why can the government withhold an income-tax deduction from apathetic voters?
Correction: why can’t the government . . .
Diane – if you can prove you have a free speech right to ignore a jury subpoena, then they will leave you alone. However, a subpoena is a subpoena. On the other hand, you are suggesting a punishment for people who do not vote.
In my state, you have the chance to put off jury duty at least once and they will draw your name again. And after a certain point, you age out as well. All politics are local.
Paul said to Diane – “if you can prove you have a free speech right to ignore a jury subpoena, then they will leave you alone.”
Paul, has anyone ever tried the First Amendment excuse from jury duty? If so, then how ever in the world did they do it? On the grounds of free exercise of religion? Only God can return a verdict? Maybe they tried the expressive speech and expressive conduct excuse. No government can compel anyone to speak the truth. I’m not seeing it, Paul.
Diane, I think if you read the Constitution you might find one of the answers. The answer is there.
Paul, Diane is too interested in her locker room fantasies and riding motorcycles with gangs of lesbians to actually think.
It’s not compulsory.
You’re placing effective penalties on people who abstain. You can tell me that obeying traffic ordinances isn’t ‘compulsory’. I’ll just get fined if Smoky tags me.
It’s a really stupid idea to be trying to prime voting. When I was active in local politics 30 years ago, the descriptive statistics pollsters and market researchers were ginning up gave you these gems:
1. 50% of the public received their news from television and television alone. A 22 minute evening news broadcast at that time would, if translated into text, have about filled one broadsheet page.
2. 30% made use of newspapers as their primary source; 6% made use of magazines. About 6% made use of radio, NOS (not much good at that time unless it was NPR, all-news stations, or shortwave services).
3. 24% when asked affirmed to pollsters that they followed public affairs.
4. Posed the conventional name-recognition questions, 34% of those polled in 1986 recognized the name of the Secretary of State (George Schultz, who had been in office for 4 years) and 12% recognized the name of the most broadly syndicated opinion columnist (George Will, who had had broadcasting gigs since 1976 and had been on ABC News weekly since 1981).
—
You have as we speak in general elections a core electorate and a peripheral electorate which only shows up during presidential contests. The core electorate has for 40 years been about 37% of the eligible adult population. That’s probably a larger share than those who actually devote any thought to public affairs. That’s a minority taste and that’s find. People have other things to do with their time and attention. Attempting to induce voting would be padding the electorate with deadweight.
AAWG said, “You’re placing effective penalties on people who abstain. You can tell me that obeying traffic ordinances isn’t ‘compulsory’. I’ll just get fined if Smoky tags me.”
Indeed, I would put tax penalties on voters who abstain from voting. You can tell me that the IRS doesn’t compel people to earn income from employment or investment. They’ll just be taxed if their employer or their banker/broker reports their income to the IRS. Otherwise they’ll just be destitute.
Likewise, no State compels any person to own and drive a motor vehicle. But if a person rides a horse under the influence of alcohol in the State of Florida, they’ll be arrested and charged with DUI. Otherwise they’ll just have to walk to and from the nearest bus stop or train station, or call a cab or hitch a ride, etc.
The argument from negative rights remains just that–abnegation. Taxpayers have more at stake than paupers who are free and cannot be compelled to forfeit their personal deduction on their income taxes, since they have no income. Besides, how many States make paupers eligible to vote?
If a person is eligible to vote, and if that person earns taxable income, and if that taxpayer insists upon abnegating his or her right to vote, then my proposal would put a tax penalty on that person. Convicted criminals would be exempt from that tax penalty, if they are ineligible to vote. A government that taxes citizens who have the right to vote, is a government that should penalize taxpayer who abstain from voting. Abnegation remains the word for nothing left to lose.
A government that taxes citizens who have the right to vote, is a government that should penalize taxpayer who abstain from voting.
Non sequitur.
Voter participation is the utmost public good.
Achieving the utmost public good is one of the purposes of government.
Ergo, maximizing voter participation is one of the purposes of government.
“Voter participation is the utmost public good.”
We have people that know near nothing and then there are people like Diane. She is an example of the argument that universal voter participation is a bad idea.
AAWG said, “You have as we speak in general elections a core electorate and a peripheral electorate which only shows up during presidential contests. The core electorate has for 40 years been about 37% of the eligible adult population. That’s probably a larger share than those who actually devote any thought to public affairs. That’s a minority taste and that’s fine. People have other things to do with their time and attention. Attempting to induce voting would be padding the electorate with deadweight.”
Well . . . at least you’re not proposing civics-literacy tests for voters to disqualify the surplus share of the core electorate who do supposedly not devote much thought to public affairs.
Meanwhile, adding to the electorate people who have no time to pay any attention to public affairs would induce the government and the major political parties to take the time to pay more attention to the ersatz “deadweight” that the government and the political parties currently write off as being unworthy of any concern of theirs beyond their need for tax payers.
“P. S. Allan doesn’t want to say why he’s really so upset about this proposal.”
Diane, there are many reasons why your proposal is stupid and DSS provided at least one reason. I already provided an answer.
You open your mouth all the time and permit bugs to fly in. If you actually restrained yourself and shut up for a few seconds maybe you would have time to read the responses and you wouldn’t have to ask again.
“It seems Diane is a person that doesn’t understand freedom. Freedom is when one has a chance to vote or not to vote. She would have been very happy in Stalin’s Russia. Additionally, she doesn’t understand why the IRS should be apolitical and not influence the actions of individuals. She believes it not to be just a revenue tool, but also a political tool to be used by the party in power. That is why she is so in love with Obama.”
Allan said to L4D, “If you actually restrained yourself and shut up for a few seconds maybe you would have time to read the responses and you wouldn’t have to ask again.”
Allan remains utterly incapable of heeding the advice he gives to other people. His self-estrangement has most likely become a permanent condition for Allan.
Diane, your mouth is full of bugs from being open all the time. One has to keep their distance from you in order to stay healthy.
It’s time for a music tune “They’re Hanging Me Tonight”
When I hear the rain a comin’ down it makes me sad and blue
Was on a rainy night like this that Flo said we were through.
I told her how I loved her, and I begged her not to go
But another man had changed her mind so I said goodbye to Flo.
I took my pistol from my hip and with a trembling hand
I took the life of pretty Flo and that good for nothin’ man
That good for nothin’ man!
I think about the thing I’ve done I know it wasn’t right
They’ll bury Flo tomorrow, but they’re hanging me tonight,
They’re hanging me tonight.
love marty robbins
good post
If anything illegal occurred by Clinton or her team then lock her/them all up.
Great. Now that that’s out of the way, can we get back to the person (barf) who actually wields real power? Thanks.
I have the best memory. I don’t recall.
Dave137, it’s a tempting offer. If Clinton goes to jail before 2020, then Trump won’t get to run against her in 2020. If Turley is correct that Hillary was, and would be again, the only candidate who could lose to Trump, then locking her up might solve the problem for everyone except Trump. Very tempting.
I would think that would be a HUGE plus for Democratic party? What’s wrong with that? Stash that lizard in the zoo and get a fresh start? What is wrong with you people? Tulsi Gabbard can be the star, and she already has respect because she washed her hands of your rotten-to-the-core DNC. That would get some major attention. Put the past behind you (or in prison where it belongs) and start again with a strong figure. I know she likes to do things based on her moral convictions, but over time you can learn that too.
slohrss29, I hereby rescind my upstream thanks to you for not picking our candidate for us.
P. S. Try Klobuchar on for size. (It is early; isn’t it?)
I understand. Personally, I feel the country is needs strong opposition, and Democratic party just ain’t it. I’ll keep an eye out for this guy. We will see where the party goes in a year. If you haven’t cleaned house and have a real message, 2020 is already lost.
slohrss29 said, “I’ll keep an eye out for this guy.”
Not a guy. A gal. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. She has roots in the Democratic Farm Labor Party in Minnesota. However, she’s a far cry from Tulsi Gabbard despite her roots. It’s still early.
Amy with her Iron Range roots will play very well in the midwest. Whether she can catch on on the coasts remains to be seen. She is a brilliant woman. Tulsi could be very popular on the west coast. Doubt she runs if Bernie makes another run at it.
She graduated from the same suburban high school that Mayor Hodges did. She went to Yale (as opposed to Bryn Mawr for Mayor Hodges). Mayor Hodges father is a cardiologist of some reputation, btw.
The Klobuchar family has roots on the Iron Range.
This is good. Get fired up for a cause instead of dwelling on what might have been. Plus, a positive message will continue to grow and people will listen to you. Don’t be the victim party anymore. Can you actually do these things? Issues were brought up above, can’t remember when issues were seriously discussed. Turn the page.
So what? Mine has roots in East Tennessee. It’d be pretty silly to attempt to pass myself off as Mr. Bluegrass were I to run for office (especially since I know none of my 2d cousins personally and have set foot in East Tennessee precisely once). (Mayor Hodges’ family has ‘roots’ in Arkansas and West Virginia, but she finds it advisable in her marketing to pretend she sprung from Minnesota soil, even though she and her brothers were born elsewhere. We all have our guises and poses).
Klobuchar has some sort of connection to Walter Fritz Mondale as well. I can’t remember the details. But a blast from the past might be a helpful reminder to the American people about what they, or their ancestors, did to a candidate who dared to speak the unpleasant truth about taxes that they did not want to hear, but then had their taxes raised by the candidate who lied to them so that he could tell them only what they wanted to hear. Or not.
That fact helped Klobuchar win the state of Minnesota by large margins. People who live up there pay attention.to those things. Believe me I know.
A grand total of 6% of Minnesota’s population lives in the Iron Range and they vote Democratic anyway. Most of the population of the Iron Range lives in St. Louis County. Her enhanced plurality in St. Louis County in 2006 accounted for 9% of her margin statewide. Not that important.
I think maybe Klobuchar’s father worked in the Iron Range. I don’t remember what his exact job was. In any case, Klobuchar’s strong suit is health care. And if you get Gabbard on the ticket they’d make a strong case for health-care reform.
Gabbard’s reform is to take a system that for 50 years has had to be propped up and continuously changed and provide it to the entire nation before fixing its innate problems. She doesn’t worry about the costs because she can always tax the rich so that makes some happy, but what they forget is she also increases payroll taxes and other taxes that tax everyone. For what? A system that every year provides less care for more money. That is the formula for failure after the working population faces higher and higher taxes along with less access and lower quality.
Try going to an Internist in many areas today and we can see the results of government care. The Internist treats a code number, not a patient and he frequently doesn’t even look the patient in the eye while he enters mountains of data that do not pertain to the care of the individual patient. We have seen what government control has done with our healthcare system virtually every time government adds major rules. Prices go up and if one looks carefully one can empirically see why the numbers should go up from such intervention rather than down.
The alternative is not people dying in the streets. It is the sensible use of money where government steps away from the providers and towards the patients.
Just what we need. Another lawyer.
I guess things are looking up. Unlike Bilge, she actually practiced law. Unlike HRC, no one has yet made the case that her law practice was crooked. Unlike John Kerry, she made her living this way. Unlike BO, she actually worked at it for more than four years and achieved some professional milestones. Unlike HRC, Kerry, or BO, she’s had a 3-digit population of people working under her. Of course, you all keep telling me that a man who ran a company with $9.5 billion in annual revenue and 22,000 employees is a ‘moron’, so I’m not inclined to be generous on this last point.
We’ll take the compliment to Klobuchar in whatever spirit you’d like us to take it. It is early, you know.
There will be no shortage of candidates.
Dust off Barney the purple dinosaur, he would fair better than Clinton at this point.
She will not run.
Barney the purple dinosaur? If anyone but Hillary is your main point, then I agree. You like Gabbard, we’ll take her. I like Klobuchar, let’s see which one gets the presidential nomination and make the other one VP pick. Either Klobuchar-Gabbard or Gabbard-Klobuchar.
Personally speaking, my politics is radically different from what we usually see on this blog. But, as a big start, I have respect for Gabbard–she has demonstrated she’s her own person (for the most part–except for one major voting issue I think needs clarification, but that is a discussion for another time). Even though the Democrats have made a living over divisive rhetoric as of late, it is important to note that a big part of gen-xers forward still have a penchant for “rugged individualism.” I offer no commentary on the nature of this, other than it is there. It is a fundamental point for the garnering of respect, and she brings that as far as I can see. However, I do not know if her command can help bring the young, pre-grievanced generation of voters in line. Her appeal would also be large for the sub demo who’s critical districts brought the election to Trump.
When the Trump independents find out how pro immigration, anti NRA and pro single payer she is they might change their minds. Just sayin. 🙂
The other thing the democrats are missing is how vulnerable the house is right now. They should be exploiting the quiet civil war in the party. Most of them are hiding, waiting for the storm to pass. Put them on the spot to pick a position instead of making it easy for them by continuing with “…. but… Russia!!!” Cripes you people. And make sure Natacha doesn’t have any democrat garb on while she is out throwing rocks at cars.
She’s 36 years old. Her entire employment history (bar two years in the Army National Guard when she was activated and sent abroad) has been in political office and political staff jobs. She earned a business degree (at age 28) which she has never made use of. I’ll give her props for her deployment in 2005, and for a certain independence of mind you seldom see among liberals nowadays.
She’s divorced, childless, and is given to religious affectation (as was, apparently, her father).
Hinduism is a religious affectation??? Because Tulsi is American Samoan??? Maybe it was her opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act on religious grounds that you deem an affectation. The last thing this blawg needs is courting trouble with Hindu Nationalists. Yikes. Or American Samoans, for that matter.
P. S. The Minnesot-Hawaii axis. Or The Hawaii-Minnesota axis, if you prefer. You probably want Bob Casey; don’t you, AAWG?
Off the exact topic but Senator Jeff Flake writes a fine letter, called an op-ed, in today’s TNYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/opinion/jeff-flake-speech-letters-democracy.html
Thank you, Anon.
Da people showed us that last night. Citizens joined da trans to stop da T rumpism.
Ken – two Democratic states voted Democratic. Big deal.
Da big deal was when da trans lady beat da homophobe T rumper. Booyah
Ken – each state got what it deserved. 😉 Now, when are you going to grow up and use standard English? You are at the really annoying point right now. P**sed off comes next. As a former English teacher, I have this urge to find one of my “red pens of death” and correct your work.
Ken, isn’t Booyah the way they cheer in the military?
VIrginia’s a purple state and the Republicans have held the legislature in recent years.
Maybe Flake can build a career doing something other than (1) sitting in elected office or (2) lobbying or (3) producing position papers for people sitting in elective office. Not holding my breath.
He’s retiring because survey research indicates that not only will he lose the upcoming Republican primary election in Arizona, but that he might not break 40% of the vote in going down. That level of disgust on the part of your own partisans is exceedingly rare and you would be hard put to find an example in the last 40 years of that happening to a federal politician not under indictment.
Jeff Flake got from here to there because a critical mass of Arizona Republicans came to the realization that for unfathomable reasons, his priorities placed the welfare of illegal aliens ahead of their own welfare. He’s been quite persistent in this disposition, maintaining in the face of caucus discipline (John Boehner having arranged years ago to have him removed from the House Judiciary Committee because his chronic amnesty push was such an irritant), in the face of serial embarrassments (the failure of W’s 2006 amnesty push and the Gang of Eight debacle), in the face of the trouble such a disposition was causing other elected officials (Marco Rubio and John McCain to name two). He’s maintained it in the face of Trump prospering on a platform of immigration enforcement.
There are lots of issues people do not have much of an investment in, and ‘people’ includes elected officials. You don’t have to be a weathervane / careerist to make concessions on those issues because they’re just not that important to you. Jeff Flake has been willing to fall on his sword pursuing the cause of … not enforcing immigration laws. That’s exceedingly puzzling to anyone not named ‘Jeff Flake’, and gives people the idea that his judgment is pretty questionable across the board.
I don’t see any statesmanship in Jeff Flake’s letter. It was full of generalizations but devoid of specific content and when it came close to being specific in this case referring to what the President would do Flake said “he would hijack the American justice system” he used language that changed the context of what the President said. The President discussed potential illegalities and payments and demonstrated his frustration but in the end, said something quite different than what Jeff Flake accused him of saying. No, the President didn’t say anything about hijacking the American justice system instead he said “as a president you’re not supposed to be involved in that process.”
The lack of honesty in discussion is amazing.
The lack of honesty in discussion is amazing.
Allan,
It stopped being amazing once I realized I’m not communicating with people that are open and honest in their worldview. That’s not to say they don’t believe they are right, the challenge for them is trying to argue their position within our constitutional framework and consistent with the principles found in the DoI. If they were honest, they would come out and admit what they want is not supported by our current system. If they would provide the evidence of what they want has worked elsewhere AND how it would better secure equally our natural rights. then that would be an honest discussion.
So far, the only way they have tried to argue their position is through deception, whether wittingly or unwittingly. They hold a worldview that is neither consistent with our existing structure and most importantly, inconsistent with the principles articulated in the DoI.
So amazing? No. Expected? Absolutely!
Olly, I recognize that there are many where the expectation of dishonesty should be the rule. I used that phrase as an alert for those with a trace of honesty left in them.
I used to be on a chat list discussing specific policy that I had direct knowledge of. I got into frequent arguments with professors that taught the subject. Bad enough they didn’t know much about the studies they were teaching to their students, but worse was when their own words were quoted back to them that directly conflicted with their present argument they were totally non plused. That is what teaches or taught our children.
Jeff Flake used the words hijacked and immediately the boneheads will link onto that word instead of what was actually said. That is how our children are being trained.
Allan,
I understand your point. I see this as evidence of Confirmation Bias. When I first began participating in online discussion groups about 10 years ago, I rejected everything that didn’t support what I believed. I used ad hominems in place of evidence-based reasoning. I got lit up. People kept asking me for my sources and what I did provide were quickly proven to be unreliable or flat out false. I got tired of being embarrassed, so instead of leaving these groups, I started to ask for their sources. I read, and read and read. Then I asked questions, counter-argued, and then one day one of the most respected contributors in one blog complimented me on a post I made. He hadn’t considered my point of view and thanked me. I never turned back.
What I see here and other sites is the same stubbornness to accept facts that contradict their assumptions. I would think after awhile they would consider the possibility they are wrong. I do, and I will openly admit it. I will thank people for helping me to learn. These people seem to be wired differently. They know what they know and NOTHING moves them to change. We often talk about critical-thinking being absent among these folks. It’s not only absent, these people function like a cult. On the level of the Church of Scientology.
Olly, you are absolutely correct. I fully understand differences of opinion on policy and there should be such differences because no one should always be 100% sure of a singular position. Maybe 99% sure, but that 1% gets in the way of being absolutely sure and saying something like ‘the science is settled’. Any policy decision is subject to unintended consequences which change all the dynamics. We should all be looking at and discussing that 1% along with the 99%, but too many here aren’t interested in an intellectual search for the truth. They are mindlessly rooting for a ball team because it is in their city and while doing so close their minds to all active discussion.
Man, you guys like your whiners.
Hillary Clinton was investigated by 7 congressional committees during Obama’s second term. She was also investigated by the FBI which James Comey reported on. To say we need to investigate Hillary Clinton all over again strains credibility. Especially since she holds no office now and is more than likely retired for good. One can presume these investigation calls are from disgruntled Republicans who fear Donald Trump is going the way of Nixon. And if, God forbid that happens, it could affect the passage of tax giveaways to the rich.
Hillary is like John McCain, she won’t retire until she is dead. They are planting Clinton bots in the DNC again, One would think that after 2015-16, that is the last thing they would want to do, but they are. Clintonites will run the party. I think they are setting it up for Hillary to run again in 2020. She thinks she is Nixon if she runs enough times, eventually, she will win.
Hills holds no
Job and let’s keep
It that way.
Hillary Clinton was investigated by 7 congressional committees during Obama’s second term. She was also investigated by the FBI which James Comey reported on. To say we need to investigate Hillary Clinton all over again strains credibility.
If fantasy helps you feel better, go with that. Can you quit pestering the adult population?
“She was also investigated by the FBI which James Comey reported on.”
Maybe they can share a cell soon and talk about where it all went south.
One can presume af postzoon all they want. The rule is called Statue of Limitations. Strike One x multiple offenses
One can assume as a school trained attorney she should have known betttter number Fourer to not consult her own attorneys on the lack of moral and legal leadership required of a cabinet Secretary. Number one question? What are the chances the staff members of State, her campaign, the DNC, her foundation will take the fall when confronted with why they didn’t pursue the matter. Surely the numbers must be in the hundreds who took the fifth hoping she would win. Highly more than doubtful at least a handfull did not keep a set of Cover Your Ass Documents at her refusals especially where felonies were concerned. Strike Two.
Any good lawyer should know all the elements of a criminal act. In the case of National Security ‘intent’ is not an element only the ‘act’ is considered. Strike Three.
Three of how many?
How about one, just one of President Trumps acts. Taking an available, legal tax deduction? Same one NYT used and same one Bubba Clinton used. Put into law by his Congress signed into law with his signature. Pointing fingers and trying to compare Bimbo Brigade and locker room talk with how many victimos of bubba then further victimized by Hillary is a Nuremberg Plea after publicly admitting and then publicly demonstrating guilt with a plea for clemency.
but the top three along with taking money for selling nuclear technology and raw materials is a much better Number four
Number Five Being supported by Socialist Extremists and their right wing of the left the RINOs only means she has lost support but is that enough? No. Those punishments are not included in the post judice phase as legal punishments.
She trusted Comey who set her up with a phony no intent deal? How Stupid is she…and her followers. They aren’t apparently. She is.
The worst excuse is collusion. Which means nothing but is being used as if it was conspiracy. Break the word down. With Piracy
Thanks, JT – excellent article –
Ditto with a laser printer.