Federal Judge Throws Out Emoluments Complaint Against President Trump

CREW_logo_400px_wide160px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_Trump_(cropped)With much fanfare months ago, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit alleging that President Donald Trump had violated the emoluments clause. The constitutional challenge was billed as meant “to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments.”  I previously stated that the lawsuit was unlikely to succeed.

CREW is represented in the case by CREW’s board chair and vice-chair Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, the top ethics lawyers for the last two presidents, Constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky, Laurence H. Tribe and Zephyr Teachout, and Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler PLLC.

Eisen spoke on behalf of the team in declaring “of course an organization is injured when it has to respond to a flagrant violation of the law.” That is not how the court saw it in dismissing the entire action without a trial.

New York Judge George Daniels in the Southern District of New York found a “lack of standing” and that such controversies should be directed to the political process.  The court specifically rejected the notion that other restaurants and businesses suffered a cognizable legal injury from the alleged emoluments violation in properties like the Trump hotels.

There are similar lawsuits brought in Washington and Maryland against Trump.

 

Here is the decision: Emoluments decision

282 thoughts on “Federal Judge Throws Out Emoluments Complaint Against President Trump”

  1. Well it appears The Court is getting tired of stupidity but to add to and expand here’s the results of the immigration suit before SCOTUS So far

    In Re United States

    Docket: 17-801

    Opinion Date: December 20, 2017

    Judge: Per Curiam

    Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

    The Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced steps to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by March 2018, concluding that DACA violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause.

    The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of challengers. The government then moved to stay the district court order requiring completion of the administrative record until after resolution of motions to dismiss and for a preliminary injunction.

    The court stayed its order for one month.

    The government petitioned the Supreme Court, which vacated.

    The district court’s order required the government to turn over all “emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials … actually seen or considered, however briefly, by Acting Secretary … in connection with the … decision … all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided … written advice or input … all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided … verbal input … all comments and questions propounded … to advisors or subordinates … and their responses, and … all materials directly or indirectly considered by former Secretary of DHS John Kelly leading to his February 2017 memorandum not to rescind DACA. The court should have first resolved the government’s threshold arguments that the decision was unreviewable as “committed to agency discretion,” 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the court of jurisdiction.

    The court may not compel the government to disclose any document that the government believes is privileged without first providing an opportunity to argue the issue. The Court did not consider the merits of the claims or defenses.

    On a non related issue Warren is at it again promoting her new Native American Indian Recipe whichlooked like a taco or something so I traced it Turns out the tortilla and taco sate to 1500s or before, the Mexican version is nothing like the US version , The Cherokee version is pretty much standard indian fry bread which the Cherokees had but so did the rest of North American Indians North of the Rio Grande, BUT

    BUT her recipe is a flat omelette with crab meat and so forth topping. which begs the quesation… Crab Meat in Oklahoma?

    So if you couldn’t get it on TV here’s the utoob version

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIqfLkmdd8w

    You’ll get a kick when the test Chef stopped just short of claiming cultural assimilation of French …… well you watch it.

    It isn’t a taco, it isn’t a tortilla and it isn’t fry bread.

    apparently a tlaco in Nahuatl language and here’s a source for more of that including avacado

    Did the taco come from the cigarette, or the cigarette from … – Mexicolore
    http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/…/did-the-taco-come-from-the-cigarette-or-the-cigarett...

    This folding of the taco in half may explain the origin of the word, “taco.” If “taco” did not originate in sixteenth-century Spanish, there is a Nahuatl word (Classical Nahuatl is the language that was spoken by the Aztecs, among other peoples) “tlaco,” which means half. That tlaco could evolve into taco, dropping the “l,” is …

    Now you can get over your disappointment on whatever it was started this …nary
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emolument

    Etymology[edit]. Borrowed from Old French emolument, from Latin emolumentum. Pronunciation[edit]. IPA: /ɪˈmɒljəmənt/. Noun[edit]. emolument (plural emoluments). Payment for an office or employment; compensation for a job, which is usually monetary. quotations ▽. 1787, Philadelphia Convention, United States …

    Whatever the complainant lost.

    I’m going to go fix a descendent of fry bread. we just called it corn bread and it’s world wide.

    Try again lizzie..

    Crab meat in Oklahoma?

    Really…..

    Lizzie Warren took an axe
    Gave oher omelette 40 whacks
    when she saw what she had done
    gave her voters fourty one.

    Shut the doors and close all the latches
    Here comes Lizzie with some brand new batches

      1. The tribe that Poke A Haunt Us claimed to belong to which repudiated and refused same in tribal council. stating even if the possibility of a 1/32nd were true it was too little to be considered. Apparently there was a DNA test but Warren is refusing to release the results. Sorry you can’t keep up. The 100% refers to the amount of approval required by the 13 former colonies now Nation States under the Articles of Confederation to accept the new Constitution. It was seven I believe to start setting it up but 13 to accept it fully. Objections from some of the Nation States led to the First Ten Amendments which all approved. that took some years after the original signing in 1787.The next most important batch were the 13th to 15th and the beginning of the Progressivist Revolution were the 16th and 17th. I would have thought just the 100% would have been sufficient in my day and age we learned it in high school….in detail.

        In any case the receipe was neither taco nor tortilla from the Aztec Nation and Nahuatll language tlaco nor the more northern fry bread which the Cherokee Nation did use but turned out to be a standard flat omelete with crab meat and other ingredients but she could have been referring to Klamath Indians or Iroquois Nation or Seminole although the overly polite professional chef referred to iti as European probably French and hinted at cujltural assimilation.

        It’s a two way street and you can’t have it both ways sooooo…. Warren is caught in the middle …. of her own making.

        See Pow Wow Chow cook book it has some great recipes so much ordered a copy.

        She was at least useful for advertising that volume which is a first. for poke a haunt us.

        P.S. No crab meat not even crayfish in Oklahoma or the Alleghenies….

    1. Oh for God’s sake, will that woman stop pretending to be a Native American? It’s excruciating to watch her keep at it. Maybe she should see a doctor. Come on! An open faced crab meat omelette for a Cherokee? They ate the Three Sisters, fish, turtles, and even dog. But crab? And omelettes? They didn’t historically live in Oklahoma until the Trail of Tears, if I recall correctly. They are supposed to have lived near the Great Lakes before moving to the Southeast. As I’ve mentioned before, tribes battled each other over territory, enslaved each other, and some moved around significantly. Human nature being universal…

      It was reprehensible for a blond woman to fake heritage in order to take advantage of Affirmative Action. I can understand a teenager checking the box, if there was some made up family story about it. But as an adult, she should have known better. She should have been aware that such declarations are used to give preferential treatment to minorities, who have a history of being discriminated against. As a blond haired, blue eyed Caucasian woman, she did not suffer discrimination.

      This is a form of stolen victimhood.

      1. History of plagiarism:

        5/18/12
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146628/Elizabeth-Warrens-Pow-Wow-Chow-Cherokee-recipes-word-word-COPIES-famous-FRENCH-chefs-techniques.html

        “Radio talk show host Howie Carr released damning evidence that appears to confirm that Mrs Warren’s weren’t handed down from generation to generation, they were picked up in the newspaper.”

        “The 1984 cookbook Pow Wow Chow was edited by Mrs Warren’s cousin Candy Rowsey and is billed as a collection of recipes from the Five Civilized Tribes.”
        But it appears that at least three of the five recipes featured in the book were fakes, according to an investigation by Mr Carr.”

        “The two recipes for Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing and Cold Omelets with Crab Meat appear to be word for word copies of a French chef’s design.”

        ‘Great accompaniment to plain meat and potatoes meal!’ both Mrs Warren and the Better Homes author say.”

        1. To add further insult to injury is the allegation that the ancestor she claimed was Cherokee was listed as white on the census, and her husband rounded up Cherokee for the Trail of Tears, and later fought the Seminoles. Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and perhaps one of her ancestors was, too.

          She claimed to be the first breastfeeding mother to take the bar, which is ridiculous. Women took the bar long before her, and no one gave an exit poll as to whether they were breastfeeding. Harvard Law school listed her as its first woman of color, at a time when it was under intense pressure to gain diversity. She fabricated her papers on medical bills being a leading cause of bankruptcy by claiming that any bill was causal.

          https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/

          Does this persistent tendency to choose odd metrics that inflate the case for some left wing cause matter? If Warren worked at a think tank, you’d say, “Ah, well, that’s the genre.” On the other hand, you’d also tend to regard her stuff with a rather beady eye. It’s unlikely to have been splashed across the headline of every newspaper in the United States. Her work gets so much attention because it comes from a Harvard professor. And this isn’t Harvard caliber material–not even Harvard undergraduate.

          But it also matters because a large part of Warren’s prominence comes from the fact that she’s an academic. If she came from . . . well, the sort of think tank that publishes this sort of advocacy science . . . she would have considerably less glamor, and power.

          And perhaps it mattes most of all because this woman is now under consideration to head a powerful new agency. If this is how she evaluates data, then isn’t that going to hamper her in making good policy? If we’re going to have a consumer financial protection agency, I want one that has a keen eye to the empirical evidence on consumer welfare–not one that makes progressives most happy by reinforcing their prior beliefs.

          This woman is a demonstrable fraud.

        1. It worked, and she keeps at it.

          I always thought Trump was calling her “Fauxcahantas”, which I rather liked. It’s catchy. I do not think it’s derogatory to any tribes, but rather calls attention to her fraud, like Rachel Dolezal.

          Oh, and Rachel Dolezal has not taken to calling herself “trans-black”. She claims that race, like gender, is fluid. The transgender community is outraged, in a remarkable show of irony. In an interview, she used exactly the same language as those suffering from the mental illness gender dysphoria, ““I feel that I was born with the essential essence of who I am, whether it matches my anatomy and complexion or not,” Dolezal said. “I’ve never questioned being a girl or a woman, for example, but whiteness has always felt foreign to me, for as long as I can remember. I didn’t choose to feel this way or be this way, I just am.

          “What other choice is there than to be exactly who we are?”

          So the question remains, when someone persistently does not feel comfortable with reality, should the entire world be forced to participate in whatever the patient decides to be, lest the patient feel upset? Wouldn’t that reasoning apply to everything from gender, race, ethnicity, amputees, and any other descriptor possible?

          1. Sorry, neglected to add “military honors.”

            Wouldn’t someone engaging in stolen valor simply be trans-military? They just feel they have done heroic deeds and their true life seems foreign.

  2. For what it’s worth, I think Richard Painter is almost deranged in his attacks on Trump, while I think Trump probably is in violation of the Emoluments Clause (as have been several before him). I think any penalty would be so inconsequential as to hardly be worth the effort. A serious law should have serious teeth which this does not. Every time I see Painter on TV I tune him out.

    1. I agree with your points about Painter. I also believe that Trump routinely violates the Emoluments Clause. The problem is that that there has been virtually no jurisprudence developed under that provision, probably because most presidents have had enough integrity to scrupulously avoid using the office to enrich themselves and their families.

      1. Do you have any specifics to cite. He doen’t take the pay check. but did previous to running for office use the Cllinton Deduction for the 18 year deal, after it was used by clinton and NY Times and did use some bankruptcy law put into use by the Democrat Party of New York but was there anything specific you arent telling us about.

        The other interpretation is not the old Obama crap about ‘supreme court hasn’t visited it yet so it’s ok to do it’ but it’s not approved under the 9th and 10th Amendments so it’s a power not granted which Obama conveniently and on purpose failed to honor. in his rush to become an Imperial Presidency dictator/

        Far from a problem it states exactly what it means and has never been questioned. unless you want to apply it to salaries and incomes… Try reading the definition sometime first then commenting second.including the etymology and actually reading and following Constitutional law.

        As for these ethical Presidents…. who? Wilson? FDR, LBJ, Clinton Try again but first some due diligence.

  3. Given the extraordinary level of legal expertise with which the plaintiff’s attorneys are imbued, it’s hard to imagine they weren’t familiar with the legal authorities and precedents cited by the judge and didn’t expect this outcome. So I’d assume this was intended from the outset as a frivolous lawsuit, and I hope the judge slaps them with the harshest available sanctions.

    1. The phrase “frivolous lawsuit” is a term of legal art and has a meaning other than what most laypersons think it has. A suit is legally “frivolous” when it is substantially devoid of facts or legal issues which would merit the expenditure of judicial labor. In this instance, there was no judicial determination of the merits of the complaint because the court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims. Legal standing requires satisfaction of several elements, and each element has been the subject of extensive litigation over the years. Furthermore, the law is not static. The precedents’ graveyard has unlimited room for more crypts. I see no justification for the imposition of sanctions in this instance should they be sought.

      1. Mike Appleton – given the supposed legal gravitas of the plaintiffs in this suit, one would think they would know if they had standing. It is lawsuit 101. It is the first thing the opponents look for.

        1. Paul, there is a lot of case law on standing, and not all of it is consistent. Of course standing is a preliminary issue, but reasonable people can and do disagree on whether standing exists in a particular case. Remember that poor Dred Scott lost on standing. Powerful governments will always seek to restrict the ability of the courts to challenge their actions; zealous advocates will always seek to keep the doors to the court open. Judges will hone doctrine to strike a balance. That is how the law develops, after all.

          1. Mike Appleton – poor Dred Scott lost because Chief Justice Taney was a slaveholder, not to put too fine a point on it. 😉 There was no way he was going to win that case while Taney was Chief Justice.

    1. Which raises the question of whether this action was designed and intended as a frivolous nuisance suit for which the plaintiff’s attorneys should be sanctioned by the court.

      1. Very smart lawyers lose cases every day. See my comment above. Under your apparent interpretation of “frivolous lawsuit,” the losing side in a court case would always be exposed to a potential sanctions motion.

      2. At least the attorney fees which are always substantial Court Costs would be up to the Court. They seemed to have settled that by not including it in their rejection of the frivolous law suit though a continuation of such could and should bring sanctions for interfering with the business of the nation.

  4. The GDP is finally above 3% for the first time since before Obama took office. Homeownership is up. Black unemployment is way down, Latino unemployment down. I take that with a grain of salt, as people can give up on joining the work force. But food stamps are way down, too. The stock market is breaking records. The economy is booming…

    And yet, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is working hard to take that away, at any cost. This is the barometer of how much they care about minorities. The economic outlook is looking the best it’s been in many years for minorities, but Dems want to destroy that. I thought they promised prosperity? So why are they fighting prosperity so hard?

    I understand rightfully criticizing the President on Tweets, or when he gets it wrong. But this is more than that. This is a determination to destroy his Presidency at all costs, in spite of the media rather sullenly admitting that the economy has vastly improved, and that it is a response to his policies. I have some issues with Trump, but I freely admit that the economy responded quite favorably to his policy choices. You do not hurt people because of politics. And getting in the way of what’s finally helped the financial outlook of everyone from the poor to the wealthy is morally wrong.

    I suffered greatly under Obamacare, while I had it. The Democratic Party cares nothing about that. All attempts to bring relief to those harmed have been met with a stone wall. I find that inhumane and irresponsible. They should have started with improving healthcare for the poor, and left everything else alone. One thing at a time.

      1. Annual GDP never met or exceeded 3% under Obama. There were extremely brief spikes in GDP under Obama which were almost immediately blown away for the annual GDP to always be around 1 or 1.5%.

        Trump has experienced GDP at this level long enough in his first year that his annual GDP far and away outperforms any output under Obama.

        As hard as it may be to admit for anyone who truly dislikes Trump, the economy is booming, doing much better under than it did under Obama, and critically, it has positively responded to Trump’s policies.

        So when anyone tries to drive Trump out of office because they do not like him as a person, there are millions of people who would be negatively impacted.

        That GDP and employment growth translates into real people. Hurt the economy, and you hurt real people. There are those willing to sacrifice any number of strangers to further a political agenda, see Obamacare, but it would be kinder to remember that these are living human beings.

        1. T rump had quarters over 3 percent as Obama. Da fed does not expect 2017 to be over da 3 percent in da forefust. Obamacare is still around for da people that want it. T rump failed to repeal it.

        2. Da steel mills are starting to lay off due to T rump letting too much foreign steel
          In to da USA. He broke another campagn
          Promise. I might be a poor poor writer but I keep up with da world of da finances. I had a job on da trading in da past. Da numbers are my thing. My brain is a calculator.

          1. We now know what the prototype for “Pathetic” might be. And she plays with an abacus missing a few beads.

            1. Referring to the steel used by the Dakota Pipeline it had already been purchased, transported and stockpiled. The next big orders will be under the infra structure projects if the obstructions can be removed. Interesting to see the order in which those projects take place. I expect certain States or localities will be somewhere down the list ..such as San Franciscco, Los Angeles, Seattle while others such as repairing the railway bridge in the southern reaches of the Mississippi to preclude going to Chicago on a trip fron LA to Miami warrants.

                1. ArcelorMittal Closing Part of Pennsylvania Plant; 150 Jobs | Indiana …
                  https://www.usnews.com/…/arcelormittal-closing-part-of-pennsylvania-plant-150-jobs

                  Sep 27, 2017 – CONSHOHOCKEN, Pa. (AP) — ArcelorMittal is closing part of a Philadelphia-area steel plant and will lay off about 150 workers as a result.

                  Part of a plant with minimal layoffsas a result?????????

                  No wonder you refused to cite a source.

            2. You have not spied enough to accurately know my sex or.professional training. But have spied enough to think you have knowledge. You chose to reveal some identities incode speak but not others.

              1. Ken, I don’t care who you really are. You will always be Ken to me. Your brain is sharp as a tack. And they know it. And that’s why they try to intimidate you. But it never works for them. Not on you it doesn’t. Stay strong and keep up the good work, Ken.

                1. Da only people that intimidate me around here are you and Mike Appleton. Most of da rest are low wattage bullies on A mission to promote T rumpism in all its ugliness. Da young people are gonna have to get out and vote this mess out.

                  1. Ken, I agree that Mr. Appleton is intimidating (sorta). He doesn’t intend to be thus and so. He just can’t help himself. Always taking the high road. Meanwhile, I’ll stick with Burns down on the low road where my true love lies by the bonnie, bonnie banks of Loch Lomond.

                    P. S. Happy Holidays, Ken.

                2. Dear leader jimmy is da norm in NK. We must fight against dear leader Donnie’s autocratic ways becoming da norm in da US so I am not giving up.

                  1. I’m on it now, Ken. Sorry for the delay. I truly am late for dinner, ya know.

                    “Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA, commented at length on CNN about the disturbing nature of the younger Trump’s comments.

                    “I have to confess when I first heard that this evening—it is scary. That is an appeal to the heart of autocracy and challenging the patriotism of the folks who work in the United States government,” Hayden said.

                    He added that “imperfect people” don’t “undercut the legitimacy of these institutions.”

                    “We’re now seeing a constant attack, not just from the president, but as was suggested just a few minutes ago, from other members of the party, attacking institutions of the American government,” Hayden continued. “It’s those institutions, the rule of law, the processes that keep us a free people.”

                    Hayden expressed faith in American insitutions that are “pushing back” against the Trumps.

                    “That sound you hear from Washington is actually the sound of American institutions pushing back—whether the law enforcement, the courts, the press, American intelligence,” he said. “[W]e have the NFL and Boy Scouts of America pushing back.”

                    Well, then, let’s all help Hayden, the NFL and the Boys Scouts of America push back.

                  1. Closed Parentheses, what programmer put the following robo-clone words into Donald Trump Jr.’s mouth?

                    “People at the highest levels of government that don’t want to let America be America.”

                    Was that you, Closed Parentheses?

                    1. But of course you would think that, Paul. The question is whether Hayden’s fear that Trump Jr. is promoting autocratic, or authoritarian, rule is a rational fear. It is somewhat unexpected that Hayden would enunciate that fear. But then Hayden knows things that we don’t know, because we’re not supposed to know very much of whatever Hayden knows. It’s a most curious development.

              2. Like your code phrase ‘steel plant just shut down?’

                ArcelorMittal Closing Part of Pennsylvania Plant; 150 Jobs | Indiana …
                https://www.usnews.com/…/arcelormittal-closing-part-of-pennsylvania-plant-150-jobs

                Sep 27, 2017 – CONSHOHOCKEN, Pa. (AP) — ArcelorMittal is closing part of a Philadelphia-area steel plant and will lay off about 150 workers as a result.

                Part of a plant with minimial layoffs. No wonder you didn’t cite a aource.

              3. Ken – you can be whatever gender you want to be since you are using a nom de plume. However, we know you aren’t a lawyer and you aren’t an English teacher. So that much we have narrowed down. We also know you are a rabid liberal. And your writing shows an aggressive style, which is usually male. You either did poorly or did not take logic in college, assuming you went to college. My guess is that you were bullied either as a child or a teen and you are still lashing out some of that anger at not being able to fight back. Now you have the safe distance of a semi-anonymous nom de plume to vent. We also know that, at least now, you are too cowardly to stand behind your own name as you make your attacks on people. You also have at least one Personality Disorder. I don’t feel qualified to diagnosis, so you can tell us or not.

                1. Paul C. Schulte,..I don’t know who or what Ken is.
                  If he has a “brain like a calculator”, he conceals it well.
                  If he’s really the dumbass he appears to be, then I’d cut him some slack.
                  If he’s oretending to be a dumbass, I think he’s a damn fool for putting on an obnoxious act over and over and over again.

                2. Those of you who profess English as your native tongue ought to consider the meaning and origin of the word, ken, before you get too much farther beyond your own–assuming that you have any ken to begin with. Here’s what Wictionary has to say on the subject of ken:

                  “Northern and Scottish dialects from Middle English kennen, from Old English cennan ‎(“make known, declare, acknowledge”‎) originally “to make known”, causative of cunnan ‎(“to become acquainted with, to know”‎), from Proto-Germanic *kannijaną, causative of *kunnaną ‎(“be able”‎), from which comes the verb can. Cognate with West Frisian kenne ‎(“to know; recognise”‎), Dutch kennen ‎(“to know”‎), German kennen ‎(“to know, be acquainted with someone/something”‎), Norwegian Bokmål kjenne, Norwegian Nynorsk kjenna Old Norse kenna ‎(“know, perceive”‎). The noun meaning “range of sight” is a nautical abbreviation of present participle kenning.”

                  Ultimately, “ken” derives from the Proto-Indo-European root “gno” meaning “to know.” As such, it’s an apt nom de plume for Ken, who knows things, and who makes those things known to the rest of us. And that’s the true origin of your grudge against Ken. Ken is a tipster and a cynosure pointing the way forward.

                  Besides, had you paid attention (it’s not impossible, ya know), you might’ve used your own ken to realize the truth of Ken’s admitted origin “up in northern Michigan,” where a good many Northern English and Scottish immigrants settled. And those good folk do, indeed, speak da way Ken writes. I know that because I once took a flight on a puddle jumper, long ago, from Houghton to Isle Royale piloted by a Norseman named Coley Thede who spoke exactly as Ken writes.

                  Stop being a stranger to The River of your Mother Tongue, Schulteacher. I recommend starting with a brief plunge off a long pier into the Houghton River.

                  1. Diane – having studied both Shakespeare and Jonson at length, I am closer to the source of our mother tongue than you are, which is actually a mixture of languages. I have also taught English, the mother tongue, so have some passing familiarity with its usage. I do not believe in the source or meaning of names, nor do I care where Ken lives. Frankly, my dear, Ken is just taking up space on this blog. Not a lot of space since his pithy nothings are short, but he is helping fill my email box and I am required to at least look to see who wrote it and what they said. Like even my worst students, once in a while, they would surprise you. So far, Ken still disappoints.

                  2. We had to go to that much trouble to get something besides programmed Collective machine responses? du forstar Norske ja? Nein… Lik Norske.

              4. Your lack of integrity and legitimacy is self-evident. Perhaps you might garner some respect here if you stopped acting like a buffoon and contributed something of substance. Nearly everyone ridicules you and it’s only you that doesn’t recognize this.

                    1. Headed to a Christmas Party so not going to waste any more time today trading insults with a bitter biased bog admistrative asst. Happy HolidYs.🎄

                    1. Paul C. Schulte,..
                      I suspect that he’s had a lot of experience as a troll.
                      It may be that being an annoyance is the ONLY only area where he’s achieved success.
                      The downside is that, like an annoying housefly, he’s bound to get swatted around.
                      Naybe he lijes that part if it too,

                    2. Tom Nash – it is interesting that today so many people finally decided to troll him. 🙂

                    3. Interesting you should use ‘fly.’ I have a theory of Fly Swatting as capital punishment.
                      Society has decided that flys are to be executed on site using anymeans, electroeduction, swatters, poisioned aerosols, anything. The crime is bothering people and their picnics

                      Think about it no worries about recividism or changing them into good citizens just SWAT and while it will not change any other of their sub species THAT fly will never bother your picnic again. None of this rehabilitation garbage and think of Polly Klass’s killer but classed as a fly. Lots of chances to SWAT and Polly would be alive today.

                      Inhumane? Not at all flys are not human. no adhominems and for all you bleeding heart liberals answer this….What was the name of the last fly you excecuted? How is their family doing? Did you ask?

                      Of course not.

                      While flys are not humans there is a subspecies of human flys and once swatted they will never bother your family again

                      Not really a theory i’s been tested in practical application and objectively speaking is a very useful option.

                  1. That’s fine, Ken.
                    I don’t care if you “seek respect or not.
                    But you should be aware that when you go out of your way to be an *******, it puts you in a special category.
                    You have a special talent for going out of your way to earn contempt, and you succeed.
                    It’s beyond me what. kicks anonymous trolls like you get from being obnoxious and useless, for the sake of being obnoxious and useless.

                    1. Good repartee. To answer your question because the machine part certainly won’t it isn’t in todays script as approved by the ruling class of the classless society and their main tool called “The Collective” is not allowed to do ought else.

                    2. Paul C. Schulte……In my experience, once somebody crosses the line a few times, people will come to take a different vies of that person.
                      When this line crissing turns into to dozens of provacacations over a period of weeks, that person may be the subject of some criticism.
                      In view oc the Holiday Season, my criticisms of him have been restrained and muted.
                      I may step it up a bit later on from the mild comments I’ve posted so far about that fool.

                  2. Ahhh ‘fellow travelers’ is a socialist term next thing you’ll be calling us capitalist roaders. And you earned what you asked for. You have no respect. Ufta. Notice the name?

                1. Ken contributes plenty “of substance,” etc. That “nearly everyone,” here, “ridicules” Ken (Darren’s words) says more about “everyone” than anything about Ken.

                    1. Diane – the fact that you think that Ken is getting our goats is hilarious. I, personally, could care less about Ken except when he is insulting people or sucking the air out of a room. I am sure most others feel the same way I do.

                      You and anonymous contribute to the blog. That doesn’t mean people agree with you, but they are willing to spar with you. And sometimes one or both of you make valid points.

                      BTW, Merry Christmas.

                  1. Yes, Paul, anonymous is also indispensable–especially when she’s getting your goats. One of these days I’m going to step my game up to Natacha’s level. Just you wait and see.

                    BTW, Happy Holidays, anonymous.

            1. Does T rump’s ballooning deficit provide a good risk reward for da markets in 2018. Answer that if you think you are so much smarter at da numbers than I am?

              1. Ken,
                The balooning deficit has not negatively impacted the market to date.
                It has marched higher and higher year after year of high deficits.
                So I don’t think that the market’s prospects going firward hinge on the size of the deficit.
                The interest rate picture is an entirely differnt matter.
                If there is a substanial rise in rates…..especially a rapid rise…..I think all bets are off for a continuong bull market.
                Valuations are stretched to begin with, so even in a best case scenario, with continuing low rates, and 3% + GDP growth, I don’t see a lot of upside from here.
                I’ve trimmed my own stock allocation from c.60% to about 30% over the past several months.

            2. As you can by the followup comment The Collective has changed to a different subject but remember ad machina it’s onloy a machine not a human.

          2. Ken,….
            Absent any evidence presented by your comments here, don’t expect people to believe your claims.
            You either lack the intelligence, or the willingness, to engage in a goodfaith debate, along with a few of your other cronies.
            It’s intiguing in a way to see just how far duplicitous shills and trolls will go in trying to advance their agenda.
            I think you and your associates have hit an all-time low in dragging down rational discourse on JT threads, and your success in that endevour should get the recognition it deserves.

            1. Tom Nash said to Ken, “You either lack the intelligence, or the willingness, to engage in a good faith debate, along with a few of your other cronies.”

              For that, Nash, you have earned another clue to your own unstated intelligence on the subject of Veselnitskaya’s expired visa and lack of FARA registration: Ten Rapt Men. And here’s a hint to go with it: Spill your Scrabble tiles out on the dining room table and recommence your head-scratching. Surely that should be within your ken.

              1. 24D..
                – If tou have something soecific to add, or correct, about Veselnitskaya’s visa or FARA registration, do so.
                Better late thannever to deal with actual specific issues.
                That is normally what an exchange should involve…..listes no objections to an of the items in the extensive review I wrote of the unusual features of the 2016 election.
                I don’t mind an exchange along those lines, if you take specific issue with the accuracy of any details I covered in two or three posts.

                1. PS…If this exchange continues, I may have to use the reply box at the end of the thread…I have to “type blind” in this 1/8″ wide vertical replay box.

                  1. That’s because the series of replies has marched across the page until it’s jammed up against the right hand edge. To correct go back to the beginning of the thread or sub thread and start a new branch of replies.

                2. Tom Nash, I’m sorry to hear about your typographical misfortunes. I’ll keep an eye out for your thumbnail on the most recent posts box. BTW, the most recent clue for you is also an IQ test: Ten Rapt Men.

    1. One should make a point when mentioning GDP to always add NDP without which GDP has no measuring stick to value itself.

    1. Fran: the Court didn’t say the case lacked merit. It said that they didn’t have standing. Yes, you can sue Fatso.

      1. And in doing so leaves the question of whose going to pay attorney fees back on the table. Wouldnt reading the dictionary be of more use? Or are you saying no government employee can receive a paycheck?

        e·mol·u·ment
        əˈmälyəmənt/
        nounformal
        plural noun: emoluments

        a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
        “the directors’ emoluments”
        synonyms: salary, pay, payment, wage(s), earnings, allowance, stipend, honorarium, reward, premium; More
        fee, charge, consideration;
        income, profit, gain, return
        “his name alone is worth the emolument they’re willing to offer”

        Origin
        late Middle English: from Latin emolumentum, originally probably ‘payment to a miller for grinding grain,’ from emolere ‘grind up,’ from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out, thoroughly’ + molere ‘grind.’
        Translate emoluments to
        Use over time for: emoluments
        Translations, word origin, and more definitions
        Feedback
        emolument | Origin and meaning of emolument by Online Etymology …
        https://www.etymonline.com/word/emolument

        Meaning: “advantage, gain, benefit; income, revenue” (13c.) and directly from Latin emolumentum “profit, gain, advantage, benefit,”… See more.
        The Etymology of Emolument : Word Count : Vocabulary.com
        https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wc/the-etymology-of-emolument/

        Emolument means “compensation for labor or services” and also has now-obscure senses of gain, benefit or advantage. From Latin emolumentum, there is speculation that the word originally meant “payment to a miller for grinding out corn” from emolere “to grind out.”
        emolument – Wiktionary
        https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emolument

        Jump to Etymology – Etymology[edit]. Borrowed from Old French emolument, from Latin emolumentum.
        ‎English · ‎Noun
        From grain to gain: the origin of “emolument” – Mashed Radish
        https://mashedradish.com/2016/11/29/from-grain-to-gain-the-origin-of-emolument/

        Nov 29, 2016 – Entering into English from French, emolument ultimately derives from the Latin emolumentum, a “profit” or “gain,” especially one brought about by effort or exertion. … If this theory is correct, the root Latin is emolere, literally “to grind out.”
        Emolument | Definition of Emolument by Merriam-Webster
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emolument

        By the year 1480, when that entry was made, Latin emolumentum had come to mean simply “profit” or “gain”; it had become removed from its own Latin predecessor, the verb molere, meaning “to grind.” The original connection between the noun and this verb was its reference to the profit or gain from grinding another’s …
        Emolument definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
        https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/emolument

        Emolument definition: Emoluments are money or other forms of payment which a person receives for doing work. | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples.
        Emoluments | Define Emoluments at Dictionary.com
        http://www.dictionary.com/browse/emoluments

        Emoluments definition, profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services: Tips are an emolument in addition to wages. See more.

  5. New York Judge George Daniels was a Clinton appointee. It’s good to see one side of the aisle is fair and balanced and not ruled by the jade helm crowd.

    1. I like your concern for objectivity.

      Can you tell me, objectively, if the phrase below omits and, thereby, deliberately excludes, or if it includes, “individual welfare” and every other form of redistribution of wealth, understanding that the American Founders, who encouraged private charity, had absolutely no concept of, or existing law which mandated, direct cash payments as “welfare” to individuals?

      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 –

      “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

      1. Anything or any power not specifically granted is under the 9th and 10th Amendment denied without further comment unless an amendment to the Consitutution is offered. Ignoring is not a power granted.

        General Welfare means it must generally apply to the entire country. For example using the tax system to provide a welfare check for unearned income …. or putting an agreement into effect without the consent of Congress.

  6. The Founders intended for successful and self-reliant businessmen to temporarily serve the nation. The Founders provided impeachment to address abuse of the power of government against the People. Abuse of power was the only thing Obama, Hillary, Lynch, Holder, Comey, Mueller, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Power, Jarrett, Abedin, Farkas, Yates, Lerner et al. ever achieved. What CREW should be determining is how to prosecute the entire “Obama Gang” for perpetrating the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    1. If CREW didn’t sue Obama’s gang for the most massive violation of the 4th Amendment in US History, replete with sending James Clapper before Congress to lie about it under oath for the purpose of concealing and perpetuating the then-ongoing mass-violation of the 4th Amendment, I doubt that CREW is interested in seeking civil remedy for any of Obama’s other deviations from his oath to uphold the Constitution.

      I’m guessing that CREW didn’t even have a problem with James Clapper keeping his job after admitting to perjury — acknowledging that his statements to Congress were “a little too cute” — the most creative guilty plea on record (or one of them).

      1. How about that Lois Lerner literally abusing the power of government agaisnt the People by weaponizing the IRS against conservative organizations as political opponents of then President Obama during an election.

  7. A waste of time that should be utilized in the search for the truth concerning that uranium sale to the Russians- and discover just who signed off on the sale. Were the so called appointed Czars representing the various U S government agencies involved and did H. Clinton have her approving signature on the document.
    It’s not that the sale was to Russia but the fear that R’s sold the U to others.

    1. Get a grip, Bernie. Ms. Clinton will eventually die and you and your friends can then proceed to try her in complete absentia.

      1. No need to wait, Mike, and abstentia? No way. I see the wagons at Clinton’s Never-Never Land Ranch circling. The “Foundation” will be the foundation of their ruin. And what a trial it will be!

        1. I dislike Mrs. Clinton for a number of reasons. However, I confess that I still don’t get the whole Foundation thing, or the uranium thing or the pizza parlor-child sex slave thing. But then I live way far from the Beltway.

      2. No problem she can be convicted en absentia but then there is the question of staff personnel who were part of the RICO portions of the charges. The money movers, The go betweens, the IT staffs unless they can produce CYA paperwork….18-798 does say “All persons.”

  8. Devoid of ideas, reasonable values, voter appeal, and leadership, democrats have been trying to use frivolous lawsuits, propaganda, and threats of violence in the streets to accomplish what they can’t accomplish at the ballot box or in Congress.
    After their frivolous lawsuits have been exhausted, they’ll be left with only propaganda and threats of violence or actual violence.
    Very sad ending to the party of Harry Truman and JFK.

    1. Ah, William, maybe you forgot the thugs in the streets with AR15’s talking about gun solutions, or the lawsuits that the right-wing threw at Obama if he blew his nose. Or the propaganda arm of the republicans “FOX NEWS”.Or signs in the streets of Obama as a black witch doctor. Or alt right TIKI torches lined at nite. Or throwing out the ole trickle down theory again because it might work THIS TIME. A very sad ending to the party of St Ronnie of Reagan…………..

      1. Did the AR-15 owners harm anyone? Maybe you need to visit Chicago for a dose of reality. If you’re not interested in reality, turn in to CNN. They are the true propaganda machine, and they don’t even hide it.
        The only thing you’re right about is the fact that the Dems are employing the same obstruction strategy that the Repubs ran during Obama’s terms. Yet even in that admission they’ve proven they’re out of ideas.

        1. Remember this please. Right-wing news is a parallel institution armed with its own set of facts, that insists on its own reality.

          1. No doubt, FW. All major news media have an agenda. You and I recognize it and weigh the information accordingly. However, people like Linda obviously have trouble distinguishing propaganda from reality.

            1. they live in a subjective other world of mysticism and in all probability no longer have or had the ability to recognize reality. Plato vs Aristotle ….and Plato in the end refuted his own system.

          2. But you forgot the independent center who demands objective reality based on the constitution in your haste to tar all of us with your leftist defintion of those who don’t agree with your foreign ideology. And we kicked your ass last November with the highest number of votes for any faction while the two parties came in second and third. We did not make up a name for you. Enemies Domestic suits perfectly.

        2. Trump’s election and permission (“I could kill someone on Fifth Ave. and still get elected) – a white supremacist ran over and killed a peaceful protestor with his car.

          1. Linda, how would you suggest proceeding with your line of thinking?
            I personally don’t think you logic will stand very long.
            For example can you prove that driver actually heard or read Trump saying that?
            Just curious how you’re going to continue arguing your premise.

      2. What’s funny (in a sad way) is that the entirety of your reply appears to be constructed under the assumption that I’m a republican, or supported Reagan, or watch Fox News. Actually, I’m a lifelong Independent and a non-ideological pragmatist, and my comment was directed solely to how the democrat party has become a corrupt and worthless organization that harms the country far more than it helps the country — none of which validates ANY of your goofy and groundless assumptions about me.
        If I hadn’t read the website’s Civility Policy I’d be inclined to call you a flaming moron.

          1. I not only read it, but I posted a comment in that comment section, complaining about people that post comments under fake screen names. Perhaps you might read that comment (last I checked it’s the most recently posted comment there) and note my gripe about being the recipient of BOGUS accusations by people hiding behind fake screen names — including accusations about ideology (or partisan politics) which do NOT apply to me.

            To call someone a conservative or a republican or a Reagan supporter or a Fox-News watcher for derogatory purposes — or to merely imply the same whether the accusation is direct or indirect — is in my mind no different than any other form of name-calling.

            For example, I find it less insulting to be call an a-hole than to be called any form of ideologue, liberal or conservative. The comment I responded to was extremely insulting TO ME, so I’m not really concerned about the feelings of the personage who uttered those statements of utter stupidity and pure ignorance.

            1. William Bayer – if you stay here long enough, you will be called everything but a human being. 😉 I normally just let it roll on by. Since you are new, you have to establish your and your bona fides. I too am an independent and have been for at least 30 years. I don’t watch TV or read American newspapers. I do watch alt news and British papers.

            2. I agree with you on the fake screen name issue. I have always posted under my real name, and since I am a lawyer, it would be easy for anyone to track me down literally to my front door. I have gradually come to the conclusion that if a person is afraid to attach an opinion to a real identity, the opinion should be disregarded as meaningless. Perhaps the best approach would be to ignore anonymous posters entirely.

              1. Mike Appleton – I agree with you, people should be here under their own name. However, our glorious leader has decided otherwise and we have to live with that. I have had a couple of people doxx me, but big deal, anything I did is well past the statute of limitations. 🙂 I have always used my real name and intend to continue to. Although during the Annie/Inga Wars I was tempted to change it just to annoy her. 🙂

              2. Mike Appleton said, “I have gradually come to the conclusion that if a person is afraid to attach an opinion to a real identity, the opinion should be disregarded as meaningless.”

                There are disciples of Jason Kessler and Richard Spenser posting right here on this blawg, Mr. Appleton. Neither you nor Darren Smith are capable of protecting anyone else but yourselves from the genuine threat of cyber-harassment stalking these threads. But then, please feel free to disregard the cyber-harassment threat as though it were just another meaningless opinion.

                1. Diane – do you feel cyber-bullied? You should have led my life for the first several months I was on this blog. I had two bloggers whose only job it was to bully me off the site. Oddly enough, they are gone and I am still here. I have been bullied by the best. No one scares me.

        1. “What’s funny (in a sad way) is that the entirety of your reply appears to be constructed under the assumption that I’m a republican, or supported Reagan, or watch Fox News.”

          Yeah, I get that from the lib squad here all the time. I was here beating on W, sparing with the guys. It got testy, but it was good. Paul and I were frequently at odds. But these guys…. “simpletons” is being generous! It’s more than just birds that fly over people’s heads on this blog.

      3. Are you insane? You describe the Socialist s perfectly and then change the name? Well stupid is as stupid does in the Stupid Party/ So just who is your programmer?

    2. but also the party of Wilson, FDR, Truman the progressive LBJ, Carter, Clilnton and OBama all anti Constitutionalist imperial President types and all progressives war monger types plus Nixon except even the Democrats are not Democratic and besides we are not a Democracy just as they do not follow even basic democratic principles JFK was a progressive except for some points of economic conservativism.

      1. When you write something such as “JFK was a progressive except for some points of economic conservativism,” I believe what you’re actually saying is that ideology is NOT APPLICABLE. It’s no more possible to be both a progressive AND a conservative than it’s possible to be hot and cold.

        I think you should examine your frame of reference and consider the possibility that you’ve been mind-conditioned to think or express yourself in terms of ideology even when ideology does not apply. I don’t know when it was that so many people got duped into thinking that there are only two ways of thinking about the infinite variety of issues in our limitless universe, but it’s apparent to me that ideology is just a lowest-common-denominator FLAWED way of thinking. Relate thereto, it’s interesting that one of the other “replies” to my comment appears to suggest that I must be a republican, a Reagan supporter, and a watcher of Fox News simply because I criticized the current state of the democrat party. Note that there was NOTHING I wrote that suggests I’m a republican, Reagan-supporting, Fox-News watcher — and that it was only a faulty assumption resulting from that person’s flawed way of thinking. In his or her mind I MUST be a republican, Reagan-supporting, Fox-News watcher just because I’m capable of observing what has become of the democrat party during my lifetime.

        In that context, I’d direct you to the following definitions (acknowledging that there may be other definitions of these terms, but these two definitions work for me):

        “ideology — n. — 2 thinking or theorizing of an idealistic, abstract, or impractical nature; fanciful speculation ***” Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, copyright 1997 Simon & Schuster, Inc. page 669-670.

        “pragmatism — n. — 2 a method or tendency in philosophy *** which determines the meaning and truth of all concepts by their practical consequences ***” Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, copyright 1997 Simon & Schuster, Inc. page 1059.

        As for myself, I’m a lifelong Independent pragmatist. I subscribe to no political party and strive to ascertain meaning and truth based upon practical consequences in the real world. The words, progressive and conservative, mean NOTHING to me, except that I’m aware that they are cookie-cutter categories into which many people attempt to fit an infinite variety of experiences and concepts.

        If your way of thinking leads you to call JFK both a progressive AND a conservative, it could be a clue that there’s a flaw in your way of thinking. At any rate, my comment had nothing to do with liberal (progressive) or conservative ideologies which, like ALL ideologies, I consider to be a plaque upon the civilized world and the result of endless mind-conditioning by politicians and a corrupt media.

        There ARE other ways to think.

        1. Good rebuttal. JFK is often referred to as a fiscal conservative on the economic side. But the true definitions of liberal and conservative is far different than those people think of. Liberal in poltical terms are outsiders doing whatever they can to become insiders. Conservsatives are the insiders, those ini power entrenched and doing everything to defend their postiion.

          The Redefinition of Conservative to mean anyone who doesn’t agree with the socialist left is part of their redefinition fictionary along with other transgressions such as putting national socialism apart from international socialism or claiming the center is the center of the left.

          That is the primary false premise …just to reduce the commentary

          For sources I will name Don’t See The Elephant by George “Yoda” :Lykoff and The True center of political discourse which in a Constitutional Republic (republic meaning ‘for and of the people) is The Constitution.

          One must accept the social contract or compact to be a citizen either by oath or by voluntary participation and signing up at age 18 for selective service just happens to be one of those methods. Or registering to vote or paying taxes.

          Rejection of that social contract or compact means rejection of citizenship and should mean ejection from the country although where one would send them is up to those rejecting citizenship.

          Which should provide enough correction of false premises to find a more valid conclusion, e.g. One cannot be a progressive and a citizen at the same time.

        2. William Bayer said, “Note that there was NOTHING I wrote that suggests I’m a republican, Reagan-supporting, Fox-News watcher — and that it was only a faulty assumption resulting from that person’s flawed way of thinking.”

          Well . . . We’re all on to you now, Bayer. We won’t get fooled again–eh?

          P. S. I’m thinking of a number between one and three. Guess which number I’m thinking of.

    3. But a happy ending for the country watching the party of Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama die in place and bark at the moon.

  9. JT knows that this is just the opening shot against Trump and the emoluments clause. And THIS congress will do nothing but protect him at all costs. They got their “Donor Class Relief Act” where the rich can do more with more and the poor should do more with less. And since most of JT’s crowd loves to live in the world of alternative reality, riddle me this, if Obama’s daughters or HRC’s daughter sat in meetings with corporate donors and foreign leaders and then went out and hawked and sold products, what would the right-wing reaction be? What if HRC owned a ski lodge in upstate NY and held meetings there at the cost of US tax payers? I know I would be watching “FOX NEWS” just to watch them foam at the mouth and have heart attacks live on the air.

      1. You should probably read the bill instead of listening to fake “news” outlets for your information.

    1. Only if you are illiterate intentionally or otherwise and don’t understand the definition of ’emolument.’

  10. Let’s face facts folks. Trump isn’t going to be sued out of office. Period. No more than Obama was sued out of office. You may not like the current President and I certainly can find little to like about the previous Occupier in Chief. Our system gives people the chance to hire a new POTUS every four years. Had the right been more energized in 2012 we’d have been spared a full eight years of fundamental transformation. If the left truly dislikes Trump, in 2020 they can vote to stop Making America Great Again.

    1. We’ll vote to stop “Making America Puny Again”. Just reported, another Trump appointee embarrasses the U.S. The U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands claimed a comment he made to media didn’t happen and was “fake news”. When shown, on video, that he indeed made the comment, he said he hadn’t referred to the reporting as “fake news” (also on video).

      Ivanka described the new tax giveaway plan for the rich as fulfilling Trump’s promise of a simplified process that could be filed on a post card.

      The lies are piling up to a stratospheric level.

        1. Team M A G A T defends sex offenders. T rump said he could kill somebody and da M A G A T S would support him.

          1. Ken,
            Peter Thiel, a speaker at the convention that nominated Trump, is on record using the word, oxymoron, to describe women voting in a capitalistic democracy. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

            Thiel is on the Facebook board with Marc Andreeson who opined that India was better under colonialism and Hastings, who can be seen in a YouTube video calling for an end to democratically elected school boards.

            1. There is no capitalist democracy it’a a figment of your imagination. There IS a representative Constitutional Republic with a market economy but the rest is just left wing socialist progressive liberal fascist BS.

              1. “capitalistic democracy” was Thiel’s description of the U.S. (He’s Republican)
                The ditto heads echo Limbaugh’s ranting that the U.S. is not a democracy. On the political continuum, America had prided itself on being among the great democracies of the world…past tense. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, the Citizens United decision, etc. rendered the American representative republic, an oligarchy.

              2. ), though I believe Linda is wrong on her comment “using the word, oxymoron, to describe women voting in a capitalistic democracy.” the phrase though IMO not the best expression of America is correct. We are a constitutional republic that is capitalistic in nature (economic) and votes democratically (political).

            2. I believe what Peter Thiel said and you are referring to was:

              “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.”

              As usual, it appears that you have fractured the truth with another Linda Fractured Fairytale.

              Why is it you make so much stuff up?

              1. Doesn’t matter there is No such thing.

                The founders refused the idea of a Democracy and it doesn’t exist and never has. What we are is a Representative Constitutional Republic (Republic is latin meaning for of of or by the people) If you wanted to add something to the front of that it should be Market Captalism …… until the socialist regressives get back in power but that according to my contacts in the counter revolution is not as likely as they seem to not think.

                Using erroneous phrases like Capitalist Democracy is one sign they are on the run and good riddance.

                1. A Constitutional Republic is a better way of defining the US, but the words capitalist democracy are used by many to describe America’s system of government. IMO that is bad form. The former is an economic system and the latter a political system so both words can easily go together even if they provide a bit of misinformation especially since the founders talked negatively about creating a democracy.

      1. She was mistaken about the post card. Not sure that’s a capital offense. But maybe in your TDS world it is.

        1. If you’re that “mistaken” i.e. informed society is passing you by, get out of the public pronouncement business like Sean Spicer did.

      2. Yep and and every short fall is on next years list and everyone mentioned was due to the obstructionests of the Marxist Leninists. or their RINO stoooges.

    2. They can’t even get off their dead donkey to figure out what election is an election and which one is a national popularity contest…andif they don’t like it make a change.

  11. I am glad that watchdog organizations work to prevent abuses of power by the President, or any other politician or government official. It helps to keep them honest and within their lane.

    I wonder where they were during the Obama Administration, when President Obama had a phone and a pen? When he openly flouted the balance of power and Congress cheered? If Trump wanted to be a dictator, Obama certainly gave him precedent. We are lucky that President Trump, so far, does not seem to want to follow in his footsteps. After all, he has a phone and a pen, too. Probably a nice Mont Blanc just like Obama…

    I recall the tenor of Professor Turley’s past articles was that Democrats would rue the day they allowed an uber presidency when someone was elected they did not like. Exhibit A: today.

    What I want to know is if Democrats will fight tooth and nail against abuses of power, perceived or otherwise, today, and then blithely go back to granting more and more power when a Dem is in the Oval Office one day. Will they still try to create a dictatorship? Progressives’ dependence of government fiat seems to demand one.

      1. Linda – please review past posts on Professor Turley’s blog, in which he describes, in detail, how President Obama exceeded his authority and defied the balance of powers. He gives a strong analysis of the problem. There are many good discussions on the issue.

        As for the Koch Brothers – we need to take the money out of politics. That goes for Koch, Monsanto, Soros, Big Union, etc. Get it all out so politicians care more about us than their next big donor luncheon.

        1. Karen, your false equivalencies presented smugly as though they are backed with reason reflect your distaste for democracy and for a nation founded on the principle that people who work hard should expect opportunity. You are hack when you present a claim comparing unions and corporations. The latter takes consumer profits and diverts them from the business, to influence government. Unions represent millions of people- workers who cobble together from their ever decreasing paychecks, scarce dollars and give them to elected union officials to represent them in a political process dominated by corporate lobbyists and organizations like ALEC.
          The excuse AARP gave for financially backing ALEC was that AARP leadership believed their members needed representation at the table where state law is drafted. How pathetic. If you were anything more than a hack, you would address the fact that labor receives a lower share of national income now than at any time in recorded history.
          When you look in the mirror, see Ted Cook, responsible for the Chinese factories where nets are affixed to the worker dormitories to prevent suicides. When you look in the mirror, see the reason, that American life expectancy is in decline, and the cause of the desperation that has led to increasing domestic abuse, suicides, etc.

          1. This is a representative Constitutional Republic. It is NOT a Democracy. That was rejected by the founders and has not been true for 241 years plus. The Democrat party itself is not democratic if you are referring to democratic principles. It is now as they asked to be called last year The Socialist Party meaning Socialist Progressive and for over 100 years has incrementally rejected both our Constitutional Republic system AND the principles of democracy. The only way those words can be used is by changing the definition in the fictionary of the left by such party theorists and plagiarizers as George Yoda Lykoff and is based entirely on a one party one leader Platonic system even though Plato himself in the end rejected his own philosophic system.

            Your entire comment is based on a false premise and the rest is therefore in error. i would have some respect if you openly admitted your political kinship to both International and National Socialism although International Socialism begat Progressive Socialism thorugh such vehicles as the Fabian Society before they engendered National Socialism as Socialist Party Leaders in Germany and Italy primarily broke away from the idea that the Internationale under Lenin as their god was the ruling class.

            The idea of a ruling class in a classless society derived from the French Revolution to replace the royalty while across the Atlantic our founders had invented a new system where the citizens were the source of power not divine right and the Self Governing independent citizen was in charge.

            Where did you think 40% of the vote that counted came from while you two parties split sixty and layed silly buggers with a popularity poll?

            You should read up on the Swedish solution to Socialism. They ejected the lot, banned welfare and now have a solvent economy while keeping a social consciousness but paid for and based ecnomically on market capitalism.

            State Economics such as backed and promoted by the Socialist Progressive Party is on the way out. But it takes a bit of time to effect complete change. Althought stopping your revolution against our Republic only took a few months as you may have not noticed. Our designated attack dog calls it draining the swamp.

            We call it a counter revolution against former citizens who rejected the social contract and compact with our Constitutional Republic. The difference is ours was run legally under our oath of office by off duty members of the military and former military using the slogan Ballots Not Bullets.

            Would you prefer a switch?

            1. You’re assuming the American majority thinks Trump is acting in their behalf? (A majority voted for Hillary and that’s before they watched Trump trying to govern.)
              67% oppose his tax bill “written for the donor class”- McConnell’s words.

            2. The “counter revolution” selects, as district court judges -horror novelists, who have less than 3 years of law practice and no trial experience. The “counter revolution” commutes the sentence of a plant owner, whose business had “389 illegal immigrants” working at it. (The plant owner’s family are big political donors.) You, ), misspoke, you meant filling instead draining the swamp.

    1. They flat out don’t operate without one. The classless society has always had a separate ruling class .

    1. Ken:

      Your determination to write in fake dialect is only matched by your determination to show the rest of us how dumb you are.

      If you can’t learn to think, at least try writing in decent English,

      1. Steve Fleischer – as we used to say “You can lead a student to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.”

      2. He can’t. That takes an education and the ability to think. He’s not a He but a machine part of The Collective and iyour trying to talk to a machine.

    2. “What about da trials for violatin da women?”

      What about it? This post isn’t about that. Hope you’re trolling with heavy test today. From the looks of the responses to your useless postings, you’ll need it.

    3. Ken,
      Your observations and style are clever. The Russian supporters of T rump who post comments at this blog are easily identifiable by their authoritarian approach.

      Keep your quips a comin’. They are unrivaled. Russians appear to lack the mental makeup to match them.

      1. They get real piss antsy if a true statement is made about T rump or Putin. Maybe their bosses are readin and reviewin. They need to CONTROL da dialogue. Watch and observe. I could get banned.

          1. mespo – we would never know if he was banned. He would just be “disappeared” for a while. 😉

      2. No one is more authoritarian than you leftists by the way. You are the only people on the political spectrum with an agenda full of dictates to be applied upon the masses.

        1. Andrew,
          Are you referring to Trump’s elimination of net neutrality, which creates monopoly and oligopoly instead of free enterprise? Or, are you referring to the conservative court’s ruling in Citizens United, which delivered to us, rule by the rich? Or, are you referring to Republican plotting to suppress votes? Or, do you mean the Reagan Supreme Court appointees who decided states could allow eminent domain to take one person’s property and give it to another private entity for development? Or, do you mean extended patent protections, which concentrate wealth while stifling new innovation? Or, do you mean child labor laws? Or, do you mean no minimum wage so that the ratio of national income going to labor is even lower than it’s current “lowest in recorded history”?
          If those are what encompass libertarianism then, what you are talking about is sanctioned exploitation.

            1. Fishwings,
              They make that clear with their denials of the obvious double standard they apply to Hillary.

              The Russian/Hannity way is a hammer to the opponent’s head. Trump gets an illusory pillow prop. The disparity makes right wing propaganda laughable and distasteful for all, except the mentally unsound.

          1. For all of your ruminations, for all of them that the now non-ruling party dislikes, Obama and his ilk had unrestricted government for two years and did not take care of any of the above, So he must have agreed with all of it.

            1. So that the oligarchs could have them repealed, after Americans got so desperate that they voted for a paper hangar?

      3. “Your observations and style are clever. The Russian supporters of T rump who post comments at this blog are easily identifiable by their authoritarian approach.

        Keep your quips a comin’. They are unrivaled. Russians appear to lack the mental makeup to match them.”

        Waaaaah. The Russians have been acting with remarkable restraint, especially given their current position of being boxed in at their borders by nato, along with medium range missiles being established there. Sooooo, while your ilk has been trying to push WWIII, many of us here saw the hollow rhetoric and propaganda here put forth during the Obama administration, and saw where all this was going long before it became national news. The Russians aren’t an enemy. Maybe a strategic rival. Just because you want the narrative to fit your own expectations, don’t expect the rest of us to fall for it too. It’s also apparent that the left is generally void of any common sense whatsoever, so I don’t expect much understanding on this issue. Keep blaming someone else for your lousy candidate and campaign.

          1. The KGB- “at most, rivals in strategy”- they have a much more sinister reputation than that and it’s odd that among national leaders and national security advisors (excepting the alleged kidnapper, Flynn) only Trump likens the Kremlin to a toothless ally (no pun related to Trump’s ill-fitting dentures intended).
            Those Trump tax filings could be illustrative.

              1. What does this person consider to be a “normal country?” One that carries out illegal executions world wide by drone, without even so much as a declaration of war? Yeah, you liberals really hold the high ground.

                Just waiting for the day when we can look back and snicker at all your self-righteous naivete. “Hey, remember back in ’17 when they thought the US were the cowboys, and the Russkies the Indians???” Yes, you may want to check your nationalism…

                1. I am not going to celebrate the drone killings that Trump has increased,btw. Are you looking forward to the military parades and nuclear proliferation that your dear leader has called for?

                  1. No, I am not. But as I said, I am not a Trump voter. I am a adamant independent.

                    I will say that Trump is very intelligent. If you lot continue to underestimate his intelligence (just like you underestimate your understanding of any issue, foreign or domestic), it will be to your own detriment. I thought you people would have wised up now and would have started finding a candidate and strategy, other than “throw him out.” From an independent perspective, the “throw him out” strategy so far has made you all look rather weak-minded, and not a possible option for the future. Right Ken?

                    1. You don’t talk or write like an independent. Not even close. You talk like a machine part from The Collective of The Party.

            1. “The KGB- “at most, rivals in strategy”- they have a much more sinister reputation than that and it’s odd that among national leaders and national security advisors…”

              Guess you’ve never heard of the CIA? Read up on MK Ultra. Leave your “liberal eliteness” behind. Birds of a feather. They have all done whatever they could get away with, and sadly it’s human nature. Your statement would actually be naively humorous if it wasn’t so sad.

          2. How’s the trollin’ today Ken? Hope it’s working for you. Should have gotten a few chuckles in today. Someday (soon), Trump will be gone, and the lot of you will be stuck looking at each other, wondering what you can hate next.

            1. slohrss29 – I do not know why Ken thinks Putin got Trump elected? Hillary got Trump elected. She was the worst candidate since McCain. If you don’t appear in a state you cannot expect them to vote for you just because you have a vagina.

              1. But, as you see Paul, they are so full of themselves, they cannot come to grips with that fact. It’s plainly simple, and the sheer irresponsibility the party as a whole has shown since the election demonstrates why we’ve had 50+ years of failed policies from them. Cripes, when do we just have enough of these whining losers? Take your ball and go home already!

  12. “CREW is represented in the case by an all-star team of top constitutional scholars, ethics experts and litigators who have combined to argue 45 cases before the Supreme Court. The lawyers on the case include CREW’s board chair and vice-chair Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, the top ethics lawyers for the last two presidents, Constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky, Laurence H. Tribe and Zephyr Teachout, and Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler PLLC.”
    ********************
    Larry Tribe? Erwin? Zephyr? Haven’t seen this assemblage of “pros” since the “A Team” went off the airways. Here’s the video from the beat down the federal judge gave em at the hearing:

    https://youtu.be/03L8u9S1vyY

    1. mespo – that video brought flashbacks of bad tv back to my brain. Although, for some reason, I did like seeing the A-Team lose. 🙂

    2. I loved the A Team! And MacGyver, too. I’ll bet someone could find the perfect MacGyver vignette for some of these posts.

  13. Did I miss the part about “piercing the corporate veil”??? Because legally, the business is a separate entity. I am not sure how one could just impute the income to Trump, thru the veil unless there was monkey business going on.

    Such, as I suspect was going on with the Clinton’s charitable slush fund.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Since only 5% went to Charity and the Clintons all drew huge salaries it’s more than mere suspicion and into the realm of probable cause .

  14. I would be interested to see how they tried to establish standing unless they ate at the establishments, or stayed there. Tribe is always interesting on Con Law, sometimes he believes in the Constitution, like now and sometimes he doesn’t, like when Obama was in office.

    1. Oh, you mean like Soweto bin Bama’s “Secret Kill List,” on which was American citizen 16 year old Anwar Al-Awlaki, who Soweto assassinated with a drone strike, without judicial charges? You mean like that even, which Tribe apparently blessed. (And remember that then-FBI Chief Mueller told Soweto it’s OK for him to assassinate American citizens on American soil in the same fashion…Anwar was on foreign soil.)

      1. Well Joe you’ve some of the facts right on the Al-Awlaki crime family. The Imam to the 9-11 murderers, Anwar, righteously died in a drone strike but he wasn’t 16. His 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, died 2 weeks later in another drone strike. Both ordered by Obama and carried out in Yemen.

        1. Obama admin “apologized” for wrongly killing his son by the same name as the father.

          By what law does POTUS “righteously” assassinate American citizens without judicial charge?

  15. I believe I have standing, as I took an oath to “defend the Constitution for all enemies, foreign and domestic” when I accepted a commission in the U.S. Marine Corps. Likewise, every official in the entire county swear to defend the Constitution.

    No argue that no citizen has standing is to repudiate the basis of our nation, that Constitution was ordained and established by a vote of the people in assemblies in the former colonies.The judge him/herself has standing, as his/her oath of office was to defend the Constitution. At the Founding, it was the obligation of every elected official and citizen to look at the various acts and laws and decide if it was constitutional.

Comments are closed.