Harvard Professor: Hillary Clinton Could Still Be President

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziLawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman professor of law and leadership at Harvard Law School, offered hope recently for those still in denial over the 2017 presidential election.  Lessig, seriously, argued in Newsweek that it is not too late.  Hillary Clinton could still be president if things break in the right way. It would only require the removal of both Trump and Pence as well as a cooperation and resignation of a President Speaker Paul Ryan.  That is all it would take to make for those who believe that there is no price too great to get the Clintons back into power.  Even Lessig’s Rube Goldberg machine of presidential succession.

The scenario laid out by Lessig is that (1) Trump is impeached or takes a Nixonian dive; (2) then Pence is implicated and either resigns or is impeached; (3) then Ryan is made president and appoints Clinton as Vice President; and finally (4) Ryan resigns because it is the only decent thing to do.  That would take as many as two additional presidencies (President Pence and President Ryan would leave office) to bring about a President Clinton.

Lessig insists that “This is one way that it could happen.” Presumably, the other way is that everyone but Clinton dies in an apocalyptic meteor strike.

Under these circumstances, Lessig insists “The answer seems unavoidable: Ryan should nominate the person defeated by the treason of his own party, and then step aside, and let her become the President.”

In fairness to Lessig, law professors love to play out fanciful or fun scenarios. However, Newsweek advanced this suggestion as a serious possibility.

What is curious is the Lessig would view Clinton as the Democrat to be elevated given the recent disclosures of how the DNC and Democratic establishment effectively rigged the primary against her opponents. Shouldn’t Lessig add an extra step for Clinton to step side for “the person defeated by the treason of his own party” and bring in the Administration of President Bernie Sanders?

There are a couple problems here. First, there is absolutely no evidence of treason and the allegations against Trump are well removed from any responsible definition of that crime.  Second, Lessig ignores that the election appears to turn more on people voting against Clinton than for Trump.  Both Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular candidates in the history of American politics.  The DNC and establishment lost this election by pushing through a candidate who had record lows for trustworthiness.  Even after all of the Trump controversies and Clinton’s post-election speaking tour campaign , he remains more popular than Clinton.

We have previously noted that polls have shown Trump would still beat Clinton in a head-to-head election (and here).  While Trump is also facing declining polls, he is at the same level or even higher than Clinton. Clinton posted the lowest polling numbers yet with only 36% popularity and an unfavorable rating of 61%. Polls are showing Trump at 38 percent.  While a new poll shows that half of people feel Trump should resign, it is clear that they want Clinton even less — the very same position held by many in the campaign.  Before the establishment all but anointed Clinton as their candidate in the primary, polls clearly showed that the voters did not want an establishment figure so the DNC worked to guarantee the nomination to the ultimate establishment figure. However, it clearly goes deeper than that.  Even against one of the most unpopular figures in history (Trump was even worse at 63 percent unfavorable), Clinton could not even maintain a majority of women with favorability ratings. Against a candidate who was intensely opposed by many, Clinton could not even get above 50 percent and finished 48 to 46 percent — with the electoral votes going to Trump. Had the DNC and establishment not engineered the nomination, another Democrat would likely have had a walk away victory.

Finally, there would be no compelling reason for either Pence or Ryan to resign.  If Trump were to resign or be removed, there is no expectation of mass resignations to facilitate the swearing in of the losing candidate from the last election.  That has certainly not been the case with past controversies like the Nixon resignation (despite the role of the “dirty tricks” team operating out of the White House).

The suggested path to a Clinton presidency through this chain impeachments and resignations smacks of a certain denial bordering on delusion.


399 thoughts on “Harvard Professor: Hillary Clinton Could Still Be President”

    1. Greenwald and Schwarz:

      “If for some reason President Trump and the congressional leadership refuse to use any of the above options to vindicate themselves, a brave member of congress could turn whistleblower and transmit the classified proof of the GOP’s claims about the memo to the news media.

      “Many outlets now have secure methods of sending sensitive material to them, such as Secure Drop. Those for The Intercept can be found here. (“All leaking entails risks, as we describe in our manual for whistleblowers).

      “So that’s that. All Americans, particularly conservatives, should ask every Republican making spectacular assertions about this memo when they will be using the above ways to conclusively demonstrate that everything they’ve said is based in rock-solid fact.

      “If they do not, Republicans will conclusively demonstrate something else. They will prove conclusively that all of this is about them shamelessly making claims they do not actually believe, fraudulently posturing as caring about one of the most vital, fundamental issues facing the United States: how the U.S. government uses the vast surveillance powers with which it has been vested.”

  1. This is just sad. Embarrassing, really. Accept the results of the election and move on. We have one every 4 years.

    Every 4 years, roughly half the country is pleased and half are disappointed. I like to call this “life”. Sometimes you get what you want, and sometimes you don’t.

    1. No, Karen, not the case. Most people voted for HRC, and while, with most elections, the country moves on, not in this case. The Fat Dotard is uniquely unfit for office because he is uniquely unable to lead, uniquely racist, misogynist, xenophobic, crude, insensitive and unwilling to learn the basics to success and unwilling to behave Presidential. What we all “want” is a leader. Fatso isn’t a leader. He just wanted to be President for the bragging rights–he wanted to be the biggest big shot of all, the most-powerful man in the world primarily because of his racist hatred of Barak Obama and all he accomplished. In his mind, if this [n-word] can be President and succeed, I can do better. He bragged about being smarter than all of the generals in the military. He’s done everything possible to undo President Obama’s accomplishments. He has alienated America’s allies, toyed with starting a nuclear war, and generally been a huge embarrassment. Most voters did not vote for him, and his election was assisted by Russian interference. He needs to go.

        1. Karen has made a legitimate point without shaming anyone. Natacha has personified the half who are disappointed. Why do you feel the need to personally attack Karen?

        2. Karen is one of the brightest on this blog, is knowledgeable and understands policy considerations. That can easily be proven if you wish to debate Karen (and she accepts) on a limited set of issues where both parties agree to stay on target and be responsive to the questions raised.

          If you accept then we will probably all learn quite a bit. If you reject then you will have proven yourself unfit. But I have to caution you that remaining on target and responding directly to questions raised is the entire point of having such a debate. That also means that you will have to provide your policy solutions in your own words.

              1. “Birds of a feather ………”

                That is right YNOT and that is why you get Linda and I get Karen.

                Anything else brilliant that you feel you have to say?

      1. Nutchacha re: “his election was assisted by Russian interference” still beating that tired drum – after a year 0 proof – just a lotta people making money off the die hard Hilbots. Sad.

      2. And with all that Clinton still blew the election. Bwahahahaha! Of course you’re pissed, but you’re anger should be with the fool that thought she should win against such a person. 🤣

        1. Olly,…
          But now, a year into Trump’s presidency, I’d say that they’re accepting Hillary’s defeat with grace and dignity.😄😂

          1. I’d say that they’re accepting Hillary’s defeat with grace and dignity.</em.

            Sure, soccer hooligans could learn a lesson or two from them. 😉

            1. Tom Nash, in a comment below-
              Clinton’s on-line campaign activities in the U.S. are likened to Russian on-line activities to influence the U.S. election for President. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Oily, you camping with him?

              1. Linda,
                You’re right, it diesn’t get much clearer thanthat.
                Online trolls, some paid, post all kinds of things on the internet to support a candidate or a cause.
                Those backing an army of trolls try to stay anonymous, as do the trolls themselves.
                It doesn’t look like there’s much of an effort, or maybe ability, to stop it.
                Assuming that different groups are looking to gain any edge that they can via internet postings, I don’t see this changing UNLESS the internet develops the ability and incentive to stop it….or greatly reduce it.
                The rules and controls that MIGHT be developed to stop that kind of internet trolling had better be equally applied…..for example, if one group lobbies for the David Brock trolls to continuetheir troll work, but wants to clamp down only on troll material that they don’t like, there’ll be a big political fight, and probably more resources devoted to large-scale internet attacks.

      3. You are frankly speaking, a moron. Trump has done in a year what Obama couldn’t master in eight. Aren’t you supposed to be living abroad right now? Get there. Do it. Now! Move to Haiti since you don’t think it is a ****hole.

  2. Another angle on Lessig is something I noticed about the Birthers. They had these fantasies of Obama being “frog-marched” out of the White House, in handcuffs, and everything he did, being overturned. Sooo, unscrupulous people played to them, and published articles and books about that. And the Birthers begged for more, and they couldn’t get enough of it. There were even bloggers who regularly posted about Obama was losing it mentally, and succumbing to AIDS, etc.

    Now, in an ironic twist of fate, the very people on the Left who used to guffaw at the Birthers, and all the idiocy and rampant confirmation bias, are busily doing the same thing! With gusto! They are lapping up stories about Trump’s mental health, and the Great Russian Witch Hunt with the same lack of basic intelligence exhibited by the Birthers.

    The difference is, instead of bloggers leading the way, it is college graduates in the Main Stream Press! It is Rachel Maddow, and the Clown Crew at CNN! Not some dork in the backwoods of West Virginny, who is a part time rattlesnake-handling preacher, like with the Birthers. No, now it’s people from Harvard and Yale and who have 6 and 7 figure incomes who are rounding up pitchforks and nooses and slobbering all over the place!

    Hilarious! How the mighty have fallen!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

        1. “Clinton SupePac admits to paying online trolls”.
          -Daily Kos, April 21, 2016

          1. Should be “SuperPac”.
            This particular SuperPac operated under the name “Correct the Record”.
            I think the David Brock online troll operations are separate
            trolling efforts.

          2. Hilary had trollls operating in Russia to defeat Putin? The Kremlin can build a case of election interference.

            1. Putin offs his opponents or sends them to Siberia. No serious opponent allowed. These MAGAS here would like to do da same to us. Resist T rump Putin.

              1. The richest 0.1% are installing a Putin-esque oligarchy. Our enemies are within.
                (1) Bannon, who turned Americans against each other- backed by the Mercers (2) Americans for Prosperity, undermining a federal government that can limit monopoly business and direct funding for public services- backed by the Koch’s (3) ALEC, targeting labor, driving its share of national income to the lowest point in recorded U.S. history- backed by the Koch’s (4) Walton and Gates, attacking public education, destroying a tradition that acts to unify and to strengthen and preserve democracy (5) Facebook’s colonialist board, selling internet influence to the highest bidder, selectively enabling a politician’s election,…

                1. Gatesis an oligarch but does not hang out at da MirLago Roman festivities with da porn stars and da pervs.

                  1. Gates and the Koch’s are destroying democracy. Refraining from debauchery is not a mitigating factor.

                    1. Gates and Koch both earned a lot of money creating jobs and wealth for the nation so you don’t have to sit in the street with a bowl asking people for money.

            2. Trump paid a law firm to hire Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele to compile a Russian Dossier on Hillary?
              Linda, you are selectively offended by foreign involvement in our campaigns.
              As long as your kind of blatant hypocrisy drives the types of one-sided “reforms”……the ones that partisan hacks like you are likely to favor…then we’re not going to get anywhere in reform efforts.
              You favor, or selectively favor, “made in America”, domestically-generated opposition research and trolling.
              UNLESS, that is, it’s the DNC spending millions to dig up Russian opposition research.

                1. The needle seems to be stuck on your broken record, Robo-Gal.
                  Or, if you are illiterate, have someone read my answer to that lame question that I already gave.

                  1. There’s no recovering from your error – an American politician trolling for votes in the U.S. would only provoke a “what about-ism” comparison to a Russian apparatus trolling for Trump votes, if the commenter was among the latter.

                    1. If you really, really concentrate, Linda, you might come up with a coherent statement every now and then.

                    2. Oiley hasn’t let the weather dull his thinking. He also recently displayed his sense of humor. “Not wanting the security codes to be available to Hillary”

  3. Judicial Watch is having trouble getting its FOIA requests honored by the current administration. Some Republicans do not want the FISA memo released at all or only in a redacted/neutered manner. What this tells me is that it is not the elected govt. who is running things. I ask along with JW: “Who is running this administration?”

    I hope someone has the courage to send the memo to wikileaks but I don’t see Trump allowing its release, even though it would ostensibly help him out. I want to see it because I want to understand who actually interfered in our election and who is actually running this F-d up nation. That memo will have some of the answers to this question

    1. Jill, I admire JW so much – their tenacity is amazing — gives me hope that there are people fighting for truth irregardless of party. I’ve observed that Tom Fitton has become increasingly irritated over the last 5 months – because he is fighting Trump’s DOJ too – that sorry excuse for an AG and the Clinton holdovers all over the damn government. WTF is Trump during all this??

        1. Disgusting isn’t it? More spying. And all the warmongering talk by Tillerson and Mad-Dog.

            1. AWW – no – HRC would be much worse than Trump. However I wish he’d not allow the warmongers to drag us into conflicts. We are uninvited “guests” in Syria and need to get the hell out. Get out of Afghanistan. Focus on the many needs in the U.S. instead of contributing to chaos around the world.

              1. Autumn, it is nice to have choices, but Presidents don’t always have such a luxury. In fact, many Presidents prior to inauguration had plans that had to be radically changed because of world events. It appears you believe the United States is responsible for all the wars when a far better evaluation would be that the United States is responsible for a lot of the peace.

                I am not saying that I agree with all our interventions since I don’t, but I do recognize history. Let me point out the origin of many wars. I think the Greeks and Spartans fought 3 or 5 wars, Rome fought Carthage (The Punic Wars) three times, Then we had a World War broken into two part WW1 and WW2. Ask yourself what all three of those major wars had in common? Each one of those three major wars didn’t end until one of the participants was totally defeated. (That is why we decided to have no negotiation in the Second World War)

                There are bad actors in the world and unrestrained they will advance like Hitler until stopped. There is no way Hitler and his generals would have gone to war if the British, French and Americans together demonstrated that they were willing simultaneously to defeat him. One can analyze what is necessary to win a war and the allies had all of them. I’ll give examples: Population, production capability, areas not easily vulnerable to attack, and technology. That is why I say if the British let the Germans know what they had been producing and the Americans were willing to back up the British it is very likely that war would have been avoided.

                “warmongers to drag us into conflicts.”

                Yes, we have them, but some of those that you would call warmongers are the same people with the same ideas that would have prevented WW2.

                1. Allan, I am very familiar with WWI and WWII. bad decisions made early on could have prevented them. Stupidity and hubris by the leaders lead to the loss of millions of lives. And I won’t even get into Vietnam.

                  that was then though and this is now and still the chaos and destruction continues. Who benefits? The MIC, oil companies and various other corporations who seek to extract natural resources.. Iraq was illegally invaded and destroyed using lies about WMD – Saddam was “our guy” when when Iraq was fighting Iran but when he decided to go of the petro dollar all of a sudden he became a dangerous foe. Same with Ghadaffi who wanted to start trading with a gold-backed dinar currency. We are allies with the brutal regime of Saudi Arabia but want to remove Assad – a democratically elected leader?

                  Remove the troops from Syria and from Iraq as well. we need to rebuild our own country which has plenty of “shit holes” rather than spending treasure and man power abroad — and provide good medical care for our veterans

                  The U.S. is still the most powerful nation militarily but is rapidly losing it’s standing in terms of global respect.

                  1. “that was then though and this is now ”

                    That is right. Sometimes we need time to get a historical perspective.

                    “Iraq was illegally invaded and destroyed using lies about WMD ”

                    There is a difference between lies and errors. I think GWB believed most of what he said. Hillary Clinton initially agreed with most of what GWB as did many of the leaders of the world. We can’t know for sure, but Saddam might have even believed he was further along in nuclear capability than he was for he was such a killer many people didn’t want to upset him. We also haven’t ever completely understood if things involving nuclear weapons weren’t transferred over to Syria. GWB’s error may have been going to war, but there was a logic behind the decision. His biggest mistake was doing what he pledged not to do and that was spread democracy so he remained in Iraq too long, disbanded the Republican Army, and didn’t leave with a reasonable government in charge.

                    I won’t argue with you about the US government’s affinity for the Arab nations based upon all the oil they have. We should have dealt with that problem under the Carter administration and refused to be held hostage even if prices of oil spiked and we had to pay an economic price. I think we should have taxed gas more heavily at the time to artificially raise the price and decrease consumption to starve the oil-rich nations. Over the years we have paid a much higher price.

                    People might believe that pats on the back provide security. They don’t as seen in WW2. Fear of another is a much greater stimulus to peace.

                    1. Allan,
                      “I think GWB believed most of what he said. ”

                      I think, then, he was a tool. Also, the NSA admitted they destroyed a bunch of data they weren’t supposed to. See the Politico article I posted above.

                      I am cynical, I guess, but I do not buy the ‘error’ story, not with all the other lies floating around.

                    2. Prarie Rose, don’t ask me to defend GWB. Though he is probably a nice man he wasn’t a great President.

                      Always remember that Hillary Clinton initially supported Bush. She was instrumental in my belief that Bush was mostly truthful. She was the wife of the former President and quite an active one so I believe she knew more of the sequence of events than almost anyone else.

                      You refer to a Politico article. A lot of errors are made and not infrequently the public is not told the entire truth sometimes for good reason. You would have to quote the individual items that you believe are important in order for me to comment further.

                    3. Allan,
                      Here is the article to which I am referring:

                      “Since 2007, the NSA has been under court orders to preserve data about certain of its surveillance efforts that came under legal attack following disclosures that President George W. Bush ordered warrantless wiretapping of international communications after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S.”

                      “the NSA told U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in a filing on Thursday night and another little-noticed submission last year that the agency did not preserve the content of internet communications intercepted between 2001 and 2007 under the program Bush ordered. To make matters worse, backup tapes that might have mitigated the failure were erased in 2009, 2011 and 2016, the NSA said.”


                      I agree that GWB is probably a nice man. I meant tool as in he was used as a tool, an instrument, to achieve an end But sometimes my cynicism edges in and I have the terrible sense that we are instead being played.

                    4. Prarie Rose, I don’t know what you are looking for. The issue of surveillance is a hot issue and has been misused by Presidents, the FBI and the CIA. That is a given. Some say it was necessary and some deny the necessity. Indeed after 9/11, I’ll bet that law was broken in the name of protecting America. It’s a good argument, but that doesn’t mean all the laws broken were necessary.

                      Overstepping the line will occur no matter what we do and that is why the Constitution is so important. Right now we are facing a potential Constitutional crisis because it seems that the argument for crossing the line is no longer to protect America rather it is to weaponize the state for political means.

                      One has to have a guide to help the follow a straight path. My guide is the Constitution.

                2. Allan,

                  It’s quite revealing how you mention the Punic Wars and WWII in the same post, a post that justifies war.

                  What were the Punic Wars about, Allan? Do you even have a clue?

                  If there were ever a series of wars that define warmongering for the sake of territorial supremacy, it is the Punic Wars. Not at all like WWII.

                  1. WWAS – if you know your ancient military history, the Punic Wars were wars of territorial aggression.

                    1. PCS,

                      You must not read comments either, so quick to quip.

                      Do you see in my comment right above yours the phrase, “… for the sake of territorial supremacy…”?

                      Maybe you should read it again.

                    2. “WWAS – if you know your ancient military history, the Punic Wars were wars of territorial aggression.”

                      Paul, if you note WWAS doesn’t say much of anything, All he does is search the postings looking for potential errors. He is a bit of a putz. His problem is that most of the times he doesn’t understand what is under discussion and seriously errs in his comments. He needs and ego transplant.

                  2. Dummy, I didn’t mention the Punic wars to justify war. I mentioned those three wars in particular for each of them had multiple wars between the same people until one of the warring party’s recognized defeat. That is very different than what you are now focusing on in your lame attempt to show how smart you are. Read what I said again and if still don’t understand it I will help you out, but I think you are smart enough to recognize you jumped the gun.

                    If you wish further discussion then try to discuss things rather than try to prove another wrong when each time it is shown that you have made a mistake. The one time you were correct I immediately commended you saying “excellent”. I am glad when one can be an aid in better understanding things, but I don’t find it appealing when another plays stupid.

                    1. “Blah, blah, blah…” — Allan

                      “Dummy, I didn’t mention the Punic wars to justify war. I mentioned those three wars in particular for each of them had multiple wars between the same people until one of the warring party’s recognized defeat.” — Allan

                      Yeah, I know — salt the earth kind of thing. Read my post again, Allan; your conflation is obtuse.

                      “Read what I said again and if still don’t understand it I will help you out, but I think you are smart enough to recognize you jumped the gun.” — Allan

                      Sure, just mixing in the Punic Wars with WWII; brilliant grasp of history.

                      “If you wish further discussion then try to discuss things rather than try to prove another wrong when each time it is shown that you have made a mistake.”

                      Yeah, it was my mistake to read your conflation of the motivations of the Punic Wars with WWII (at least from the Allies perspective). I feel so lame now, given how you’re such a shining example of how to discuss things.

                      “I don’t find it appealing when another plays stupid.” — Allan

                      I don’t find stupidity appealing in any form.

                      Your posts speak for themselves; if you find that you are consistently misunderstood you should probably look at your inability to persuade others. This is namely due to your hypocrisy of claiming the high-road while denigrating rebuttals with insults.

                      I cannot help the fact that you are a zealous fool.

                    2. WWAS, once again you have not understood the post or the explanation. I didn’t justify any war. I merely stated why two warring parties continued to fight and then why the fight ended. You errantly assumed I was justifying a war.

                      You can’t read, but you think you can.

                      Take what I said line by line and copy it onto the blog. Then insert your comments and see if they make sense. You won’t do that because you are totally wrong. You are so hot under the collar you are falling all over yourself. You also sound fatigued. Take a Valium and go to sleep.

  4. Lessig obviously isn’t a nobody, but really, no one believes any of this will or should happen. It’s certainly not representative of most on the “left”. It just seems like another opportunity to get everyone here outraged over a Clinton or crazy liberals. Your blog, Turley, but surely this is beneath you.

        1. If you’re referring to me, it wasn’t rude and nasty. It was constructive criticism. If Turley really just wants to run a tabloid-level site that generates tons of outrage and visitors, that’s his right, but I know he’s capable of better.

  5. With the highest level of the FBI on the verge of indictment, can Hillary be far behind?

        1. Allan,
          I think some satellite TV services have a feed from the North Korean state TV, so you can’t automatically assume that she doesn’t watch any news.

      1. Natacha,
        Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?
        Your name sounds “Ruskie” to me.

    1. CCS – they need to reframe the course – how to evade ethical considerations at the leadership level

    2. What did Comey do that was unethical? Refuse to pledge loyalty to the Fat Dotard?

        1. All this link consists of is a question raised by JT. No proof of laws being broken.

          1. Reading comprehension and staying on topic apparently aren’t your strong suits. The topic is Comey teaching a class on ethical leadership. You might think leaking multiple memos, confirmed to contain classified info, to an outsider without clearance to see said memos, is completely ethical. I don’t. And as Comey twisted the law into a knot to avoid prosecuting the Borg Queen for a similar epic failure to protect classified information, it’s hardly surprising Comey himself hasn’t been brought up on charges. Typical of the two-tier justice system in the US.

    1. anonemouse: Thanks for this! I’m surprised the twitter zombies haven’t shut Carter’s feed down.

      1. Just click the base account page of the person and copy paste the url address

        1. Just remember that everything placed on Twitter including direct mail is captured, kept and may be read by Twitter and likely is being profiled. Also, note that they engage in shadow posting based on ideology so the poster doesn’t know that no one else can read his responses even though he sees his responses on his own screen.

          All of this and more were recently documented by Project Veritas. https://www.projectveritas.com

      1. Hannity puts Carter on because she is an incredible journalist. She was incredible BEFORE he put her on.

  6. I read this as Lessig saying, “Pleeeeeze Hillary and Bill, can I get some legal work from you??? Maybe sit on the board of your foundation??? Or, could I accompany Bill on his sex excursions??? Or, could you get me a Chair somewhere??? Because I can suck up even betterer than your current cadre of toadies! Oh, I will crawl upon my belly like a reptile for you!!! Prettttttty pleeeeeze???”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  7. Rolling Stone- “The Trump-Russia-NRA Connection: Here’s What You Need to Know”.

    A legal scholar could explain to us, when circumstances like those deduced from the provided information, could trigger RICO statute charges.

    It would be sweet justice for the Atlanta teachers who were charged under RICO, when they benefitted on average less than $4000 and, were just trying to keep their jobs.

  8. Lessig has become a publicity hound – nothing sensible coming from that man prof or no prof.

    1. Lessig is a good giuy and a long time defender of net neutrality. He was a good friend of James Swartz. T rumpers and their Dear
      Leader oppose net neutrality.

      1. Lessig may do good things. But, one thing that he did was not a good thing. He signed an amicus brief on Shook Bacon letterhead, in the Vergara case (Calf.). Had his opinion prevailed, it would have been very costly to labor in terms of legal fees. The Vergara case was about preservation of rights for middle class workers.

  9. Thanks to Autumn and Jill for posting the ZS link this morning:




    #ReleaseTheMemo: Do you know someone who has access to the FISA abuse memo? Send them here: wikileaks.org/#submit WikiLeaks will match reward funds up to $1m sent to this unique Bitcoin address: 3Q2KXS8WYT6dvr91bM2RjvBHqMyx9CbPMN or marked ‘memo2018’: wikileaks.org/donate pic.twitter.com/j1YEkXqi2S

    6:53 PM – 18 Jan 2018

  10. More people voted FOR HRC than for the Fat Dotard, who has had one full year to prove he’s unfit for office. Even with control of both houses of Congress, Fatso has proven he’s not a leader, but the xenophobic, misogynist racist swine most people think of him. Who’s delusional now?

      1. She ain’t Apple or Goldman Sachs. Otherwise it is chump changeup
        Front and a hike in da end.

      2. In 10 years and through perpetuity, corporations will be enjoying their tax break. Not so for, Natacha and the rest of us.

        1. Wait a minute! if people like you and Natacha quit voting for Democrats, and start voting for Republicans, then your tax cuts could be renewed!

          Because your country would become a better business environment, and good sense could start to reign again.

          You are like a fan of a losing football team. You have the same old stupid coach for the last 10 years, and he calls the same stupid plays, because he can’t get off the stupid theory that the Triple Option is the way to go in professional football, and you whine and moan about how your team will never even get to the playoffs. But it has never occurred to you, to fire the coach and the whole management team and get somebody in who knows what they are doing. Or, to simply go become a fan of a different team.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. 🙂 I’m thinking Earl Hickey has better odds at being elected President than your recommendation bearing fruit.

            1. Olly,…
              What about Prof. Lessig’s chances of being elected president?
              His 2-3 months candidacy in 2015 didn’t go too well, but his campaign was at least on a par with some of the other 1700 FEC-registered presidential candidates in 2016.
              “Deez Nuts” was one oc the more famous, but others like “Tyrone Longdick” were also in the competition.
              I think the FEC denied the registration of the candidate “God Almighty”.
              They wanted proof that “God Almighty” actually existed, and also demanded the address of his residence.
              The FEC is powerful and brazen enough to bounce “God Almighty” out of the campaign, but I’ve heard virtually nothing about that agency in relation to the issues of the 2016 campaign.

          2. Tax cut = bigger deficit. The piper will get paid eventually, and in the long-run, the publicity stunt to appeal to the masses, whom the Fat Dotard thinks are dumber than him, will backfire. What happens when the Chinese stop loaning us money or call in their notes? Do we start a war? Some of us can see past the end of our fingertips.

            1. Like Obama didn’t run up deficits??? You see, Natacha, what you run the deficit up for is an important point. If you run up the deficit to pay for illegitimate children and take care of illegal immigrants, then the money is completely wasted, and there is not only not a benefit to the company, but a detriment that will keep on sucking up money. Like the 3 generation Great Society crap.

              But running up the deficit to encourage businesses to grow and invest, at least has the possibility of providing good results, without the “moral hazard” of the welfare programs.

              Like usual, you are not very much of a deep thinker about these things, I guess to you, getting your work car’s engine replaced on credit, is the same thing as taking a sea cruise vaycay on credit.

              But they aren’t. One pays off, and the other is just a foolish waste of money.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. The tax cuts will deepen the deficit that’s been around since after Bill Clinton left office. Ultimately, we all will be hurt by the deficit ballooning. “Encourage businesses to grow and invest”? Why didn’t they do this in the past with tax cuts under Reagan? Instead, they lined their own pockets, increased CEO salaries and invested more off-shore. That is a proven fact, and that will happen this time, too.

                1. I actually tend to agree with you on some of the economic aspects. I think that “evaporate up” would be a better model than “trickle down.” But the problem is, that even if the rich were fairly taxed, at a much higher rate as they should be, the extra money would just be wasted on welfare crap, cronyism payments, and other forms of bullsh*t.

                  Sooo, for the year 2018, in the current reality in which we are living, tax cuts are better than “not tax cuts.” As far as the deficit, it isn’t $20 Trillion. Nope, it is more like $70-$100 Trillion, and guess what??? It isn’t going to be paid back.

                  The Federal Reserve System will have to go bye-bye, and the debt will simply be monetized. The government will simply begin to print money instead of borrowing it from rich people, pension plans and other countries. Inflation will probably run to about 400% to $500% for a few years, and we will then redenominate our currency, and life will go on.

                  Our real problems involve the character of our citizens, which is gone to hell. You are a good example, because you can not think. I do not say that to you in any mean or snarky way. It is simply the way things are. People like you are in the majority, and there is nothing that will wake you up outside of duct-taping you to a chair, and cult deprogramming you.

                  But, what do you do when the majority of the country is closer to your mind-numbing idiocy, where the intellectual depth of the Democratic/Left is epitomized by a SJW running around in circles, waving her hands in the air, and crying, “There are no illegal people! There are no illegal people!”??? They don’t make enough duct tape.

                  The Russkies beat us years ago with their Useful Idiot Program, and just like with Skynet, it was never turned off.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

          3. The only team on the field is the richest 0.1%. And, they’re also the referees, coaches, owners of the concessions, and all of the profit making activities. The taxpayers pay for the stadium and receive the lowest share on national income in U.S. recorded history.

        2. That is because Democrats refused to vote for tax relief. You know that, right?

      3. “I hope you enjoy your tax cut.” ….. because it’s paying for stock buybacks, to drive up the share price.

  11. If Hillary has a chance to be President, so do I . President Earl Hickey . How does that sound everybody?

    1. I don’t know, Earl: do you have a law degree and experience being Secretary of State, just for starters?

        1. I thought he liked to get spanked with a copy of Forbes. Oh, well, doesn’t really matter.

    2. Sorry Earl, I am guessing that you most likely lack experience in cheating the Haitians, illegally wiping out leaders in other sovereign nations, diverting party campaign funds to yourself, participating in pay to play, circumventing top secret clearance regs, lying repeatedly… Also, how many dead people are associated with you?

      1. Autumn, if Earl regularly calls people of color pejoratives and throws vases and other objets d’art at his spouse then he’s at least in the running, right?

  12. Or they go the Nixon route. Impeach or force the resignation of Pence, and Trump appoints a new VP who will become president when he is impeached or resigned; New appointed prez then appoints a new VP. Nearly forgot. Trump appoints Ivanka who appoints Kushner after her dad resigns. This would give the Trump dynasty a really good start. After Ivanka serves the remainder of her dad’s term, she gets elected twice. Then her husband gets elected twice First woman prez (who is not HRC), and first Jew as prez. At that point, change the Constitutuion (what’s that?) and it’s time for Baron’s tutn.

      1. Jay S.,
        Maybe someone already answered your question….but, yes, the President selects a new VP when that office becomes vacant.
        That selection is then confirmed by Congress.
        When JFK was killed, there was no VP for c.14 months, until LBJ and Humphrey were elected.
        An Amendent ( part of the 25th? Amendent, I think) was passed a few years later that set the process for replacing a VP.
        It was first used when Nixon selected Gerald Ford to replace Agnew.
        Then Nixon resigns. Ford becomes president, and Ford selected Rockefeller as his VP.
        So we had a situation where both the President and VP were not elected, but were “replacements”.

        1. Thanks, Tom. That’s exactly what I meant by the Nixon route. Maybe it needs a better name, too many things already have his name.

          1. Bettykath,…
            Interesting times…Agnew resigns, Nixon’s gone c. 10 months later, and we have bith a President and a VP who weren’t on the ballot.
            Compared to all of the different characters involved, and different investigations going on now, the Watergate-era investigations and fallout now seem like a simple, straightforward matter.

            1. “seem like a simple, straightforward matter.”

              Seems like, but isn’t and is far more dangerous than Watergate.

              1. Do your comprehend what you read at all, Allan?

                Given your response, it seems you didn’t understand what your NBFF, Tommy Boy, actually said.

                1. Neither Watergate nor the present situation were simple matters. Watergate had a problem that we are facing today. Not what the President did, rather what was the second in command of the FBI was doing that he was not supposed to do? Tom is smarter than you and my response was written to Tom. I don’t always spell things out to educated and smart people. I try and spell them out to people like you who are clueless and unable to piece bits of history together.

                  Try again and don’t check your underwear after swimming in cold water or things will look even worse.

  13. That’s all??? The US doesn’t need another Communist in the People’s House. We had our 8 years and it’s time for someone else to undo all the damage. Suck it up buttercups… I don’t care what DJT did in the past – I’ll vote for him again in 2020. Killary should be behind bars!

        1. Yet, Hillary wouldn’t say the one thing that would have given her the Presidency. “There will be no cuts to Social Security.” We should be able to tell if she’s a socialist, which we can’t. Her husband certainly wasn’t one.

          1. These MAGAS are still trying to pretend da whoremongering warmongering money launderer is for da little person. Only if da little gal is offering her services to him.

        2. Amen!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          PS: Did you ever buy that S & W HRT knife??? I have ordered another one, an “MTech USA MT-20-14 Series Fixed Blade Neck Knife, 6-1/2-Inch Overall” for less than $9 on Amazon. It is a full tang, and shorter than the other one. It should be here today or tomorrow. I needed something not quite as big, to maybe wear around my neck, or in a pair of sneakers.

            1. The city is 55% black, and one needs to be prepared. The knives are in case I can’t get to the gun in my purse. And since last week, the gun in my console. IMHO, it is just a matter of time before we start more roving gangs of Negroes, and seeing stuff like this happen a lot more frequently:


              I try to be safe, and I avoid places like Chuck E Cheese’s, because of all the black brawls and stuff.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

                1. Funny, but I never see that many blacks at the library. . . And certainly not the ones with their pants sagging down around their knees. But still, I am cautious while in the parking lot.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. The rest of the nation should be cautious and more, with you in the voting booth. Citizens should be scared and should check their wallets.

          1. Squeeky, I haven’t bought a knife yet. I was going to take a knife class at my local gun range and see what I was comfortable working with. Tell me how you like the MTech when you’ve had a chance to break it in.

            1. I will. For me, the main factors are size and concealability; double-sided blade; and full tang strength so the blade doesn’t snap.

              Like my father and uncles have taught me, the purpose of a knife, for me, is to get out of a fight, and not into one. To either escape from an attacker, or incapacitate/kill him enough to get to my gun.

              If it was going to be a straight up knife fight, they recommend something like a Bowie Knife or KBar-ish. But they also say that is not the kind of knife for a girl because my reach is not that of a man’s. They say my best chance is to be in close and slash and stab, then escape and run.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Squeek, you’re the expert between the two of us, but from what I’ve learned from my ex-military friends, your family’s advice is spot on. I appreciate your knowledge on this, it’s very helpful.

        3. CC Skeptic,…
          Nah, let’s go with “Obama and the Clintons are both lousy commies”.
          We need some “balance” here for the comments here, like “Trump is likely a Russian agent” or that Pravda agents are posting here.
          Since the lunatic fringe in these threads are actively and repeatedly spouting the latter accusations, why not use an “equally reasoned” response as a counter-balance?
          We can have a “slogan-throwing” contest, but let’s not let it remain so one-sided.

          1. CC Skeptic,,..
            PS…. Since these comments seem to be posting way out of sequence, my comment was made “objecting” to your wimping out and only using wimpy words like ” neolib, neocon, globalist”.😉
            Get with it in the slogan-throwing department and upgrade the label…..I suggested “lousy commie”, but I don’t want that phrase to become as overused as “Pravda news”.

      1. She is no centrist, she’s a leftist with no principles who might tack a bit toward the center if it served her politically.

        1. She is not Left or Centrist. She is a corporatist – no loyalty to the US – it’s all about the $$$$$$$$$$ Unfortunately most of Congress fit into that category as well. They jump ‘n jive but in the end serve their masters instead of their constituents.

          1. Amen Autumn.

            Strangely, all your posts are not showing up in my browser. I know they are there by inferring from other’s comments.

            1. Jill, wow – am I being censored? Does that mean I’m special? =) Seriously, I noticed on this blog sometimes I have to refresh the page several times for comments to appear..

              BTW – how bout Tillerson? Did you see him at Stanford with she-devil Iraq invasion architect Condi Rice? Apparently she’s tutoring him on staying put despite being unwelcome. MIC elated no doubt.

              1. Olly, I just don’t want to elevate the political thieves into a class of their own.

              2. Political class thieves- the corporations holding billions offshore to avoid taxation, the hedge funders using carried interest privilege,

                1. That is what happens when taxation becomes abusive. People flee. That is when the leftists suddenly want to build walls. They have to force the people to stay and to work. They use guns. They kill, They use slavery. Face it, Linda. That is how you get your jollies.

                  1. “That is when the leftists suddenly want to build walls.”

                    So Trump is a leftist now?

                    1. “So Trump is a leftist now?”

                      Read carefully and try and understand the subject matter. Trump wants to build walls to keep illegal people out not to prevent our population from leaving. Linda’s choice is a type of slavery where one builds a wall to keep people in. Such a wall was built around West Berlin. Walls to keep people out are what you see all over those expansive mansions in Hollywood that are filled with leftists.

                  2. “They have to force the people to stay and to work.”

                    Sort of like the working class here so they can ‘afford’ medical insurance?

                    1. “Sort of like the working class here so they can ‘afford’ medical insurance?”

                      WWAS, Now you are becoming somewhat silly. Medical insurance is unaffordable because of the policies of the left. If you wish we can debate health care policy and why things are so expensive. If a market system was used global costs would decrease by 30-50% and possibly more as time goes by. You might think that is impossible, but when one looks at the costs created by government one can recognize why. A tidbit for you: Third parties aren’t as careful with your money as you are.

                      To answer the question before it is asked: I have no problem with safety nets and subsidies. I do not want to see people dying in the streets nor do I want the sick and poor not have access to health care.

                    2. “Medical insurance is unaffordable because of the policies of the left.”

                      Oh, sure, old-fashioned greed has nothing to do with it.

                      “A tidbit for you: Third parties aren’t as careful with your money as you are.”

                      Wow, thanks for the tip, I’m off to balance all of my bank accounts now.

                      But, yet, you allude to larger market forces with, “[i]f a market system was used global costs would decrease by 30-50% and possibly more as time goes by.”

                      Yet I’ve not seen any writings from you that actually acknowledge this; as what you are referring to is a socialized cost, and well that leads straight to Stalin in your book, doesn’t it?

                    3. “Oh, sure, old-fashioned greed has nothing to do with it.”

                      I wonder who has the greed, the entity selling the product who wants the highest price or the entity buying the product and wants to pay less or nothing at all.

                      WWAS these sound bites of yours don’t make you sound intelligent though I believe you have promise.

                      The following exchange between us is interesting:

                      Allan: ““A tidbit for you: Third parties aren’t as careful with your money as you are.”

                      WWAS: “Wow, thanks for the tip, I’m off to balance all of my bank accounts now.”

                      It demonstrates how superficial you were when one of the most important economic realities is stated. You need to balance value and cost. That is the real question. Third parties might have balanced books but very high costs without much value.

                      “Yet I’ve not seen any writings from you that actually acknowledge this; as what you are referring to is a socialized cost, and well that leads straight to Stalin in your book, doesn’t it?”

                      You are going to have to be clearer and fully state what you are trying to say. I could take one meaning of your statement and make you look bad, but I think you really wanted to say something meaningful so I will wait for further clarification.

Comments are closed.