Lindsey Graham Demands Explanation Of Rosenstein’s Failure To Recuse

Graham-080106-18270- 0035Rod_Rosenstein_Official_DAG_PortraitThe recent disclosure of a memo from former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on a conversation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on an alleged “cover story” demanded by President Donald Trump for his memo on the firing of McCabe’s boss James Comey:  I have already said that the memo may shed more light on the mindset of McCabe than Trump.  It is most likely that Trump was asking (as he did with everyone of these individuals) for a statement that he was not a target of the Russian investigation. That is not a cover story.  However, the memo does raise the question of why Rosenstein has not recused himself.  In August 2017 , I wrote a column calling for Rosenstein to recuse himself.    This memo only highlights that obvious need.

Now, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is demanding to know why Rosenstein is not in an obvious conflict of interest.

My earlier call in 2017 for Rosenstein’s recusal was based on his involvement in the deliberations leading up to and following the firing of Comey.  Any obstruction investigation would by necessity have to interview Rosenstein as a witness.  Moreover, his actions could be scrutinized or criticized in any final report. This memo is evidence of that very conflict.

What do you think?

184 thoughts on “Lindsey Graham Demands Explanation Of Rosenstein’s Failure To Recuse”


    “A source with knowledge of the investigation told Fox News that Trump just wanted Rosenstein to mention that Comey told him he was not under investigation in the Russia case.

    Trump himself, though, has cited the Russia probe in explaining his decision to fire Comey. Any indications that the president was in fact motivated by the Russia investigation to act against Comey could fuel the obstruction of justice component of Mueller’s probe”.


    That second paragraph above more than likely refers to Trump’s interview with NBC’s Lester Holt the day after Comey’s firing. Though curiously Fox doesn’t specifically mention said interview.

    In any event it shows that Fox News is well-aware that Trump ordered Comey’s dismissal to muzzle the probe. That’s a big admission for Fox News! They know Trump was essentially ‘obstructing justice’, for all intents and purposes.

    Yet Fox has worked very, very hard to diminish the Russia Probe. And Fox has certainly amplified the entire ‘deep state’ narrative. What a duplicitous source they are!

    The Fox article also references a recent New York Times article; which seems to be the basis for their story. That too is rather curious since Trump consistently calls The Times “fake news”.

    This illustrates what I wrote on this blog just yesterday: “Conservatives will reference The New York Times when it serves their purpose”. But they are quick to dismiss The Times when said paper contradicts their narrative.

    1. The Mueller leaked memo pretty much refutes your argument.

      First – it appears you have never fired anyone.
      There is never a single reason to fire anyone.
      There is just the last straw.

      If you ask me about the people I had to fire – I can give you 10 reasons for each.
      I can tell you want finally drove things over the edge,
      but no single reason was “the reason”.
      If you asked me what was most important multiple times you would get multiple answers.
      That is not lying, that is just a reflection that the truth is complex.

      Back to the memo.
      The memo confirms that Comey had told the Senate and House that the investigation was essentially over and that there was nothing on Trump.
      It also confirms that Trump KNEW that.
      The left is correct that the Russia probe factored into Trump’s judgement.
      Unfortunately for them Trump waited until he thought it was over and only THEN fired Comey.
      There are many reasons why firing comey was not obstruction.
      That is another. You can not obstruct an investigation you beleive is over.

    2. “This illustrates what I wrote on this blog just yesterday: “Conservatives will reference The New York Times when it serves their purpose”. But they are quick to dismiss The Times when said paper contradicts their narrative.”

      Of course as will the left with Fox.

      As a general rule when your enemies agree with you that is likely the truth.

  2. Rosenstein did Trump a great and good favor when Rosenstein refused to cite the Russia investigation in his memo recommending the firing of Comey.

    That Trump is seeking yet another double-dipper’s benefit from his own ongoing whipsaw routine probably goes without saying by now. And yet, there goes Tiffy Turley, again, asking us what we think about Trump’s latest demand for a double-dipper’s benefit from his own ongoing whipsaw routine.

    Enough already. That’s what we think, Tiffy.

  3. Does anyone really care what Lindsay Graham thinks? Might have been more relevant to ask Rosie O’Donnel what she thinks. Or the sidekick punk from A Christmas Story. But then maybe Obama is using the “Randy lay there like a slug” defense. Seems to be working OK.

  4. Lindsay Graham has credence because he also is willing to buck the White House when it spins egregious fantasies.

    “‘A confidential informant is not a spy’: Lindsey Graham undercuts his ally Trump“

    Unlike say, moral cowards like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell or outright debased toadies like Devon Nunes.

    1. Lindsay Graham has credence because he also is willing to buck the White House when it spins egregious fantasies.

      Lindsey (“Gang of Eight”) Graham is a puppy dog who does as he’s told when the John McCain, Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce, and the textile magnates back home tell him what to do.

  5. Build a gateless wall around the Beltway, a high wall, and fill with municipal waste water from Baltimore.

  6. ANSWER: there’s obviously no obstruction case being pursued.

    1. Perhaps. Perhaps not. We shall see when Mueller reveals the findings.

  7. ” Any obstruction investigation would by necessity have to interview Rosenstein as a witness. ” The obvious answer is that there is no obstruction investigation.

    1. Deep State, Sasquatch, Mermaids…

      I’ll take imaginary creatures for $100 Alex…

    2. Or, that Rosenstein is waiting till he is actually called as a witness to recuse himself.

      1. Bzzt, wrong.

        If there is an obstruction investigation premised on firing Comey – Rosenstein will be a witness and MUST recuse – the moment that became evident.

        The conflict exists – even if Rosenstein is NEVER called to testify.

  8. It does seem as though Rosenstein has a conflict of interest, I think he sees his role as staying in place as long as possible to preserve the investigation which Trump surely would have blown up by now if he could. I suspect Mueller is aware of that and hasn’t forced Rosenstein’s hand by calling him as a witness. I think Rosenstein will recuse himself when he feels the investigation is complete and/or the report is ready to be issued. He may be holding on to ensure the report is made public instead of buried by a Trump loyalist.
    While all this may sound very “Deep-State” to some. I see him as a patriot doing his duty fo fight Russian influence on our elections, something Trump can’t be bothered with.

    1. Either Rosenstein has a conflict or he does not.
      If so he must recuse.
      Even the appearance of a conflict requires him to recuse.

      1. I’m not especially disagreeing. He may believe the best thing he can do for his country is to wait until he’s sure the investigation is in good hands. He’s likely seen evidence we have not.

        1. He may believe the best thing he can do for his country is to wait until he’s sure the investigation is in good hands.

          If that was the ethical hurdle for recusal, then are we too assume anyone that recuses themself did not have the best interests of the country in mind?

          1. First, let me give Sessions credit for recusing himself, it was the right thing to do. I don’t know that we can assume anything about anyone but the appearance of impropriety should be enough. What actually goes into those decisions we may never know. Rosenstein may well have seen enough evidence and know from his own experience of Trump’s plans to obstruct the investigation that he made a different decision.

            1. Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer.

              Rosenstein may well have seen enough evidence and know from his own experience of Trump’s plans to obstruct the investigation that he made a different decision.

              And he may not have. The point of recusing oneself is not necessarily because one has a conflict of interest, but because one wants to avoid a conflict of interest.

              As has been pointed out by John Rawls, he may have knowledge that there is no evidence of collusion and no recusal was necessary. I guarantee you, either way, not recusing himself will not reflect well on the investigation.

            2. Sessions surprised me with that outburst of integrity in recusing himself, but, you’re right, credit where credit is due. How ironic Trump hates him for it. Trump doesn’t get integrity.

              1. If Sessions displaying integrity surprised you, maybe you should put down the Koolaide.

                Political slander from the likes of Schumer and Schiff, notwithstanding, he has had a pretty ethical career.

        2. Fiat justitia ruat cælum

          If Rosenstein is required to recuse – he must. There is no, but things might not work out the way I think they should if I do exception. In fact that type of thinking is WHY he must recuse.

          We must follow the law even if we beleive the results will be disasterous.

          In reality they will not be. But it is always easy to convince yourself that you are the only solution to any problem.

            1. The push for Rosenstien to recuse is driven by multiple factors.

              While I actually beleive that Rosenstein is sincere and beleives in what he is doing.

              He is unfortunately wrong and lawless and needs to go.
              He has left Mueller accountable only to himself and himself accountable to no one – not the president not congress. There is no 4th Rosenstein branch in the constitution.

              But more specifically, Rosenstein is a witness and witness must recuse.
              But he is only a witness if Mueller is investigating Obstruction based on Trump firing Comey.
              The demand for Rosenstein to recuse is also a probe and an effort to limit of Mueller’s investigation.

              Mueller can keep rosenstein so long as he does not even investigate areas where Rosenstein would be a witness. Given that the obstruction claim is garbage, my bet is Mueller stays away from the obstruction charge.

              1. There appears to be plenty of potential obstruction not involving Rosenstein like Trump dictating a false statement re his son’s Trump Tower meeting. But there may be plenty of crimes to go around so we will see?

                1. The statement is not false and would not be obstruction even if it were a blatant lie.

                  You can not obstruct justice by lying publicly.

                    1. Rather than spewing fallacious ad hominem – could you try making an argument.

                      What part of the statement is false ?

                    2. I beleive 7 people who were at the meeting have testified – and that is what every one of them has said.

                    3. It took over a year to find out who was all at the meeting. We only know what some testified to before Congress, not what was said before the Grand Jury. Everybody also said Donald Trump did not dictate the response but now we know he did. If Donald Jr testified to it, you can pretty much count it as false. As far as Jared, who has amended his security forms over 100 times, his relationship with the truth is suspect as well.

                    4. “It took over a year to find out who was all at the meeting. We only know what some testified to before Congress, not what was said before the Grand Jury. Everybody also said Donald Trump did not dictate the response but now we know he did. If Donald Jr testified to it, you can pretty much count it as false. As far as Jared, who has amended his security forms over 100 times, his relationship with the truth is suspect as well.”

                      From the time we learned of the meeting it ways days before we had every name.

                      We are not actually entitled to know who attents every private meeting on the planet.

                      If the Grand Jury testimony differed from that before Congress – Mueller would have indicted.

                      No we do not “know that he did”, we do not even know for sure that the word “dictated” was used in the memo – we do not have the memo, we have what was leaked to and reported by the media.

                      If we did have the memo – that would tell us what Trump’s lawyer’s wrote.
                      Not what happened – the memo is not testimony.

                      And finally we do not know what “dictate” means in the memo.

                      I am sure that Mueller would love to indict Jr.

                      Contra your claim we can assume that Mueller can not disprove anything said to congress in even the smallest way, or he would have indicted.

                    5. Jared’s SF-86 was not unusual for someone of his position with his global business.

                      Have you ever filled out an SF-86 ?

                      Mine was something like 90pages, in 2003.
                      I would imagine Kushners is several 1000.

                    6. Never filled one out, I understand you do under possible potential of perjury? I woud think hundreds of errors of omission wouldn’t be the norm.

                    7. It has been more than a decade – but my recollection is that the terms are the standard penalties for unsworn falsification.

                      In fact my recollection was that in all the litterature I read by far the greatest threat was that the Federal government could demand that I was fired.

                      Hilary was NOT properly held account regarding her email server schenanigans.

                      But Comey was SORT OF right about one thing. While people have been charged convicted and prosecuted for what she did, the sentences are usually very light – unless you are in the military.

    2. His non-recusal puts any legitimate case in jeopardy. He doesn’t believe anyone under him can handle the situation? The whole investigation is a farce.

  9. Professor Turley, aren’t you the one who is always defending Trump and tellin those of us who want to be rid of him that we must be patient and await the completion of Mueller’s investigation before reaching a conclusion? Now, not having seen this purported memo you rush to conclude that Rosenstein should be recused. Hypocritical? The thing speaks for itself.

    1. If you don’t like him, suck it up and vote in 2020! You don’t get to have a temper tantrum and force out a duly elected President based on your supposition and conjecture!😡

      This will all boomerang back on those who want to usurp the will of the people who elected him.

      1. Are you among those who believe that the results of the 2016 election give Trump a “stay out of jail free card,” no matter what Trump does or may have done? That is, a duly-elected president can do no wrong, commit no crime, and is impervious to prosecution? Can “stand in the middle of Times Square and shoot somebody” with impunity?

        1. I am among those who beleives that if Trump does in 2020 to whoever opposes him what Obama did in 2016 that he should be impeached and jailed.

        2. The president can not commit a crime by acting as the constitution allows.

          The constitution does not give the president the power to orchestrate payoffs, or to lie under oath in a civil lawsuit.
          Nor does it give him the power to direct subordinate to commit crimes.

          But a president may not be criminally prosecuted for firing people or for pardoning people.

          Though he can be impeached for either.

          Impeachment is the only remedy in the constutition for conduct that is within the presidents powers, but otherwise offensive.

      2. I fully intend to vote. In fact, I just voted in the California primary.
        Here’s a conservative columnist who concludes Trump is the worst Republican president ever.
        I don’t think that given those facts I need to rely on supposition and conjecture. Neither should you. If you want what’s best for America, you want to get Trump out of power ASAP. That’s not a temper tantrum. It’s just logic.

        1. hollywood – the NYT is factually challenged, is a wing of the DNC and is covering for the DOJ and FBI. Why would I depend on them for facts?

          1. 1. That’s a silly statement. If nothing else the Times’ obsession with Hillary’s emails may have cost her the election. Meanwhile, Maggie Haberman is their “Trump whisperer.”
            2. Mr. Stephens, who authored the column I linked, is a conservative writer (the Times also has David Brooks as an in-house conservative).
            3. If you don’t know these things, you are being misled by conservative media.

            1. hollywood – anyone the NYT lists as a conservative is really a liberal in disguise. 😉

              1. Followed by an even sillier PCS quip; as much substance as a soft drink.

            2. I think it is reasonable to report pn the fact that one of the candidates for president was reckless and careless in here handling of classified material on a grand scale, and whose carelessness near certainly resulted in foriegn powers getting US government secrets.

              This is a problem Clinton could have avoided by not breaking the law and not being stupid.

            3. If Hitler were to make a true statement would the fact that it was made by Hitler falsify it ?

              While those you note at NYT are not “conservatives” – they are at best moderates.
              what matters is whether their remarks are true not the idiology of the person who said them.

        2. Stevens is an open borders Liberal. His opinion piece is just that, opinion. You make the leap from one man’s take on Trump’s trade policies, to fact.

          Like many on both sides, you need to learn the difference.

  10. When will people wise up and understand that this is not Republican vs Dem or Lib vs conservative or black vs white…it’s the Washington Elite Establishment vs Everyday America. Rosie is part of the Establishment as is Comey and Bill Kritol and McCain and Ana Navarro and so many more. That’s why the Don is getting it from all sides. They are scared to death that he’ll expose the gravy train and take it away from them.

    1. Doug ” They are scared to death that he’ll expose the gravy train and take it away from them.” Have you been paying any attention to Trump’s family and Cabinet? The “gravy train” has set up shop in the White House.

      1. Trump lost 100M last year. Aparently being president is not good for his finances.

          1. dhlii apparently has access to Trump’s tax returns. dhlii, please share them with us so we can validate your claim.

            1. Fortune, forbes,
              These are the journalists that provide us estimates of the worth of all the 1%.
              BTW a tax return will show your income not your wealth.

              Further Fortune and Forbes are backed up by stories in
              time, bloombergm newsweek, money, business insider, cbs, wapo, ……

              It is entirely possible that nearly the entirety of the media are wrong on this story.
              But it is not unreasonable to beleive the story.

          2. Are you saying that Forbes top 400 list is all smoke and mirrors ?
            That they do not know what they are doing ?
            Are you saying that atleast a dozen major news outlets do not know what they are reporting ?

            Maybe its true, maybe its not.

            But if it is false we have no reason to trust the leading media in the country.

            1. In Trump’s case, it is all smoke and mirrors. I give you two examples. Trump at least once called into Forbes under an assumed name to influence them as to his positioning.


              Also, in a deposition he admitted that the valuation of his companies is pretty much what he says it is.

              So I am saying that no one knows what Trump is worth? Can’t go by his taxes can we? Any information used provided by Trump (which is most of it) is likely a lie.

              1. I really do not care.

                Forbes is not the only source, there are litterally dozens of outlets reporting this.

                I am sure Forbes is used to Trump’s shenanigans. I doubt they have the information to perfectly gauge Trump’s (or anyone else’s) wealth, but I think it is highly likely that there year to year variations are accurate.

                You can beleive otherwise.

                What Trump says is irrelevant to what Forbes reports.

                Beyond that there are public records of ownership for many many things.
                Those things can be values independent of Trump’s claims.

                Do I think Forbes is accurate to 6 decimal places ? No.

                Do I think that they are withing 30% – yes 10% probably. Do I think there year to year changes are very accurate – yes.

                But you can differ.

                  1. How Trump feels has nothing to do with how Forbes assesses
                    Are you saying that Fobres can not estimate the value of a cassino ?

                    1. I’m saying every public record that originated within the Trump Organization is suspect. Forbes would have to make its projections on figures. The man who lies crowd size would have no problem misstating assets. You can tell from his taxes… oh my bad, we can’t can we?

                    2. Your saying that deeds and loans filed with prothonataries are falsified ?

                      That is generally easy to prove and if True would result in impeachment conviction and prosecution.
                      Those would be state crimes and he can not pardon himself.

                      The media lies about his crowd sizes too.
                      I do not listen
                      They deserve each other.

                    3. Now you’re on the right track, especially regarding the loans and the applications. If every major domestic ban stopped lending to you, that might just be the hint of a problem. The fact something is easily provable has never kept Trump from lying about it. Sales, Income, Brand value, property values, cash on hand, amount of debt. How does one properly record money laundering?
                      The man who knows best what’s out there for Mueller to find is preparing for an impeachment. In this one instance, he’s probably right.

                    4. You blur a whole lot of things together as if that can be done meaningfully.

                      Trump says whatever he pleases about his own wealth. We all got that.

                      He has learned something that Adam Smith discovered 2 centuries ago.

                      Above a certain level – it does not matter. Warren Buffet has far more Wealth than Trump.
                      Buffet actually lives much worse. Regardless, 10B, 2B it does not matter – Trump will have the same lifestyle.

                      But what Trump says has nothing to do with Forbes.
                      They use facts – they use them for each of the top 400. They use the same kind of facts from the same sources.

                      Any errors are common to the entire data set – If trump;s value is wrong – so is Buffet’s.
                      Further they use the same methods year over year. If they say Trump went down 100M than he very likely did. Even if they were wrong about his value – any error would likely be constant and cancel out.

                      You fixate on who loans who money.

                      It does not matter – unless you are saying the people loaning Trump money are really giving it to him and do not expect to get paid back with interest.

                    5. Actual money laundering is the process of converting money earned from a crime into money that can not be tied to that crime.

                      Money that was not earned from a crime does nto need to be and can not actually be laundered.

                      Personally I think the “crime” of money laundering is STUPID.

                      It is a ridiculous effort by government and law enforcement to compensate for the failure of other bad laws.

                      If you conspire with someone to rob a bank – prove the conspiracy and prosecute.

                      If someone buys a condo in Miami from you for 100M – it is not your business to figure out whether he is an energy mangnate or a drug dealer.

                    6. If Russians are buying properties well over value in Florida, New York, Toronto, Panama and elsewhere, it might be reasonable to assume they want something. Trump was ready to relax the sanctions the day he came into office until Congress actually objected. He has since decided not to impose those that hadn’t gone into effect but by then, Congress had run out of balls and did nothing.

                    7. The value of anything is what a willing buyer and a willing sellor agree to.

                      “it might be reasonable to assume they want something. ” Yes – the properties they are buying.
                      BTW properites in these markets have high value and there are plenty of people from Asia, South america, Europe buying too, and not from Trump.

                    8. I’m thinking of a property in value that was purchased by one of the oligarchs at a ridiculous price (I don’t feel up to looking it up since the price won’t matter to you anyway) and after acquiring it never moved in or did anything with the property. They didn’t want the property, they were buying the man.

                    9. Because you say so ?

                      250 years ago Adam Smith noted that past a certain level of wealth it was not even possible to spend much less benefit from more wealth – that all the benefit actually went to others.

                      If I had several billion I would buy condo’s in Miami, that I might never use.
                      They would be there if I wanted, and they would be assets if I never use them.

                      Has Oprah stayed at all her houses ?

                    10. I do not beleive that it is the business of government to involve itself in the economy.

                      If you wish to trade with Russia – that is your business.

                    11. If any – another country or individuals use force whether in an election or otherwise – then it is the duty of government to thwart and punish that force.

                      Neither you, nor I, nor our government have any more right to silence the voices of others, not the rich, not the poor, not even those of other nations, not even when the seek to persuade us to vote differently.

                      Provide evidence that any used force – that they held a gun to any voters head, that the altered ballots, that the interfered with counting – and government must counter that with force.

                      But government has no business interfering in the effort of any to persuade others. If the russians overtly or covertly sought and even succeeded in persuading american voters – that is their right, just as it is your right to attempt to persuade me.

                      I would suggest that you read John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”. If you want a condensed version of the critial arguments without historical references that are opaque to our time you can try Heterodox Academies
                      “All Minus One” It is only 50 pages.
                      Those of you one the left are ignorant of the tremendous importance of liberty – free speach, particularly offensive speach. Which is quite surprising as the left would not exist but for the free speach the rest of us have afforded it.

                      Regardless, the claim is garbage. The left is unable to accept not merely that they lost the last election on their own – but that to nearly half the country their views and ideology are more offensive than Trump.
                      And nearly the entire country sees Trump as offensive.

                      Can you find me a single voter who but for these mythical myriads of russian facebook bots would not have voted for Trump ? Your entire argument relies on persuading people that not merely are those who voted differently than you prefer stupid, but that you are entitled to shape the way they vote – to protect them from “russian influences”.
                      That is not a slippery slope – it is a cliff dive into ruin. If the handful of Russians and the smidgen of bad Russian FB adds are within your right to prohibit – then why can we not bar the efforts of John Oliver or Samantha Bee to persuade us ? Oliver and Bee are no more US citizens than Putin.
                      Can we bar Reuters, the guardian, the daily mail from speaking of us elections ? Are the people of France, or Norway not permitted to express their views on our elections ? Can we convert Facebook and Twitter to US sealed vessels while our elections are occuring ? Isn’t it nations like China, Iran, North Korea, even Russia that behave so badly ?

                      If it is acceptable to control the efforts of foreigners to persuade US voters – to protect the nations from the likes of Trump then why not silence Richard Spencer, or Alex Jones or Milo Yanopolis,
                      or Anne Coulter or Dinesh D’Souza or Ben Shapiro, or David Rubin, or Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson ?

                      Which voices are voters allowed to hear ? Who gets to decide ?

                      Or why even bother with voting. If half the country can not be trusted to voter as you wish, just skip the election, and impose your will on the rest of us by force.

                      Past principle we have the practical. The Russian IRA – which is the primary propganda arm that offends you had a budget that was less than 1/100th of Clinton’s spending, and 99% of that budget was spent on Russian elections – not the US. Most of that smidgen was spent after the election, of what little was spent before – most was spent on issues not candidates. and regardless of whether the spending was on issues or candidates it was closely divided between left and right. The only effect the Russians even sought on our election was to persuade people that our elections were rigged. Whether Trump or Clinton supporters, Putin’s objective was to deny the US a moral platform to challenge his own rigged elections.
                      And in that he succeeded admirably for the US left bought hook line and sinker.

                      If you want to sell something – try something plausible.

                    12. It’s good to know that Putin influenced “the left” while the right went unattended to. I’m reminded of the biblical quote about seeing the mote in thy neighbor’s eye while ignoring the plank in your own. There was a component of the Russian strategy designed to get “left” voters to stay home. The far greater portion was to rally the right behind nationalist ideas and vote that way.
                      Out of curiosity, how do you feel about domestic voter suppression and gerrymandering?

                    13. You continue to use terms like “russian influence” as if it is a loaded gun.

                      Lets be clear – Russia used SPEECH. Though small the Russian efforts were little different from Voice of America.

                      Separately, you are the only one making claims unanchored to facts.

                      The facts – based on what Mueller has put into his indictments, are a small operation that had nothing to do with favoring one candidate. That the objective was pretty much exactly what occurred to errode the confidence of the american people in their own elections.

                      With respect to your assertions – there was no component of the “russian strategy” that was large enough to be effective.

                      Conversely – Clinton worked hard to keep republican voters home. Trump worked hard to keep clinton voters home. That is exactly what negative campaigning is.

                      Regardless, it is still speach, it is still persuasion – even if practiced by Russians.

                      “the far greater portions was” NOT – particularly anything. The largest single area that Russia fixated on was Black Lives Matters. That does not fit your meme.

                      I do not actually care if the Russian effort was huge and targeted, that is a news story – one that our media was remiss in finding and reporting. It is NOT the business of the US government who is trying to persuade who in our elections.

                      But the left’s narative – that this flipped the election – belies the scale of the actual change.

                      Much is made of how narrowly Clinton lost the rust belt. No one points out that Obama won the rust belt by MILLIONS of votes. Trump did not win by flipping 70,000 voters, he won by flipping several million blue colar democrats.

                      Obama won PA alone by 300,000 votes. Clinton lost PA by 50,000 votes that huge swing.

                      The russians did not do that. Particularly not with less than 100K in total US spending.

                      Clinton and Trump EACH spent more on Facebook alone than Russia spent on its own entire recent election.

                      There are many flaws in your narative, those flaws are important not just because you are chasing Russian unicorns, but because you miss the messages of the election.

                      A big one of those is that there is a huge law of diminishing returns on election spending.

                      Clinton spent near double what Trump did. She spent something like $20/vote.
                      If money in politics was so important – Clinton would have swamped Trump.

                      Do not get me wrong, 50K and a billboard is not going to win a presidential election.
                      But there is almost no difference in impact between 800M and 1.6M in political spending.

                      BTW the “experts” have know this for a long time.
                      Politicians spend vast sums on elections – because that is within their control.
                      Not because it works.

                    14. If when you say “voter supression” you mean speech – I am fine with it.

                      If you are talking about voter ID – 80% of the country is fine with that.
                      If you are talking about getting deal people and ineligible voters off the rolls – no problem with that either.

                      If you are talking about people with baseball bats standing outside of polling places – that is a crime.

                    15. And if I’m talking about getting eligible people off the rolls, and making it much harder for some people to get ID, and limiting voting machines and making polling locations less accessible and letting “citizens” monitor voting sometimes standing behind voters while they vote… what then?

                    16. “And if I’m talking about getting eligible people off the rolls”
                      I oppose that. But you have not demonstrated that it is occuring to any consequential extent (everything bad occurs somewhere).
                      Nor have you demonstrated a real harm. Most states have pretty simple provisional voting.
                      Basically you say you are allowed to vote, you get to vote, and then might be later required to prove you are who you say you are.

                      “and making it much harder for some people to get ID”
                      The DMV sucks. I am all for fixing that

                      “and limiting voting machines and making polling locations less accessible”
                      Those things are generally in the control of local communities.
                      If your community makes voting harder – you should go after them.

                      “and letting “citizens” monitor voting sometimes standing behind voters while they vote… what then?”
                      In my state you can not get anywhere near someone who is voting, you can not loiter in or outside the polls. If what you say is occuring – you should change your state laws.

                    17. This blog has a policy (which I’ve already violated) which allows only one link per post. I choose to send one documenting what states are doing to purge people from the rolls, often because they have names similar to ineligible felons or otherwise. In Florida where I live they started out placing 12,000 people on the ineligible list which after challenges was whittled down to 200.
                      In Alabama, to save money they only opened the DMV office once a month in several counties which happened to be the counties with the highest percentage of black population in the state. That office was only open during standard business hours, meaning people have to take off work.
                      You mock the concept of “minority control” yet Wisconsin (which actually did vote GOP in the last Presidential election) has had minority state control by a large margin for several years. Their gerrymandering is before the Supreme Court right now, they are arguing it’s merely partisan and not racial. North Carolina is very similar along with Florida.
                      For the last several Presidential elections you could have watched the long lines in urban (read minority) locations. In Florida, people were still in line when the polls closed in California, a three hour time difference. None of this is accidental.
                      Notice I’m not complaining about ID in and of itself, although the way it’s implemented can be unfair. In every Republican state that implemented voter ID, it was accompanied by several other measures to make it harder for some people to vote and give Republicans an advantage. Democrats historically have done worse but the Republicans are the present danger.

                    18. Polls have to be purged periodically. It should be yearly.

                      If you do not like purging fellons – change the law.

                      States pretty much never purge people who have voted in any of the past several years

                      If you have not voted in three years – your name might get purged.
                      If you have not voted in three years and your name is similar to a fellons – you might get purged.

                      Nearly every state has provisional voting.
                      i.e. if you are not on the rolls you fill out an afidavit that says you are who you say you are and you vote.
                      Your vote is counted,

                      So fix DMV.

                      In my state I can go to ANY DMV in any county.

                      Yes, state offices are only open during standard business hours.
                      ALL of us have that problem. It is a problem whether you are registering to vote or getting a marraige license or registering a car.

                      Scott Walker has bee re-elected in WI repeatedly.
                      There is a difference between party affiliation and voting.
                      I know democrats do not understand that but almost 40% of voters do not specify party.
                      And they tend to vote 60/40 republican.
                      Regardless the fact that Walker a republican can win repeatedly in a state you say is democrat, is a strong indication that republicans would likely control the house, and senate in WI.

                      Republicans control the entirety of something like 28 states. Democrats should like 14.
                      That should mean the Senate is 60/40 republican – unless it is “gerrymandered” ?

                    19. Until recently racial gerrymandering was improperly required by SCOTUS in violation of the 14th amendment.

                      With respect to long lines in some precincts to vote – The 2000 HAV act provided federal finds to every precinct in the country on an equal basis to pay to upgrade their voting equipment.
                      would note that each congressional district has almost exactly the same number of voters and receives exactly the same federal funding. Some state also provide state funding, but in most communities voting is a local matter. If you see long lines at some places and not others, either they wasted their federal and state funds or did not raise local funds. Voting costs are a quite small part of any communities fiscal budget. In most communities poll workers are unpaid volunteers, and polling places are provided either by local schools or churches and community centers are little or no cost.

                      Put simply anjy disparity is the results of LOCAL political corruption, or lack of local interest.

                      No, it is NOT accidental, but it is not caused by racism either.
                      Nor should it be surprisimg. The worst problems in the country are in the cities where politics is the most corrupt and entirely controlled by democrats. While most of the time rural and suburban voting is relatively trouble free as those districts are either controlled by republicans or controlled by both parties and far less corrupt and more competent.

                      We get this same nonsense regarding police shootings. We are supposed to beleive that the police departments in democratic, and usually minority controlled cities are particularly racist. Nearly all the questionable police shootings occur in urban or metropolitican precents controled by democrats and often by minorities.

                      The failures of local governments – particularly those of democrats and minorities are not evidence of racism, they are evidence of political corruption.

                    20. Why would you assume that local governments are somehow set apart from national politics? Organizations like A.L.E.C. and the NRA are busy at every level making sure laws are written and enacted at every level. Dismissing what happens on the local level as being their fault is being willfully obtuse. In FL for example, local municipalities and politicians personally can be sued and remove if they attempt to enact local gun legislation. In North Carolina, the Republican-controlled County voting commissions act as one across the state to make voting harder.
                      “The failures of local governments – particularly those of democrats and minorities are not evidence of racism, they are evidence of political corruption.”
                      Corruption is not inherently racist, it’s about gaining and the maintenance of power. The goals of corrupt politicians quite often have a disparate racial impact, Republicans are openly claiming that their gerrymandering is merely partisan and not racist in intent although quite racist in effect.
                      As far as police forces, their original (and mainly current) function was to protect the property and lives of landowners and the wealthier people. There are a number of policy-induced factors that have created many of the inner-city conditions and for those who can see e-mails between a couple FBI agents as evidence the whole system is corrupt; why is it so hard to notice that thousands of racist e-mails between police officers means nothing. Again it’s a case where the goals of power may only incidentally be racist but the impact is the same. If stop & frisk and racial profiling existed in your community, you might view things differently.

                    21. You are saying that local politicians – Democrats, and blacks are deliberately screwing their own voters ?

                    22. Go find out where those districts with long lines are and you will find how little Alex has to do in those.

                      Regardless, Yes ALEC and the NRA lobby for their voice to be heard.
                      So does Sorros, Move-On, and SEIU. There is more money going to democrats than republicans.
                      Not that it matters, the money is used almost exclusively for SPEECH.

                      Further total US spending on elections in a presidential election year is about 1/2 what we spend on Snacks in the same year.

                    23. “Dismissing what happens on the local level as being their fault is being willfully obtuse. ”

                      No it is not. The nation as a whole is NOT responsible to make sure that minorities and democrats who control their own local governments, do so in the manner that best serves their national interests.

                      There is plenty of evidence that democrats subject their own voters to more difficulty voting.
                      It is not actually likely to effect the outcome of the elections, as only democrats are winning those precints anyway.

                      You keep making sweeping judgements but do not back those up with meaningful evidence.

                      In MOST states – decisions like when the polls open and when they close are set by the state, as well as purging the voter rolls.

                      Decisions regarding where the voting will occur and how many volunteers will be on hand are LOCAL.

                      The Decisions that cause the problems you fixate on are move locally, not statewide.

                      Further you have a chicken egg problem.

                      You presume that a republican minority has gerymandered itself into political power.

                      How did the MINORITY manage to come to control redistricting ?

                      The real core to your problem is that the largest single block of voters today are independents.
                      Differences between parties in terms of registration are dwarfed by the numbers of unidentified voters.

                      Those voters are NOT strongly affixed to either party. Though they tend to vote about 60/40 republican.

                      They determine which party is in power. Not registered democrats, not registered republicans.

                      You need to appeal to them – and you have failed and that is why you are loosing political power accross the country at all levels accept in your own localities.

                    24. I am not interested in your analysis of the roots of political corruption.
                      They are irrelevant to this discussion as the corruption that is harming democrats is corruption among democrats and inside the power of democrats to fix.

                      Regardless, “Power corrupts”

                      The democratic party will likely always be more corrupt than republicans. It is inherent by design.
                      Democrats are significantly more statist – they seek a more powerful government. That inherently means they will attract more efforts to corrupt them, and they will be willing to wield more power – which will corrupt them. “Power corrupts”.
                      If you want less democratic corruption you need to strengthen your political emphasis on individual rights and limited government. But if you did that you would no longer be democrat.

                    25. Pruitt, Mnuchen, Ross, Zinke, et al are disproving your theory of greater Democrat corruption. You mistakenly believe I think the Democrats saviors from the heathen Republicans. They are only the lesser evil. If the Republicans were only to offer a better alternative? But all they decide is to further suppress votes (An official RNC strategy btw) and increase mass incarceration.
                      You never did say what state you were from? This being the third time I’ve asked. I only wished to move from the vague to the specific in an example you’re familiar with. Maybe that somehow invades too deeply into your privacy or you already know your state (like the others) won’t stand up to any real scrutiny. I can only guess at your reasons? It seemed such a simple question.

                    26. They do ? Pruitt – a cabinet member is being tarred and feathered over hand lotion and a 42,000 phone both that while expensive can be justified

                      We now find that McCabe – not cabinet level, not undersecretary level had a 70k table made for his office.

                      I am not looking to defend Republican corruption – plenty exists. But the larger problem iw on the left.

                      There are plenty of republicans who have treated women badly over the years. With few exceptions – Trump, Moore, the have resigned. Clinton is yours, Biden is your, Franken is yours, nearly all those in the media who have been caught with their pants arround their ankles are yours.

                      I did not vote for Trump specifically because of his conduct towards women. But Trump’s conduct is more consensual and less disturbing than Franken’s. Bill Clinton just made clear to all of us that he is completely clueless, sex with an intern is NOT a private matter, nor is nonconsensual sex.

                      Lois Lehrner is yours, Wingman “holder” is yours. Lynch is yours. Comey purportedly was a republican – but he was sure licking your boots.
                      HRC is yours.
                      Is Pruitt getting 250K speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, or 500K from Russia ?

                    27. While I told you I am from PA, and though that information is innocuous – I am not personally responsible for the myriads of bad decisions of my state or any other, still I do not understand why that is important to you ? You can use any state as an example. We live in the internet era, I am already familiar with anything you come up with OR can be very quickly.

                      You are not entitled to invade the privacy or others – not because they are embarrassed, but simply because it is not your right. You do not seem to get that.

                      I need not be guilty of something to tall the police officer who shows up on my doo to come back with a warrant.

                      Regardless, of course my state government is corrupt.
                      That is not the question.
                      The only question is whether there is actual evidence to suport any of your claims – there isn’t.

                      But their is to support mine.
                      The PA SCOTUS stepped into the fray on gerrymandering with exactly the results I predicted, they have heavily politicized the state supreme court. This only furthers to assertion that our courts are political not judicial.

                      BTW the constitution reserves congressional districts and federal voting to the state legislatures and congress. Not the State, not the governor, not the state supreme court. The PA supreme court not only errored when it reached conclusions(thus far without explanation) using the PA constitution but it erred in that it has no jurisdiction.

                    28. The goal of corruption is to acquire and exercise power.
                      That is why corruption is fundimentally a problem of and within government.

                      Republicans are not claiming their gerrymandering is merely partisan.
                      They are claiming they are not gerrymandering.

                      I am telling you that it does not matter.
                      The “cure” is far worse than the disease.

                      Further all these voter supression, Russia, gerrymandering claims are the just a reflection of the poor character of the left – nothing is your fault – if you lose an election, it is not because no matter how bad the republican was the democrats was worse. It is not because voters rejected you – but because of russian influence. It is not because your ideas do not work, it is because of voter supression or gerrymandering.

                      You are unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions and failures, you blame others for your failures, you accuse everyone who is not a left wing nut of being a hateful, hating hater

                      You are just whiny spoiled children.

                      Get a clue – life owes you nothing.
                      When I speak of your rights – I mean the abilities that nature gave you to take care for your self and improve your own life.

                      You are not entitled to anything. No one owes you ANY positive duty.
                      There is no “fair”

                    29. Many Republican brag about how effective their gerrymandering was/is. You’ve gone from a discussion of ideas to an assassination of character which must mean you’ve run out of points. I would generalize about how people from the state of __________ act but for some reason, you are ashamed to mention it. Here’s some info on Operation Redmap should facts interest you. Or you could deny its existence.

                    30. “Many Republican brag about how effective their gerrymandering was/is. ”

                      Do I care ? Is bragging the same as fact ?

                      We have seen this stupid idea of the left pollute our courts – even the recent Master Cake decision.

                      If an act is legal the intentions of the person performing it are not your business.
                      It is the courts job to decide the legality of an act or law, without regard to the motive of those who did it.

                    31. You were the one that said Republicans don’t talk about partisan gerrymandering. One of your Pennsylvania legislators incorrectly thought their voter suppression law would win Romney the election. He was wrong, off by one Presidential election. If I do a thing for one reason with that obvious result but claim it was for another reason entirely, the initial reason and result isn’t dismissed.

                    32. “You were the one that said Republicans don’t talk about partisan gerrymandering”

                      FALSE. I have said I do not care what Republicans or democrats SAY. I do not care WHY they are doing something. Bad motives do not make legal actions into crimes.

                      When you misrepresent your opponent you make yourself look stupid – at best and immoral at worst.

                    33. You keep repeating this as if some remark from somewhere is a fact.

                      There is no inherently objective way to create congressional districts.

                      ALL redistricting is political, and always will be. It is all always “gerrymandering”.

                      The only reasonable measure of the validity of congressional districts is the electorate of that state.
                      If they do not like what the legislature has done – they can vote the bums our.

                      The constitution gave no jurisdiction to the state courts regarding congressional districts.

                      Even if PA SCOTUS had the power of judicial review – which it arguably does not, it does not have the power to create districts on its own – which it did, or better yet delegated to a private company not elected by anyone with no claim to legitimate political power.

                    34. I have no problem with the claim republicans in PA were “gerrymandering”.

                      ALL congressional districting is “gerrymandered” in the sense that there is no objectively correct way to create districts, There is no constitutional criteria for districts beyond their number and that the legislature create them.

                      The PA SCOTUS redistricting plan is no less gerrymandered, and far less constitutional.

                      It is merely the court in the pretense that it know some objective truth that does not exist imposing it by fiat absent the power to do so.

                      US SCOTUS has several gerrymandering cases against both the democrats and republicans to decide yet. I would suggest the issue is far from over.

                      I have no idea what they will do, but my guess is the left will not like it.
                      Roberts in particularly has striven to protect the courts from making political choices.
                      He is highly likely to endorse the existing SCOTUS precident which allows the courts to impose only 3 criteria. I can not recall all three specifically but essentially the requirement is respect georgraphic and existing political boundaries, and keep districts compact.

                      These are no absolutes – because given that one must create a specific number of districts, if these increase or decrease it is very hard to meet all those criteria.

                      Regardless as a result of a series of cases in the 80’s and 90’s the courts got out of redistricting – except for the creation of minority majority preference districts.

                      That has been weakened and I expect it is going to die this term.
                      Even the left is attacking it as it weakens democrats.

                      Regardless, my guess is that the SCOTUS “gerrymandering” cases being decided now will severely limit courts roles in redistricting. Because it is very bad for the courts.

                      Should it do so PA could well revert to the 2011 map that has been used in the prior 3 elections.

                      But scotus could do anything. Though I highly doubt you are going to get a majority for agressive court intervention.

                    35. “One of your Pennsylvania legislators incorrectly thought their voter suppresssion law would win Romney the election. He was wrong, off by one Presidential election.”

                      Again you seem to think I care what politicians SAY.

                      If Gerrymandering was effective in PA – why did Romney lose ?

                      BTW you do realize the actual claim is total stupidity – if some republican actually said what you claim he did, then you and he need to reread the constitution and amendments.

                      PA’s electoral votes are winner take all to the person wining the largest number of popular votes. The only partisan gerrymandering involved is the way in which out founders created the states.

                      Again do you think about what you write before writing it ?

                      In this case you have an actual FIRST ORDER failure. Congressional districts have no effect on presidential elections.

                      Regardless if Gerrymandering had some magical effect on presidential elections – why only every other presidential election ?

                      You say it failed for Romney and worked for Trump ?

                      Maybe PA went for Trump rather than Romney because Trump quite overtly appealed to blue collar democrats – and PA has alot of them.

                      ” If I do a thing for one reason with that obvious result but claim it was for another reason entirely, the initial reason and result isn’t dismissed.”

                      Bzzt, wrong. Not even god judges us on our intentions. Matthew 25:31-46
                      Again ACTS are moral or immoral, not intentions.

                      Slavery is immoral. It is an unjustified forced infringement on the liberty rights of one by another.

                      There are no acceptable reasons for slavery. It is wrong PERIOD.

                      The use of force in Self defense is justified – even if you hate the person who attacked you and you harmed.

                      You have no clue what my reasons for anything are. You do not have a right to know them.
                      I may not know them. You can not know that what I say about them is true.

                      You may judge my acts, not your guesses as to my motives.

                    36. You misread my statement as you leaped to conclusions. I said the legislator thought your voter suppression laws would help Romney, not Gerrymandering.

                    37. No I did not miss your statement.

                      I responded that the statment was quite obviously logical garbage.
                      Redistricting has ZERO effect on presidential elections.
                      The legislator who made the remark is an idiot, as are you for parroting it.

                    38. “You ignored the fact I quoted you saying what you said you didn’t say. Apology?”
                      Because you think you quoted me ?

                    39. Ah, I think I see your error.

                      You are stupidly attributing to me, my restatement of what republicans have argued.

                      I am not republican and my views are not theirs.
                      Republicans did argue before the PA SCOTUS what I claim they argued – my statement accurately reflects the position of the Republican party.

                      You provided an unattributed quote that you seem to think refutes that.
                      Again you do not seem to have any familiarity with basic logic.

                      You can not falsify the position of a group by the position of a single member, nor can you establish the position of a group by a single member.

                      I would strongly recomend a course in basic logic. It will help you avoid myriads of fallacies,
                      Further if you can grasp even a small amount of basic logic and a few of the common fallacies, you will cease being progressive, because there has never been a more logically contradictory ideology ever than modern progressivism.

                      anyway, you are owed no appology. Republicans did argue what I claimed, the fact that some unattributed republican said otherwise is your problem.

                      In many court cases – including the recent immigration cases the courts have tried to rely on statements by legislators, or campaign statements by politicians.
                      Those should never make it into court.

                      The constitutionality of an act or a law is facial or as applied.
                      Facial means the law as written is clearly unconstitutional based on the language of the law and nothing else.
                      As applied means the language may be constitutional, but the way the law is being enforced is not.
                      As appied MUST be a posteriori. And it must be based on the implimentation of the law – how it is being used, not what somebody said about the law.
                      The intentions of the legislators are irrelevant to the constitutionality of law.

                      You are constantly trying to make your guesses as to what is in the minds of others have legal significance. There are very few instances it does, usually were there is an actual crime, and where the only question is who committed it, and inferences as to motive go to credibility of the witnesses.

                      A legal act does not become illegal because of a bad motive.

                      Congressional districts meet the limited criteria in the constitution – or they do not.
                      Why they were created as they were is no business of the courts.
                      What was said by some of those involved in their creation is no business of the courts.
                      Either the are facially invalid or as applied invalid.
                      There are no other challenges.

                    40. “You’ve gone from a discussion of ideas to an assassination of character which must mean you’ve run out of points.”

                      I will confess that in the midst of factually and logically and legally refuting a stupid argument I sometimes just must note that the argument is STUPID.
                      That is NOT character assassination and does not diminish my argument.

                      Noting that your arguments are factually eroneous is NOT chararcter assassination.

                      You seem to think that a factual and logical argument that you are wrong is ad hominem.
                      Once again you demonstrate ignorance of logic.

                      Please read that carefully – it is an insult, one rooted in fact, it is not character assassination.

                    41. Aparently you have decided that the failure of anyone to give you whatever information you demand just because you demand it constitutes shame ?

                      I am from PA but so what ? PA has plenty fo problems. Some cause by Republicans some by democrats.
                      Regardless, lets assume that you can successfully smear my state – so what ? How does that have anything to do with my arguments ?

                    42. I didn’t demand anything, I asked a relatively simple question? It was your lack of an answer that drew attention to it. I can see why you might be a little sensitive about the subject of both gerrymandering and voter suppression as both are practiced there. I’m sure you have the details already so I’ll drop it.

                    43. “I didn’t demand anything,”
                      Of course you did, you asserted a right to the information you wanted and then motives to why it might not be provided, and then made ludicrously stupid claims rooted in your personal judgement as to why information you are not entitled to was not provided with the dispatch that you demanded.

                      I have provided you with that information – because despite the stupidity of the demand and the fact it is not information you are entitled to. It is also not information I desparately seek to keep private, nor information that is harmful to me.
                      I considered not telling you – solely because you demanded to know and then started making claims as to what not telling you must mean.

                      “I asked a relatively simple question?”
                      Do you have anal warts is also a simple question. That does not make it your business.

                      “It was your lack of an answer that drew attention to it. ”
                      I am obligated to answer your questions on your timetable ?
                      I beleive in the future I reserve the right not to answer your questions SOLELY because you are an ass who is not entitled to know.

                      “I can see why you might be a little sensitive about the subject of both gerrymandering and voter suppression as both are practiced there.”
                      Typical left wing nut – false assertions and claims to know what is in the minds of other people.

                      Stick to the real world and facts, You are doing so badly there you are not up to what is in other peoples minds.

                    44. Wow, republicans admit they want to win elections!! Such obvious corruption, string them up!.

                    45. Just to be clear, I have not denied that Gerrymandering exists,

                      I deny that it is effective. Real studies – not the stupid ones the left has been selling recently demonstrate that at most partisan germandering has resulted in a net advantage to one party of 4 seats in the US house. And it does so by creating the significant risk of a counter wave election.
                      Democrats should cheer republican germandering. It means that if Republicans have a bad year – democrats will not merely take control they will dominate.

                      I deny that there is any workable remedy. I argue that the cure is far worse then the disease.

                      Keep the dirt in politics, not the judiciary.

                    46. Pennsylvania and Virginia each may lose 4 Republican seats next election due to the nullification of Gerrymandering. The real damage is done in the state legislatures.

                    47. Who know what may happen. The idiotic effort by the PA SCOTUS has also made many GOP seats totally impregnable.

                      You fail to grasp that as there is no objectively defined proper way to determine congressional districts that any means you choose is gerrymandering – is political.

                      I told you that the courts stepping in politicizes the courts – well that is what has happened in PA.
                      The PA house and senate were sufficiently angry that they considered impeaching the justices.
                      That has fortunately died, but judicial issues have risen to the forefront and I think you will find it far harder to get democratic judges confirmed – and not just in SCOTUS.

                      My country – very conservative is short two judges – because as a result of the PA SCOTUS decisions negotiations between republicans and the governor on judicial appointments broke down completely.
                      PA Republicans have decided that starving democratic counties of judges is more importan than replacing those in conservative ones.

                      Regardless, PA republicans are very actively seeking to reshape the PA Judiciary.
                      And they are almost certain to succeed over the long run.

                      That is the consequence of the politicization of the courts.

                      Even your claim that PA should have 4 more democrats – is both its own form of gerrymandering.
                      The court bought into the stupid claim of voter efficiency.
                      Hopefully US SCOTUS will dispose of that shortly.
                      If the constitution sought “voter efficiency” it would have just directly elected representatives from the state at large.

                      “Voter efficiency” is just left wing nut gerrymandering and attempts to mitigate the effects of democrats own free choice to congregate in cities.

                      Many in PA – particularly conservative republicans are angry about the PA SCOTUS decision.

                      I will remind you of something that the left just does not grasp – conservatives are far more reliable voters – in mid terms, in off year elections, in primaries than democrats.
                      I will also remind you that conservatives care far more about the courts than democrats.
                      They will come out to vote against progressives when democrats stay home

                      My prediction is that as a consequence of the PA SCOTUS decision that in a few years the PA SCOTUS will be flipped.

                      I keep trying to tell you that you want to keep the judiciary OUT of politics.
                      But you do not listen.

                      Just to be clear I do not inherently support what PA republicans are doing.
                      But they are going to do it whether you or I do or not.

                      PA has been a purple state for a long time. It has been split by two very blue regions arround Philly and Pittsburg and some of the deepest redist parts of the country elsewhere.
                      Though PA voted reliably blue in presidential elections since Bush I, the state has been split in the senate, had more republican than democrat govenors, and the GOP has always controlled one chamber of the legislature and often both. Democrats have never had unfettered control of PA.
                      We tend to alternate parties as governor.
                      But Trump combined the right platform to flip the state in the presidential election.
                      That was a huge shift – more than 350K votes went blue to red.
                      The primary change was the Pittsburg Suburbs and those are unlikely to come back.
                      Lamb an excellent democratic candidate just barely eaked a win against a poor republican in that area.
                      Redistricting has given him a seat that is even redder, and an opponent he will not likely defeat.

                      Your hope of a 4 seat pickup rests on the Philly Suburban area. You might get that pickup.
                      But very small changes in voting could easily make things go the other way.

                      One of the problems with the types of gerrymandering you think the PA GOP engaged in is that it trades the possibility for more seats for the risk of a counter tidal wave.

                      If you change the districts so that instead of 10 solid red districts you have 13 pink ones, a 2pt swing in the vote could lose you all 13 instead of picking up 3. That is why the type of gerrymandering you are trying to claim is occuring is much rarer than you think and why you may well have screwed yourself – worse multiple ways.

                    48. Constitution Article I Section 4
                      1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

                      Control of federal elections was constitutionally delegated to the state legislatures and congress.

                      Not the state as a whole. The state constitution does not apply, nor do the governor or state judiciary have jurisdiction.

                      If you do not like the constitution – change it.

                    49. Why would i be interested in a discussion of police with someone who is ignorant of history, the constitution, philopsophy – specifically philosophy of government and whos thinking is obviously poor and limited to first order effects ?

                      There were no police at the time of the constitution was written.
                      Police are an outgrowth of the limited role of government – which is to protect our rights from those who would use force to infringe on them. That includes the protection of what is yours from theft by force of others, that includes your person, your labor, and your property.

                    50. “So I take it that apology for saying I lied about what you said isn’t coming? Have a good night (morning). Take care!”

                      I will appologize for misunderstanding the error that you made, nothing more.

                      My statements are correct.
                      Republicans did argue what I stated they argued.
                      You can not disprove what a party as a whole or what that parties lawyers argued, using an unattributed statement from an individual.

                      Further your error is double.

                      As I have argued – all redistricting is by defintion gerrymandering, therefore the postion I attributed to the GOP is false – but it is STILL what they argued.

                      Lets try an example.

                      A = Greenpeace says “the sky is falling”.
                      B = I say “greenpeace says the sky is falling”
                      C = the sky is not falling.
                      D = Joe a member of greenpeace says the sky is not falling.

                      All of the premises above are True.

                      The truth of D does not change the truth of B,
                      The truth of C does not change the truth of A. A is about what greenpeace said, not about the sky. B is true if A is true – i.e. Greenpeace said A.

                      Please learn some logic. Accusing others of lying and demanding appologies because you have been sucked into a fallacy just makes you look bad.

                    51. With respect to voter ID – every single state that has passed voter ID laws allows provisional voting by a person without ID if they fill out an affidavit that asserts that they are who they claim to be.

                      As is typical the left manufactures claims of prejudice when all that is evident is the incompetence of the left.

                      I am not republican. I have plenty of problems with republicans and with Trump.
                      But I am also not blind. Our worst local governments, our worst schools, our national probklem with violence is almost entirely confined to localities that not only are run by democrats, but have been for nearly a century. Further many of these are minorities governing themselves.

                      So that you are clear in this country MOST government services are provided by local government.
                      Policing is almost entirely local
                      Education is almost entirely local.
                      Our courts are almost entirely local.
                      Most business regulation is almost entirely local.

                      There are some differences state to state, and the federal govenrment provides some funds directly to localities for education, law enforcement and voting. But federal funding for those is fairly small.
                      Most states also provide some funding. In my state laws require approximately equal spending for education per student accross the state and state funds are disbursed to accomplish that.

                    52. You didn’t mention what state you live in if that’s not too personal. I like to be specific in my rebuttals. Education, in particular, relies on multiple sources of funding and the effort to take funds from public schools and giving them to charter schools is like the opposite from Robin Hood.

                    53. I live in PA.
                      You really do not want to discuss Charter Schools – as you are completely clueless.

                      My kids were cyber chartered – because their local affluent whit districts failed my kids and could not meet their needs.

                      Most of the other students in my kids cyber charters where inner city minority students from single parent families with mothers who did not graduate from HS and from schools that had failed far worse than my kids.

                      Cyber Charters were the only hope these mothers had that their kids would avoid the same disaster they had.

                      These minority students performed poorly in cyber charters – bring the media for cyber charters only slightly above state medias.
                      But the real news is they performed far better than their home districts.

                      BTW cyber charters SAVE local school districts money. They are supposed to provide services for the charters – they get paid to do so, but they never provide the services. In my state the cost of a cyber charter is set by law at 75% of the local school.

                      My daughter has learning disabilities – as a consequence of spending 2 years in an orphange in china.
                      But she is intelligent and hard working. She got 5 years of excellent public school teachers and was consistently at the top of her class. But in 5th grade she got “the team of teachers from hell”
                      They decided that her inconsistent results on standardized tests meant she needed to be moved to less advanced groups. Beliving that the teachers knew what they were doing we allowed that. She was miserable and went from getting A’s and B’s in the top groups to failing.
                      We knew we had to do something so we looked arround and picked a cyber charter when they were very new. It was fantastic, She could proceed at her own pace, she could master a subject or unit in a subject before moving on. She graduated with a 3.92GPA. She is now getting mostly A’s in college, and is working towards becoming a psychologist.

                      Those inner city minority kids in her school – graduated – unlike most of their peers in the local school.
                      Some have gone to college. others have the better jobs that HS grads get. They have avoided gangs and pregnancy and …..

                      Charters are not perfect – but they are the best hope lots of poor minority kids have – and they deliver.

                    54. There are two forms of gerrymandering.

                      The first involves trying to create safe seats for incumbents in your party.
                      This has historically been (and remains) the far most common form of gerrymandering.
                      Doing so comes at risk to that parties ability to gain seats in that state.

                      The other form is the effort to increase the number of the majority party representatives by creating more small majority districts.
                      The latter is a relatively recent phenomena, is very dangerous for the majority party and quite frequently leeds to sweep elections going the wrong way.

                      So the last question is do I care ? Not very much.

                      I do not like allowing gerrymandering, but I dislike the alternatives much more.
                      The PA SCOTUS stepped in politicizing the crap out of the PA courts.
                      You will near certainly see a huge conservative backlash in PA coming eventually that will cost the left to PA supreme court. Regardless, we do not ever want our courts to have to resolve political issues if we can possibly avoid it. We can tolerate the view that our legislatures are politically corrupt.
                      We can not survive the belief that the courts are politically corrupt.

                      The 2000 BUSH/GORE SCOTUS decision was horribly damaging to our courts – not just SCOTUS, but at all levels. Not because the decision was wrong (or right) but because it was going to damage the courts no matter what.

                      The Franken/Coleman contest was similarly damaging.

                      Worse still these are solveable problems.
                      GA had a very close election too. GA law perscribed an automatic runoff 6 weeks later.
                      Problem solve – no massive recount. no mess with courts trying to decide which ballots get in which do not.

                      I have heard of a few solutions to “gerrymandering”. I have heard none that are actually better than allowing it to happen. But involving the courts is the worst possibility.

                      The most I would do is the very limited standard SCOTUS has allowed to date – districts must be close to equal in population, contiguous, geographically regular. geographically efficient. and reflect as best as possible the makeup of the regions within the district.
                      But even those criteria are not acheivable.

                      I am completely opposed to the courts prior efforts to impose racial gerrymandering.

                      Beyond that if democrats wish to congregate in very high densities in the cities – that is their choice.

                      You seem to forget that has consequences too – it means that municipal government in the US is MASSIVELY democrat. The obverse of that is that democrats are less well represented in state and federal government. That is a consequnce of the choices people make as to where they live.

                      Not party driven gerrymandering.
                      We should not interfere with peoples own choices as to how they congregate.

                    55. There is the kind that allows a minority party to maintain control. Even the kind that protects incumbents generally also limits their influence. They are present with no power.

                    56. “There is the kind that allows a minority party to maintain control. ”
                      In the land of unicorns.
                      There is alot of interesting things you can do with mathematics where you can pretend that you can re arrange the red and blue marbles as you please. That do not work in the real world where people are relatively geographically fixed.

                      “Even the kind that protects incumbents generally also limits their influence. They are present with no power.”
                      While what you are saying makes ZERO sense, and has no relationship to reality.
                      I am still all for limiting the power of incumbents.

                      Regardless, I asked you if you had a viable alternate – one that does not bring political corruption into our courts or create some new entity to politically corrupt.
                      Please do not say “independent commissions” that is no better than politicians.

                    57. When I spoke about the kind the protects incumbents, I was speaking primarily about those seats which almost guarantee minority representation. They draw maps to include most of the minority population which almost assures that district gets a minority representation yet those seats are so few the elected officials have no power. What state are you in? I suspect I could tailor this argument to your state.

      2. They didn’t need the WH. They already had a gravy train without all the ridiculousness.

        1. Whereas Pruitt et al used to rely on lobbyists, energy companies and the like, now they can just bill the government directly. One of the biggest money launderers in the world (Wilbur Ross – Bank of Cyprus) was made Secretary of Commerce. They fly first class and take military flights. Even Ben Carson paid $33,000 for a dining room set and is bringing nepotism to a level only exceeded by the First Family. Ivanka just got several new Chinese patents. This is the gravy train on steroids.

    2. Wake up. Trump is not here to serve you or the country. He’s here to serve himself and grab all the cash and glory he can. He’s a pirate.

        1. If so, maybe that’s the reason he wants the investigation to go away. Not because of the underlying accusations.

          1. Interesting point.

            So is a person “obstructing justice” by trying to end an investigation that has thus far found nothing to implicate them, but at the same time cause them serious harm ?

            1. Can one “obstruct justice” if the investigation is more about politics than violations of law? I don’t think you can.

        2. What data or source do you have to make this entirely bogus claim? If you really believe that nonsense, I have several bridges you can buy. Consider Ivanka’s Chinese patents and trademarks, Jared’s Qatari loans received for the failing 666 building, Trump’s $500 million dollar investment received from the Chinese for his Indonesian resort, the upwards of $40 million he’s made on his Washington hotel from visiting dignitaries wanting to curry favor, the $67 million taxpayers have paid so far for his trips to his hotels so he can hang and play golf, the unaccounted for money remaining from his inaugural funds, what access he may have had to the Cohen Essential Consultants slush fund. He may be losing some money on his UK golf resorts, but that’s probably because he did not do the math when he built them, just like he screwed up in Atlantic City. He is not losing money on quid pro quo and corruption; he’s losing money from poorly managing his wealth.

          1. Which soros-funded outfit supplied you with these figures?

            1. None. These are available facts. Google is your friend.
              Meanwhile, I neglected to mention the millions Trump saved due to his tax bill. You know the one that was going to hurt him and help you and me. Only it turned out he truthfully told some supporters after its passage that he made them all richer.

              1. I notice no citations to actual public records.

            2. “Which soros-funded outfit supplied you with these figures?” sez NII/DSS/SOT

              What a pathetic response, NII/DSS/SOT. The figures and issues hollywood notes have been available from many sources.

              Inconsequential yammering from a fool who, as “[b]est I can determine, the Professor [JT] has never practiced law.”


              A masquerading fool who doesn’t even have the wherewithal to “discover” JT’s bio on this site, and given all the time you spend on this site your, “… never practiced law” statement is beyond pathetic.

              You impress with bluster only.

              1. The figures and issues hollywood notes have been available from many sources.

                What, the financial statements of various privately owned companies along with the ethnic breakdown of his bondholders and equity investors?

                1. Who is “his” NII/DSS/SOT?

                  Can’t cough it up? Sticks in your craw, does it?

                  Trump is his name, ZTE is the Chinese company he back walked on given the points hollywood noted.

                  Trump actually folds every time he can, when it suits “him.”

                  But for someone who states that, “[b]est I can determine, the Professor [JT] has never practiced law”,


                  I’m not surprised at the details you miss.

          2. google “trump net worth declines”

            You will find a confirming news story in the past couple of weeks by every single major media outlet in the country and most small ones.

            But who knows – maybe they are all wrong.

    3. Ha, ha, ha. The Trump Family is riding that gravy train like no other.

    4. A vast conspiracy to “get” Trump?

      Are they the ones issuing the inane tweets in the President’s name?

      1. Yes, that must be it. Some evil-doers must have hijacked Trump’s Twitter account, lo these many months.

        1. That we might have a President so removed from reality as to come up with garbage like that unaided is too awful to contemplate…

          1. The president isn’t removed from reality, you are.

          2. “is too awful to contemplate”

            few here have accused you of being an intelligent, thinking, analytical being so yes, contemplating for you is understandably awful

            take the blue pill and be done

  11. Recusal was not an option for Rod Rosenstein’s integral position in the Obama coup d’etat in America.

    FBI texts are revealing.

    “…the White House is running this.”

    “Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote, ‘the White House is running this.’,” Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 5, 2016. “My answer, ‘well, maybe for you they are.’”

    “Page replied: “Yeah, whatever (re WH comment). We’ve got emails that say otherwise.”

    “Two days later, Strzok texted Page: “Hey talked to him, will let him fill you in. internal joint cyber cd intel piece for D, scenesetter for McDonough brief, Trainor [head of FBI cyber division] directed all cyber info be pulled. I’d let Bill and Jim hammer it out first, though it would be best for D to have it before the Wed WH session.”

    “In the texts, “D” refers to former FBI Director James Comey, and “McDonough” referred to Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, GOP investigators said. McDonough’s name, though, was redacted and only turned up when viewed by GOP investigators.”


    1. Please elaborate on that fleet of black helicopters hovering over your satellite dish. Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen.

      this is to “I’ve got the intel on ALL the conspiracies, just ask me” georgie

    2. “Obama coup d’etat in America.”

      Crazy George’s nutty conspiracy theories are always amusing. Thanks George.

  12. Graham is like all the other Trump enablers, scared to lose their jobs and putting aside their own convictions of government and how it works. I guess if they would let Trump investigate himself and issue a report, all will be well again with the flat earth.

  13. Whether due to incompetence or due to being part of the ‘plot’, Rod Rosenstein has totally botched the most important ‘investigation’ of our present time.

    Not only appointing a conflicted Special Counsel in Robert Mueller, his poor initial memo of the reason for investigation, followed up by a ‘secret correction’ 3 months later, and most recently HIS decision to have the DOJ IG investigate the investigators when that decision should have come from AG Sessions, and of course his own non recusal.

    Hard to believe anyone in the position he has ascended to, is that incompetent.

    1. To think that Rosenstein is NOT an “Obama Player, is juvenile…ALL these people coordinated WITH Obama and the heads of his Intel were willing Lemmings, whose job it was to “Cover Up for Hillary and HER Minions, and give them immunity BEFORE they were even questioned…yeah, Obama ‘Put in the FIX, but when their FAKE DOSSIER/Russian Collusion didn’t work Against Trump, they are using “Dirty Cop Mueller to interview Trump, so Mueller can trap the POTUS by some inane questions and then say: “HE LIED, therefore Impeachment Proceedings Can Begin.” Bull….the REAL COLLUDERS were Brennan, who made a trip to Russia(using another excuse) to confer about some dirty dossier(fake) that they would blame on Russians, but along w/Communist Voter, Brennan, Comey, Holder, Lynch and the Rest of the Players FOR Obama and Hillary…ALL need to be charged with this scheme to ‘first, Hinder Candidate Trump, then OUST PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM OFFICE, BECAUSE THE CORRUPT DEMS’ LOST POWER/CONTROL IN THEIR D.C. CESSPOOL OF CORRUPTION AND STILL OOZE SMELLS BEING IN THE SWAMP.”

      Lindsey Graham is a “Bit Late to the Party” as he could have said MORE to defend POTUS Trump, but being a Rino, and Twin to Hateful McCain, neither did anything to protect America from the “Corruptibles that ALL continued their crimes in the Obama Regime…Sessions, is NOT the one to have as A.G. He is ineffective and listened to those Obama Criminals telling Him: “You need to recuse yourself” and the DOPE did. . .AFTER Trump selected him as A.G. This, was a telling Move by Sessions and HIS Pal-Rosenstein who gave America the Corrupt Mueller(former bag man who took samples of uranium in ’08/’09 to Russia for them to sample.

      The REAL colluders with Russia, would be “Hillary who made $145 MILLION from the Russian Uranium Deal
      when Putin laundered it TO her Fake Charity. Even her mgr. Corrupt Podesta made $35 MILLION ON THE SAME DEAL.” So IF, Putin was paying for anything, including having access to America, he would WANT Hillary as POTUS, to have their “Deals Continue”…..NOT TRUMP, as Trump could NOT BE BOUGHT and Since Hillary Already WAS….it made sense to DEFLECT from HER, and put this Corruption onto Trump-MORE LIES FROM THE OBAMA REGIME OF CORRUPTION-like Benghazi He AND Hillary, Rice, etal LIED ABOUT.

      Of course the “Liberal, Leftist Media(bought and paid for by Soros-the Obama PuppetMaster) was/IS in the tank for the Democrat Corruptibles, as “they are Another Arm of the Corrupt Democrat Party” and continue to try to PUSH the “Bad Trump Agenda, when in fact….it’s Corrupt Democrats, trying to oust a Sitting President.

      Well, it worked for Nixon’s removal, didn’t it? Thought they had another one w/Trump, BUT HE FIGHTS BACK, AND THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA VOTED HIM AS POTUS, NOT CRIMINAL HILLARY.

      1. Incoherent, but thanks for playing. Drive home safely.

        this is to “I have hannity podcasts piped into my head while I sleep” ITSJOey

        1. Another Loony to join Crazy George, Oky1 and the rest of the Infowars fan club here…

          They’re good for laughs if nothing else.

  14. Lindsey Graham made a Freudian slip. Sen. Graham stated, “I got beat like a drum.”

  15. Well it’s pretty hard to argue with this. So I doubt you’re going to get a lot of comments on this.

  16. “What do you think?”

    I think my neighbor had a very good idea when she told my husband and me yesterday that she found the internet toxic. She and her boyfriend now watch the Nature channel for their entertainment, and have unplugged from news, blogs, social media apps and anything that covers politics. I found her sentiments breathtaking and feel perhaps cutting satellite and TV cables arent drastic enough. Maybe these forums have outlived their time.

    What do you propose is a good reason to keep reading your blog and other news sites?

    1. If you don’t want to have any involvement in your own government whatsoever, then unplug completely and never come back. And when that government comes for you don’t come crying to mama. Moron.

    2. What do you propose is a good reason to keep reading your blog and other news sites?

      Voting. I was going to add and pay taxes, but if you and your neighbors are apathetic to how your money is spent, then so be it. With that being said however, if you and your neighbors are going to choose to be ignorant, then please don’t vote.

    3. If you really feel that way, why bother to read this post, let alone reply to it?

    4. How does one simultaneously post at and “unplug” from a blog? Lie, much?

      Your post is idiotic and/or a horribly failed “deep state” post to manipulate discussion. Several years ago Wikileaks confirmed the deep state hires persons to manipulate social media discussions to achieve deep state goals. There’s no use in calling out Wikileaks, because no one ever proved that Wikileaks published a false report, ever.

      It’s quite obvious to readers that Rosenstein is either an anti-Trump deep state manipulator or acting exactly like one. The more an article proves and confirms the workings of the deep state, the more the deep state must attack the article and/or its author.

      Obviously, some of the internet is toxic. To say that anything Turley publishes is toxic, which you just implied, tells readers everything about you, and that Turley is generally well doing his job.

      1. This “Deep State” entity which you have uncovered seems ominous. It appears that through your dogged and tireless sleuthing, you have discovered for all the world to see a nefarious cabal of ne’er-do-wells, obviously hell-bent on eradicating our ‘Merican way of life, our love of cheetos and mom, or to fluoridate our precious bodily fluids, or some such other dastardly deed. Well done inspector, well done indeed.

        this is to “Inspector Clouseau, at your service” joey

        1. Marky Mark Mark – if you are going to plagarize at least give credit to the writers of Dr. Strangelove. BTW, your bodily fluids have already been fluoridated. It is too late now.

      2. @Joseph Jones June 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM
        “Your post is idiotic and/or a horribly failed ‘deep state’ post to manipulate discussion. Several years ago Wikileaks confirmed the deep state hires persons to manipulate social media discussions to achieve deep state goals. There’s no use in calling out Wikileaks, because no one ever proved that Wikileaks published a false report, ever.”

        There’s no need to appeal to Wikileaks, as the Obama Administration’s Cass Sunstein has publicly stated that the government should “cognitively infiltrate” internet forums and other discussion groups so as to vitiate criticism of the Government, particularly its secret projects and programs:

        “Glenn Greenwald
        “January 15, 2010 1:16pm (UTC)
        “(updated below – Update II – Update III – Update IV)

        “Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for ‘overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.’

        “In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-‘independent’ advocates to ‘cognitively infiltrate’ online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems ‘false conspiracy theories’ about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.”

        One may reasonably wonder why the Government would need to resort to such elaborately deceptive means as Sunstein has proposed to keep the Sheeple on the Reservation, when the brains of so many can be short-circuited instantly by the mere utterance of the neuro-magical words “conspiracy theory,” reducing said Sheeple to a blithering incapacity to assess the evidence for or against any surreptitious planning by agents of the Government, Visible or Invisible.

        It may be just another example, like the CIA’s paying two psychologists $80 million for interrogation techniques that any Egyptian cop would have shared with the agency for $100, of the Government’s propensity for wantonly spending as much taxpayer money, and with as little return on investment, as possible.

    5. You and those who “want to stick their heads in the sand like an ostrich, do it….YOU are part of the “silent majority, who UNTIL Trump, had NO VOICE(if in fact you are NOT a Democrat) but NOW, we who voted him as POTUS, KNEW as he did, that America was in Danger from the 8 yrs. of Total Corruption from the Obama
      Regime, that want to REMOVE America as a sovereign Nation, down to a 3rd world nation, “Obama/Soros/Hillary, etal. wanted to make Answerable to the crooked U.N. & International Law’

      You may want to ‘check out some of these facts by looking into WHAT Obama did AGAINST America, including his ‘Permitting Iran to continue their Nuclear Ambitions, by giving them LOADS of Money, and the Green Light, EVEN as they chanted: “DEATH TO AMERICA” (which is the Globalist’s Agenda, as Obama DID weaken America ALL OVER THE WORLD, Our Military and our Freedoms-Guaranteed by our OWN Constitution that he “Shredded on a Daily Basis”

      Again, those who ‘don’t care to keep themselves informed….do so at YOUR OWN RISK-and keep backing someone like Obama, Hillary who does NOT have America’s best interest at heart(EVEN YOURS”)

      1. Thanks for checking in with the wackjob internet’s talking points for today. Pro tip: if you alternate glasses of water between belts of Ripple, you won’t have such a hangover tomorrow.

        this is to “if I use all caps, you know I’m serious this time” itsjoey

        1. Marky Mark Mark – today’s Pro tip comes from personal experience, of course.

          1. Paul,

            I’m glad that you didn’t try to defend Itsjo’s nutty comment.

            Could we make that a Pro Tip? Don’t be sandbagged into defending a lunatic?

  17. One thing about Lindsey he will always do what his owners request! He’s afraid; he’s very afraid.

    1. Unfair. Graham has been way more forthright in opposing this administration than, say, Paul Ryan or Mitch.

      That’s even more surprising when you consider his constituency.

      Credit where credit is due.

Comments are closed.