After fueling impeachment calls in the election, some Democratic leaders are trying to tamp down on the issue despite the filing of impeachment articles on the first day of the session. The leaders could now have a serious problem in controlling dozens of members who secured their fees in part on impeachment pledges. That was obvious this week when newly elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) proclaimed the intention to “impeach the motherf**ker” at a reception for the liberal group MoveOn. The statement obviously delighted the crowd but undermined the credibility of the new Democratic majority in seriously examining the basis for impeachment. In a measure of the distemper that has taken over our politics, Tlaib has refused to apologize.
Tlaib quoted her son telling her, “Look mama you won. Bullies don’t win.” Tlaib reportedly replied, “You’re right, they don’t. And we’re gonna go in and impeach the motherf**ker.”
There may or may not be grounds for impeachment in the Mueller report expected. However, being a bully is not one of them. More importantly, the glee expressed by Tlaib is concerning enough but there also seems a lack of concern over the actual proof of a high crime and misdemeanor under the constitutional standard. Impeachment is not meant to be a partisan tool or some cathartic act. That might be a better — and less profane — lesson to share with one’s son.
Don’t you just love these Democrat, they’re so classy. I’ve said this before and I will say this again, the Democrat party has started a movement that they have no control over.
.
I guess it’s better than being a father—- er!
She calls them as she sees them.
Turley speaks of a “measure of distemper” that has invaded our politics. He has even written about the Democratic Party allegedly losing its focus due to being nothing more than the party of anti-Trump. Truth be told, it is Trump who has changed politics and political discourse, especially the Republican party, and for the worse. Since when did Republicans not care about a ballooning deficit? Republicans used to stand for fiscal responsibility. Now we have an historic deficit, thanks to Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy. He has shut down the government because Laura Ingraham told him he’d be a wimp if he didn’t, demanding that Congress commit taxpayer money for an outdated, ineffective and unnecessarily expensive wall from sea to shining sea, despite the recommendations of border security experts who have better, more cost-effective ideas on how to accomplish security. His campaign promise was that Mexico would pay for the wall, which was a lie, of course, but why should American taxpayers foot the bill? Where are the Republicans? Have any of them tried to stop him, hold him to his promise, or even object? No, and it’s because they like the huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
Republicans used to stand for family values, but along comes Trump with his payoffs to porn stars and nude models, along with bragging about fondling women. And, no, this isn’t “locker room talk” or “stag talk”, it was bragging about a perceived right to violate the rights and dignity of women he finds “beautiful”, and it provides a window into his soul. Since when did it become OK with Republicans to disrespect women or fondle them without consent? Why haven’t any of them spoken out against him?
Evangelicals voted in large numbers for Trump, despite the “puxxygrabbing” brag, and despite the endless lying and womanizing. Why? Since when did it become OK for Evangelicals to support a politician who clearly has a narcissistic personality disorder and who insults anyone who disagrees with him? Last evening, Laurence O’Donnell showed clips of everything Trump claims to know more than anyone about, which includes border security, real estate, taxes, banking, etc.. It’s sad, really. Trump apparently discovered that there is a White House briefing room, a venue he’s never visited before. He went there because there were cameras and Nancy Pelosi was getting a lot of media attention, and he couldn’t stand it. As usual, he lied, claiming that most Americans support him and the border wall. He really, really, wants the phallic symbol picture of him standing there, looking tough, for his upcoming campaign. We taxpayers aren’t going to let him have it.
So, today, Turley complains that a new member of Congress referred to Trump using profanity. Profane language is one thing, but Trump himself is a profanity. A profanity of everything the United States stands for. A profanity of the Office of POTUS.
lol yes you would like it if Republicans continued to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and a sissy up front instead of a real man like Donald J Trump. He rocks!
A “real man”? OMG! A “real man” doesn’t glue a wig to his head and refuse to go to a military cemetery to honor America’s fallen heroes on Veterans’ Day because the rain might melt the hair spray and disclose his baldness. A “real man” doesn’t purchase oversized ties, thinking he can hide his fat gut. A “real man” isn’t supported by his rich Daddy well into his 40’s, or have his Daddy pressure a tenant in a building he owns to fake up a draft deferment, even though he went to military school and enjoyed parading around in a military uniform pretending to be a soldier, and then claim he would have made a “great general”. A “real man” doesn’t lock children in cages to punish their parents for trying to make a better life for themselves, or brag about grabbing women by the genitals, saying “I don’t even wait” when he finds them “beautiful”. A “real man” doesn’t constantly lie about everything or call people names when they criticize him. A “real man” doesn’t buy off porn stars and nude models, and doesn’t marry a lesbian porn model and then try to pass her off as a lady. The list goes on and on. Trump is a pathetic, narcissistic, lying sissy with a tiny, mushroom-like willy surrounded by shaggy white hair like a Yeti, according to Stormy Daniels.
We can play these games forever – A real man does not use a teleprompter.
Why don’t we stick to meaingful actions.
Trump has kept the majority of his campaign promises – and has made tremendous efforts to keep the rest.
I can not think of any president EVER that has done that.
As Trump runs in 2020 absolutely everyone of us knows EXACTLY where he stands. And we know that whatever he says – he is going to strive mightly to accomplish that.
The left’s opposition to Trump is not because no one can beleive him, It is because they absolutely do beleive him.
As was reported in 2016. The press and the left takes Trump litterally, but not seriously, Trump’s voters take him seriously but not litterally.
Yes, you really, truly want to believe this, just like you really, truly want to believe that it’s OK to be a racist, homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist because that’s what you are. What happened to the better health care, with coverage for pre-existing conditions? Where is Mexico’s check for the “big beautiful wall”?
What “meaningful actions” has Trump engaged in? Name some, please.
The actual misogynists are the American women who reject their female function and refuse to maintain a fertility rate sufficient to defend and grow the nation – the liberal, collectivist women who import the incongruous, unassimilable population.
Freedom of thought, speech, press, publication, belief, religion, assembly, socialization and every other conceivable natural and God-given freedom per the 9th Amendment most certainly includes the freedom to discriminate comprehensively including discrimination by race.
Affirmative action introduces a mandated, dictated bias which is unconstitutional and violates the constitutional rights of Americans.
Americans have the right to be as racist as they choose.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people…
dictatorship does.
Trump ended the “deep state” Bush and Clinton dynasties of the “swamp” and began rescinding the unconstitutional disaster that was Obama.
Start there.
Seriously, “A real man does not use a teleprompter.” that is the best you got. Why is that important? Oh, Limblow told you that was important. W could not read and tRump has a 3rd grade vocabulary so a prompter would have been useless.
“demanding that Congress commit taxpayer money for an outdated, ineffective and unnecessarily expensive wall from sea to shining sea, despite the recommendations of border security experts who have better, more cost-effective ideas on how to accomplish security.”
QUITE PRETENDING YOU DON’T WANT A BUNCH OF MEXICANS ETC TO COME HERE AND HAVE MORE ANCHOR BABIES WHO GROW UP TO VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Traitor to the nation is the one who opposes border security at this time of continuous invasion.
The cost of “endless war” is 2-3 times the total cost for “the wall” spread over a decade.
What Trump wants for “the wall” for a year is about what we spend in Afghanistan in a month.
It is about what the shutdown costs per week (purportedly).
Mr. Kurtz, kindly: there are many ways to accomplish border security. There are people who have devoted their careers to this topic. In some areas, there is a fence or a wall, but in other areas there are other means to accomplish security of the border, to stop people from entering illegally and to apprehend them if they do so. I say listen to those who know the most about this. Democrats are in favor of border security, but Trump’s wall is not the only, and certainly not the best, means by which to accomplish this.
Trump demands a wall because Laura Ingraham called him a wimp for not shutting down the government over this battle, so the real issue is, once again, Trump’s ego and his arrogant refusal to compromise. Explain that to those government workers who can’t meet their bills, to people who wanted to visit Washington-area parks, etc, over the Christmas and New Years holidays, but got turned away. He promised his supporters that Mexico would pay for the wall. So, let Mexico pay for it, or admit it was just a lie and be willing to listen to experts on what is the best and most cost-effective means to secure the border.
I strongly favor border security, but SMART border security, defined by those who are the most-knowledgeable about this. I also strongly oppose the idea that people think they can just walk into the United States and live here because they want to and because others have gotten away with it. My ancestors had to abide by the rules, so should everyone else. But I also know that the people who keep coming here are being lied to by so-called “coyotes”, who charge them to act as guides. Coyotes are now telling them to hurry up because Trump’s going to build a wall to keep them out, so there’s another caravan forming. I also understand the natural desire for a better life for your family. I also strongly support severe penalties for people who hire illegals. There should be heavy fines for the first offense, followed by mandatory jail time and license revocation for a second offense. Problems is, most of the big hotel chains, restaurants, landscapers, nanny and housekeeping services and other businesses that rely on cheap manual labor are those who mainly hire them, which includes your hero, Trump. Republicans would never punish them because they are their constituency. If jobs dried up, so would illegal immigration. I also disagree with “dreamers” obtaining legal status. Reagan tried that and it only exacerbated the problem. Every country has the right to set rules and laws on immigration. Passage of time should not confer a right that never existed in the first place. A wall isn’t the answer to this complex problem.
BTW: there’s no such thing as an “anchor baby”. That’s a right-wing myth.
Kurtz, you are so irrational for someone who attempts to appear logical. Move to Idaho if you are afraid of different ethnicities or seek help to find out why.
Really ?
What planet do you live on ?
Are there way too many republicans who do not care about the debt/deficit – ABSOLUTELY!!
Are there ANY democrats who have EVER cared ? NOPE!!.
Republicans are insufficiently concerned about the debt.
Democrats are the primary cause of the debt.
As to who caused our partisan divide ? Go look at the data – Pew and Gallup track this. There have been minor dances about the center by each party for decades, but the current mess started in 2008 with a strong shift of those left of center moving further LEFT.
Republicans as a whole have moved ever so slightly towards the center.
How delicious the party of Clinton and Kennedy berating Republicans for tolerating Trump.
Trump has not PRETENDED to be something he is not. He cavorts with Porn Stars – but he does take care of his family.
Has he raped anyone ? Has he perjured himself ? Has he suborned Perjury ? Has he sexually harrassed anyone ?
You say he was bragging about violating someone else’s right’s – WHERE IS THAT PERSON ?
Daniels is not saying she was raped. She claims to have had a very tame vanilla relationship with Trump.
Trump Talked about Groping Women – the purported leading democratic contender for president is on camera groping women and teens. His reputation was so bad the Secret Service was advised not to bring their families to events he was at. We are not talking about locker room talk – we are talking ACTS.
The Women Clinton victimized did not consent. The women Franken harrased did not consent, the women Biden fondled and groped did not consent,
What credible woman has come forward to claim that Trump did anything without their consent ?
The left fixates on what people say – and could care less what they do.
Charlies Rose, Matt Lauer are quietly being “rehabilitated”. They are saying the right things giving to the right causes. Who cares what they actually DID.
I expect to here that Weinstein is back in business any moment now.
“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.” Nina Burleigh about Bill Clinton.
Trump says something stupid and you will never forget.
Trump’s character is flawed – but he is an angel in comparison to those on the left.
Regardless, he does not pretend to be something he is not.
Absolutely Trump insults everyone who criticises him.
He takes from the left’s playbook.
Do you even notice how you and the rest of the left do not have any other means of arguing but insult ? That all discourse with the left consists of being insulted and subject to bogus appeals to emotions. That the entire left is incapable of a reasoned discussion. The current “intellectual dark web” is the reluctant departure of some of the most brilliant minds on the left from an ideology that has devloved into emotions, insult and efforts to silence all debate.
As to Trump’s intellectual prowess – he has been successful in MANY different venues. He was successful in Housing in NYC, He was successful in casino’s, golf courses, hotels, global real estate, Writing, Reality Television, and beauty pagents.
The issue is not so much whether he has expertise, but whether he can solve problems. Again it is not important what you say, or even what you know. It is what you do that matters.
We have been in endless war for decades. Politician after politician has promissed to get us out of that. Trump is delivering.
If you actually want to defend the neocon world view – I will be happy for a real intellectual debate.
But as with myriads of other issues – so much of the lefts disagreement with Trump is purely disagreement with anything Trump says.
Obama wanted out of Afghanistan – that was Good. Trump wants out – that is somehow pad.
We have Schumer, Pelosi, Obama on the record supporting a wall. today they have changed their minds – that is fine I can deal with that.
But how is it that Trump who is doing nothing more than making the same arguments they made 10 years ago is evil ?
The arguments have not changed.
On issue after issue, Trump is saying things that would not have been controversial – even for the left, a decade or so ago.
But we are all expected to beleive that today he is falling of the right edge of the world crazy for saying things that every prominent democrats said not too long ago.
But most of us do not actually think that democrats have changed their minds. Most of us beleive that their is no difference between Schumer or Pelosi today than a decade ago, that today as then they are just saying what their constitutents want to hear. They do not have an original thought. They do not know anything but politics.
As to support for a wall:
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/350217-americans-support-a-border-wall-more-than-the-media-wants-to-believe
I would further note that a majority support withdrawling from Syria – and yet the left and the media are appolectic over that.
If you want to know who Trump was referring to when he bragged about grabbing women, ask him, or, better still, ask him to consent to release of all of the tapes from “The Apprentice” that his lawyers are trying their best to keep under wraps. I hear there’s some really juicy racist, misogynist and other things he can’t lie his way out of. Supporting one’s family is a duty that would be enforced by law, and does not excuse cheating on your spouse.
The debt is historic, and will skyrocket because of the tax cuts for the richest Americans. That is a fact. It is also a fact that improvement in the economy does not and cannot offset the loss of revenue due to the tax cuts, which is what your hero argued, and which is something else he just made up. It is also a fact that Republicans used to be opposed to increasing the debt, but if push comes to shove, they’ll take the tax cuts for the wealthiest, because they never did really stand for fiscal responsibility.
Where is the proof about Biden, etc? Who cares anyway, and how does this excuse Trump? Do you have any proof, or is this more of Hannity’s and Rush’s slop that people like you love to lap up? Who cares about Matt Lauer? He isn’t a politician. More Kellyanne pivoting. Nothing anyone else ever did excuses him. No comparative fault here.
You speak of Trump’s success, but you don’t know the facts. He has taken business bankruptcy multiple times, and was heavily supported by his father well into his 40’s. He’s never really done anything on his own, based on his own skills, because he really doesn’t have any skills except self-promotion. He has a short attention span, refuses to read, and refuses to listen to advice from more-knowledgeable people, especially on foreign policy and military matters, of which he knows little to nothing. Why won’t he release his tax returns so we can all judge how successful and wealthy he really is?
So, the right-wing argues that Trump is ruff, gruff, politically incorrect or even flawed, but, by God, he’s on the right track. No. He has a serious psychiatric disorder–narcissism, which is the only reason he ran for president–the praise and glory. His failures so far are epic. The White House literally hemorrhages agency heads and cabinet members. He nominates as agency heads lobbyists who used to lobby the very agency they will direct, as well as industry insiders, all of which are serious conflicts of interest. He will not defer to military leaders. The government is shut down because he takes his direction from a stupid, snarky fake blonde who called him a wimp for not demanding the wall he said Mexico would pay for.
You keep wanting to believe that it’s “the left” or “Democrats” who oppose Trump. You are wrong. The historic midterm election turnouts were all about opposing Trump. Most Americans see him for the pathetic, egotistical fool he is and want him gone.
lol more garbage
self promotion is perhaps the signal American skill if you consider how things work today
anyhow he knows plenty about real estate development and hospitality industry and certainly a master of entertainment. you are totally wrong about your demeaning comments. moreover bankruptcy is a right and his businesses that have gone bankrupt are not the same as a personal BK. but i suspect you would not be able to tell the difference. having been in and out of the BK court many times in many roles I dismiss this feckless complaint with confidence. suffice to say that many successful businessmen have tried and failed at one thing or another and it’s their particular trait of persistence that allows them to finally succeed. that is to be admired!
finally, you are not a pscyhiatrist and you are not his doctor so you are in no position to diagnose. but you are an amateur shrink i suppose just like you are an amateur political analyst and boy does it show!
Typical leftist nonsense.
I would prefer if the words representatives used were appropriate in public, but the complaint is not about the profanity, it is about the insanity.
Your recognition of your personal visceral responses are truly amazing. You are indeed in the right party. Please keep making our case for us. It has been truly enlightening.
LACK OF AGREEMENT ON IMPEACHMENT..
REVEALS DEEP FLAWS IN DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT
Here Professor Turley alludes to the fact that our founding fathers meant for impeachment to be a rare option of the last resort. Legal analysts, like the professor, were pointing that out all through the Clinton impeachment drive 20 years ago. Impeachment wasn’t intended to be a mechanism for removing presidents only because they were deeply unpopular and, or, controversial.
The problem is we ‘have no’ mechanism for removing presidents who ‘are’ deeply unpopular and, or, controversial. And in this age of mass media that becomes a serious flaw in the design of our government. That flaw allowed Richard Nixon to stay in office for 10 months after the so-called ‘Saturday Night Massacre’. During those 10 months the country slipped into a recession that was more than likely worsened by Nixon’s rogue status.
The concept of a fixed, 4 year presidential term is gravely outdated in this age social media and instant news. Donald’s Trump’s Twitter feed provides real time updates regarding the impulsive nature of his presidency. No blue chip corporation would allow its CEO to issue such irrational messages on such a frequent basis. Some day Trump might tweet something that ‘no one’ can spin. The question is, “What happens then?”
PH, There are two separate issues which you are eliding into one. First is the idea of a president being impeached for being “deeply unpopular and, or, controversial”. That’s correct and a very good argument could be made that a president should not be impeached for these reasons. Maybe you feel we should change the standard of impeachment to include these?
The other issue you allude to seems to be (if I’m not misreading you), mental incapacity. There is a Constitutional remedy for that. However, it does require that certain standards for that declaration be met.
Yeah, Jill, our system requires that we tolerate months, or possibly ‘years’ of uncertainly as a rogue, or deranged, president goes on a tear enabled by support from his own party. The consequences could be extremely grave. And I’m not just talking about Trump.
Bernie Sanders could possibly get the White House only to have a stroke before the end of his first year. But Sanders might deny the severity of his stroke and attempt to keep power in a semi-feeble state. We had a crisis like that with Woodrow Wilson. There has to be a mechanism for calling new elections when the general public demands them.
PH,
I wish we had that kind of system as well in many ways. The thing is, that system is being subverted also. Hated politicians are glued in place no matter what they do to ordinary people and a society.
I see this as part of the world oligarchy taking control of govts. no matter what kind of govt. is in place. At wikileaks they show the documents of how the US interfered in France’s election. Then, if you read what is happening w/the yellow vests, Macron, a deep state lackey if there ever was one, is using lawfare and raw force to crush the people.
Here’s a write up about that: https://www.globalresearch.ca/french-police-arrest-yellow-vest-spokesman-eric-drouet/5664700
If you look at the history of wide swings in favorable-to-unfavorable poll ratings for many presidents’ administrations, you’ll see a fickleness on the part of the electorate that can cause them to rapidly change its mind, back and forth, during the same president’s administration.
There is no mechanism for removal of a president other than the methods mentioned here ( impeachment/ conviction and incapacitation).
A “recall” type of system could result in shorter-than-four-year-term presidencies back to back, due to an average recession, a temporary military setback, etc., and a shortsighted electorate that “wants a change yesterday”.
It’s a theoretical discussion in any case, as it’s very unlikely that anyone alive today will see a constitutional overhaul to allow a national recall referendum.
You mentioned the Nixon Administration and the 10 month period between the Saturday Night Massacre and removal from office.
It was the White House tapes that sealed Nixon’s fate, and while there was a crippled presidency when Nixon was under a cloud/ suspicion/investigation for about 18 months, there was no valid reason for removing him from office under August 1974.
If the investigations into the Nixon Administration had dragged on the way the FBI/Mueller investigations are dragging on, Nixon may well have completed his second full term.
I’ve mentioned that time factor in criticism of the Mueller investigation. While there is political expediency for the opposition party to see an administration kept under a cloud of suspicion from Day One, and investigations that go on and on and on, there comes a point when a Special Counsel has to reach conclusions DIRECTLY RELATED TO the reasons he was appointed.
I emphasize that, because this numbers game crap citing unrelated indictments doesn’t address the core reason for the Trump/ Russia FBI investigation and the subsequent appointment of Mueller.
And it is a reason why Mueller himself does not have nearly the level of public confidence enjoyed by either Cox or Jarworski in the Nixon era.
Should be “until August 1974”, not “under” August 1974
Tom, I think the entire concept of two 4 year terms is outdated. Elections should be called when the public wants them. Presidents should be able to stay in power as long as they have a mandate to govern.
It’s ridiculous that presidents become lame ducks just 2 years into their second term. If the president is still young, with strong majority support, he shouldn’t become a lame duck until the people are sick of him (or her).
And contrary to what you say, Nixon remained in office far too long. Everyone knew he was dead meat after the Saturday Night Massacre. During the 10 months that followed, Nixon was merely a figurehead completely knee-capped by Watergate. If you don’t remember that, you were either too young or too Republican to notice.
Everyone did not know he was “dead meat” in Oct. 1973.
He was on the ropes politically, because of the Arab oil embargo, Watergate, and other factors that I mentioned.
We have a c.230 year old document that has served us pretty well, and it won’t get changed, and should not be changed, on the whims of those who are still pissy years after an election because they don’t like the results of that election.
It took 26 months from the Watergate break-in until Nixon’s resignation. Mueller hasn’t been active nearly that long. The beginning of the investigations against Nixon were mainly in the background and the Republican Senate acted and sounded much like the current one in the early months. Three very different things between then and now. 1. There was no branch of Congress actively trying to block the investigation like the Republican House has for Trump. 2. The Senate trial was televised during a time when there were three or four television channels and the whole nation was actively watching. 3. There was no Fox News and others to present a completely opposite version of the facts and allow Nixon supporters to live in a bubble. Everyone was working with the same set of facts.
There’s a fourth thing that somewhere between 3040% of the public simply don’t care that Trump is a criminal and will at least pretend to believe he’s innocent no matter what the evidence.
I don’t know how many damn times I have to explain this, but the investigation into the Trump/ Russia issue began with the FBI in July of 2016.
Mueller took over that investigation 10 months later.
That is c.2 1/2 years.
The investigations of Manafort and others predated the July 2016 start of the FBI investigation, so some aspects of the SC investigation predated Mueller’s appointment by years.
The Watergate breakin was in June 1972.
Nixon won re-election in a landslide in Nov. 1972.
Watergate was not much of an issue in that campaign; it was not until a confluence of events in the spring of 1973 that that the Watergate issue, and the Watergate investigation, became a serious political issue.
From that point, it took less than 18 months to force Nixon from office.
I think that’s when Cox was appointed as Special Prosecutor, succeeded by Jarowski in the fall of 1973.
Go back and read contemporaneous news reports from the 1973-1974 period if you don’t know the timeline of those events, and the significance of that timeline.
The Cox-Jarworski Special Prosecutors took far less time than the FBI- Mueller Molasses Probe farce that’s been playing out for 2 and a half years.
Tom Nash – Note: There are currently 17 separate investigations into Trump, and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives just gained power yesterday. More to come. You apparently will be shocked, shocked, when you realize your boy is guilty as hell. Money laundering, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and there will be perjury if he ever speaks on the record because he is incapable of telling the truth.
There are currently 17 separate investigations into Trump,
I guess I’m idly curious as to which talking-point mill generated this meme.
Enigma, Tom is one of those establishment Republicans who might have seemed moderate just a few years ago. But now Tom is married to Trump; like the whole party. For that reason Tom likes to play games regarding ‘when’ the Mueller Probe began. What’s more, Tom keeps forgetting all the incriminating statements Trump has made like, “I love Wikileaks!” and “Vladimir Putin if you’re listening–
i laughed and completely agreed with trump when he said that stuff. am i in some sort of illegal collusion too? I do have one Russian friend.
Please get off the paranoiac later-day McCarthyite anti-Russian bandwagon Peter it ill befits you
lol. how easy is it to mock up a case for money laundering? very easy. you could drive a truck through the money laundering statutes. anybody the feds dont like may get dinged with money laundering if they have a pot to pee in.
from NACDL the Criminal Defense lawyers outfit:
https://www.nacdl.org/Advocacy.aspx?id=10968
Money laundering, commonly understood to involve the transfer of criminally derived money into legitimate channels, occurs in almost every crime in which there is a financial motive. Notwithstanding this broad definition, federal money laundering laws were enacted with a narrow purpose in mind: to take the profit out of drug trafficking and organized crime.
Over the years, the Congress has enacted several laws to prevent drug traffickers and crime syndicates from spending their money. With the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which imposes a duty on financial institutions to file a Currency Transaction Report (CTR) whenever a customer conducts a financial transaction in cash exceeding $10,000, banks and financial institutions became the first line of defense. In 1984, Congress broadened the reporting requirements to include businesses by passing 26 U.S.C. 6050I, part of the Internal Revenue Code. The first law to criminalize money laundering per se was the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986. This law not only criminalizes the movement of money and wealth derived from specified unlawful activities but assists in the seizing of the assets and profits of the specified unlawful activity.
The past fifteen years have witnessed an alarming expansion of the money laundering statutes — principally 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 — by the courts, the Department of Justice and the Congress. Once a tool for drug or racketeering cases, these laws are now applied to a wide range of activities, including routine business transactions.(1) During the same time, courts have minimized and blurred the evidentiary requirements for establishing money laundering. As interpreted and applied, the current law is a cruel trap for unwary individuals and businesses that inflicts felony convictions, draconian and inflexible prison sentences (2), and ruinous asset forfeiture.(3)
As Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson stated,
The Anti-Money Laundering Statutes are overly broad because they potentially reach many legitimate business transactions. The result is that businesses are subject to overreaching investigations and prosecutions for conduct unrelated to drug trafficking or organized crime. These investigations and prosecutions are extremely disruptive for business and expensive to defend.
Elizabeth Johnson & Larry Thompson, Money Laundering: Business Beware, 44 Ala. L. Rev. 703, 719 (1993).
Cases of unfair application of the money laundering laws are legion. Individuals and businesses who handle dirty money with no actual knowledge of the underlying offense are branded money launderers.(4) This is because courts have interpreted the knowledge requirement to include the concept of “willful blindness” or “conscious avoidance.” Some courts have gone so far as to hold that willful blindness is shown where the defendant has suspicions and does not take action to confirm or disprove their truth; thus, the burden is on the defendant to investigate a suspicious situation, or be judged criminally culpable for her failure to inquire into the source of the funds.(5)
Compounding the statutes’ over-breadth is the prosecutorial practice of piling on money laundering charges that are incidental to or virtually indistinguishable from the underlying offense. For example, prosecutors have charged money laundering where the defendant has done no more than deposit the proceeds of some “specified unlawful activity” (see footnote 1) into his bank account, even though the bank account is clearly identifiable as belonging to him.(6) Spending illegal proceeds, even without any attempt to obfuscate their source, likewise may trigger money laundering charges — against the drug dealer and the unfortunate merchant who knowingly accepts his money.
Piling on money laundering charges to an alleged crime other than drug trafficking often results in a sentence almost four times what would ordinarily be incurred.(7) In white collar criminal cases, in particular, this allows prosecutors to obtain easy plea bargains and forfeitures that may not be in the interest of justice.
The following proposals are designed to address the money laundering statutes’ most serious flaws:
1. The promotion prong of 18 U.S.C. 1956, which has been subject to absurd application and conflicting interpretations, serves no purpose and should be repealed;
2. The concealment prong of 18 U.S.C. 1956 should be expressly limited to financial transactions designed by the defendant with the intent to create the appearance of legitimate wealth; and
3. Congress should amend 18 U.S.C. 1957, which broadly prohibits transactions involving illegal proceeds of a value greater than $10,000, to focus on professional money launderers, rather than one-time offenders. The monetary threshold should be raised and, unless the defendant engaged in a pattern of illegal transactions, the offense should be a misdemeanor.
Additionally, NACDL is proposing amendment to 18 U.S.C. 1957(f), which excludes “any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.” This proposal adopts the original statutory language, approved by the House on three separate occasions in 1986 and 1988, and is consistent with congressional intent to give full accord to the necessity of pre-indictment (not just post-indictment) representation.
Fifteen years of experience with the Money Laundering Control Act has led to the inescapable conclusion that the Department of Justice and the courts are incapable of controlling this blunderbuss.(8) The proposals in this report are not only necessary to bring rationality and fairness to the laws but are consistent with the aims of legitimate law enforcement. The proposed amendments would simplify and clarify current law, facilitate compliance efforts by individuals and businesses, and focus federal law enforcement on serious misconduct.
Proposal #1: Repeal promotion money laundering.
Far less drastic than it sounds, repealing the so-called promotion prong of 18 U.S.C. 1956 serves the worthwhile goal of simplifying the federal criminal code — without creating a gap in federal law enforcement.
Before passage of the federal money laundering statutes, prosecutors sometimes charged — and in almost all circumstances could charge — money launderers with conspiracy to commit the underlying offense.(9) The promotion prong of 18 U.S.C. 1956 requires, by definition, that the financial transactions were conducted “with the intent to promote the carrying on of a specified unlawful activity.” Facially, one who intends to promote the underlying criminal activity and who participates in the commission of a financial transaction, the object of which is to further the underlying crime, is axiomatically liable as either a conspirator or an aider and abettor of the underlying crime itself. There is simply no void in the law of criminal liability requiring the creation or application of the promotion prong of 1956.
Instead, the promotion prong, with its twenty-year statutory maximum and its severe sentencing guidelines, is an unnecessary addition to a federal prosecutor’s arsenal — an arsenal that is already filled with a panoply of statutes prohibiting the underlying crimes themselves. There is no social harm (in addition to the harm of the underlying crime itself) that warrants a separate twenty-year statute for participating in a financial transaction that is intended to promote the alleged criminal activity that itself is already prohibited and subject to punishment.
Aside from not serving any legitimate purpose, the promotion prong has fostered confusion, inconsistency and unfairness. Far removed from true “laundering,” so-called promotion money laundering was intended to prevent the use of funds to expand a criminal enterprise.(10) However, prosecutors have applied the offense to conduct outside this narrow purpose, and the courts have permitted this unwarranted expansion.
Two areas, which have generated conflicting opinions, illustrate how the promotion prong has been stretched far beyond its thin rationale:
In some circuits, one can be convicted of promotion money laundering where past, as opposed to future conduct, was involved.(11) Other circuits have recognized that one cannot promote the carrying on of an already completed act.(12)
The spending of any funds in an existing business, as opposed to an expansion of the alleged criminal conduct, has been held to constitute promotion by some courts.(13) Others demand greater proof that the transaction in question promoted the business’ illegal activities.(14)
Ultimately, the statutory language is extremely difficult to work with and is subject to different interpretations, producing dramatically different results, from circuit to circuit, and case to case.(15) Because of these problems — and because one who commits promotion is liable as an aider and abettor or co-conspirator in the underlying offense — this prong of 1956 should be repealed.
Proposal #2: Define and narrow the term “to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.”In contrast to promotion, the concealment prong of 18 U.S.C. 1956 encompasses the conduct commonly understood to constitute money laundering. It proscribes the conducting of a transaction “knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part-(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.” Unfortunately, some courts have broadly interpreted the term “to conceal or disguise” to include virtually all transactions which involve the proceeds of unlawful activity.
Contrary to Congressional intent, this “turn[s] the money laundering statute into a ‘money spending statute.'”(16) Spending money from a specified unlawful activity is already punished by another money laundering statute, 1957 — but only if the money exceeds $10,000. And even when this monetary threshold is satisfied, 1957 caps the penalty at ten years’ imprisonment, compared to the twenty-year maximum sentence authorized for concealment money laundering. Clearly, Congress intended more deliberate concealment efforts to trigger the higher maximum sentence. By the same token, Congress did not intend that conduct incidental to the underlying unlawful activity (e.g., spending a fraudulently obtained tax refund) trigger disproportionately harsh penalties far in excess of those prescribed for the underlying offense.
Some courts have adopted a limitation worthy of codification. The Tenth Circuit, in United States v. Garcia-Emanuel, held that “[i]f transactions are engaged in for present personal benefit, and not to create the appearance of legitimate wealth, they do not violate the money laundering statute.”(17) According to the Tenth Circuit, “the requirement that the transaction be ‘designed’ to conceal requires more than a trivial motivation to conceal,” and must be “based on substantial evidence, not mere suspicion.”
The Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have endorsed the reasoning in Garcia-Emanuel, holding that to convict under the concealment prong of 1956, the government must establish that the transaction was engaged in to create the appearance of legitimate wealth, not for present personal benefit.(18)
Although the Tenth Circuit, in Garcia-Emanuel, elaborately described the type and quantum of evidence necessary to support a conviction for money laundering, that circuit, in United States v. Salcido, nonetheless failed to apply its own test. SeeUnited States v. Salcido, 33 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding that evidence was sufficient to support conviction for money laundering where defendant merely proposed that alleged drug proceeds be converted into large bills that could more easily be transported). This demonstrates that, unless Congress includes sufficient guidelines for courts to follow in determining what evidence is sufficient to support a finding of intent to conceal, the courts will continue to apply different standards, and, thus, reach inconsistent results. In order to assure uniformity among the circuits, and to confine “concealment” prosecutions to true acts of money laundering, the money laundering statute should be amended to reflect the well-reasoned analysis of the Tenth Circuit in Garcia-Emanuel.
Proposal #3: Amend 1957 to target significant third-party money laundering.
Section 1957 is essentially the same as 1956 stripped of any requirement of promotion, concealment, or avoiding a transaction reporting requirement. Thus, 1957 is not a money laundering statute, but rather a law against the depositing or withdrawal of more than $10,000 at one time if you know it is the proceeds of crime.(19) No social purpose is served by criminalizing such conduct. If a businessman commits a fraud, and his secretary knowingly deposits a check representing $10,000 of the fraud proceeds in a bank account in the business’ true name, with no attempt to conceal anything, the secretary has committed a 1957 offense that is punished much more severely than the underlying fraud committed by her boss. Why? The act of depositing the fraud proceeds in a bank harms no one. Would society be better off if the proceeds were hidden under the fraudster’s mattress?(20)
One ostensible purpose of 1957 is to keep dirty money out of the U.S. banking system. That sounds good as a slogan but accomplishes nothing. Once dirty money enters the banking system it becomes visible to the authorities and can be seized or taxed. If the money remains under the criminal’s mattress or buried underground no one benefits.
A second purpose 1957 may serve is to prevent third parties such as merchants from accepting dirty money in trade. This theoretically makes it more difficult for the criminal to spend his money and thus enjoy the fruits of his crimes.(21) The Justice Department’s prosecution guidelines for 1957 seem to target third parties who accept dirty money, not criminals who deposit or withdraw it.(22) That would reflect a sensible judgment about the appropriate use of the statute.
If 1957 is not simply eliminated, Congress should at least codify that Justice Department policy so that 1957 can only be used to prosecute the “money launderer” and not the criminal who is the source of the money. This would prevent the misuse of the statute to go after the criminal who generates the proceeds and who is already subject to penalties for the commission of the underlying crime. Congress should also require that the proscribed “monetary transaction” be part of a suitably defined “pattern” of similar transactions adding up to a high dollar threshold in order to incur felony liability.(23) If it is not part of a pattern or does not exceed some high dollar threshold, the merchant should, at most, face a misdemeanor penalty. There may be some social utility (albeit minimal) in prosecuting merchants such as car dealers who regularly cater to the drug trade.(24) But there is no social utility in making a felon out of a merchant who engages in one such transaction.
Congress could also make 1957 more rational and less of a blunderbuss if it raised the dollar threshold from $10,000 to $25,000.
Proposal #4: 18 U.S.C. 1957(f) should be amended to clarify the Sixth Amendment exemption in accordance with congressional intent. ……
If it will make you feel better, Trump is both the criminal and money launderer in some of his deals.
you must have been a very good person your whole life never to be on the wrong end of an investigation. i wish you well in your continued life as a choir boy and one who so trusts in prosecutions
i live in the world however and I am no saint and moreover I have been many times talked intimately with people accused of crimes and I am not so quick to judgment.
and good luck finding any saint who is willing to run for POTUS and has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.
I’m of the belief that most people don’t find themselves under investigation even once let alone 17 times? Is there something naive about that? Shouldn’t not being investigated be the norm?
Enigma,…
It’s doubtful that any House investigations will turn up anything beyond what the Mueller investigation has, or might, turn up in time.
And time, and time, and time.
Mueller and the team he assemble of 15 + experienced prosecutors have more than enough resources at their disposal, the motivation to try to pin something directly on Trump, and a full-time commitment do to so.
House Committee investigations can make political hay out of allegations, etc., but the members have other duties in Congress, and even Adam Shiff can’t appear 24/ 7 for TV interviews.
I do realize that Trump and those associated with the 2016 Trump campaign have been targeted since mid-2016….and the investigations into Manafort and others predated the initial July 2016 investigation of Trump & Co.
Ii did check into the Cox-Jaworski 1973-1974 timeline; the Special Prosecutor was appointed in May 1973, and Nixon was forced to resign less than 15 months later.
You have repeatedly expressed high hopes, high expections, and a high level of confidence that Trump will get nailed on something.
After 2 1/2 of investigations, there would seem to be a good deal of faith as well as hope in your expections.😉
Others have expressed the view that “there is no there there”, and that this extended melodrama will just drag on without any substantial proven allegations against Trump.
I haven’t made any predictions as to how this all ends, so I won’t be “shocked” at the outcome involving what you describe as “my boy”.
What I have said, and am saying, is that after 2 1/2 years, I agree with those who say that Mueller needs to either **** or get off the pot.
We can agree the House at this point will have urned up nohing outside of what Mueller has discovered. They didn’t call many of the witnesses they should have, issued no subpoenas except o discredit the FBI and did almost nothing in public. I hink there is about to be a change, not one which will find new crimes commited by Trump and family but expose those which Nunes et al, tried o cover up.
Mueller was appointed in May of 2017, hardly 2 1/2 years. If you want o sart from the date an invesigation began, you can’t ignore all the indictments and guilty pleadings that have resulted. One reason the investigation hasn’t ended is that he President coninues to lie and attempt to obstruct justice, each event requiring further investigation.
It is highly improbable despite what Fox tells you, tha Mueller has nothing. Donald Jr has told people he believes he’ll be indicted, Trump Sr. thinks he’ll be impeached (different than being found guilty). He didn’t wnt anyone looking into his business (which Mueller has) and he likely had good reason.
Most of the people defending Trump don’t even say he’s not guilty, they try o convince people his actions shouldn’t be crimes despite what the law says. They are going to have severe Trump hangover when this is done. If it’s any consolation, I want the investigation to be completed as soon as possible.
One question, is there any circumstance under which you think the Mueller report shouldn’t be made public?
for a stroke victim obviously that is the 25th amendment. which does not apply to the hale and hearty POTUS and Right Honorable Donald J Trump! Hail to the Chief!
a 25th amendment coup against DJT will end it bloodshed in the streets. Mark my words.
The fact is a head of state must have a certain latitude for decisions and also for communication. At the end of the day the head of state is not just hoarding money and capital he is the Commander in Chief and potentially responsible for the physical protection of a nation.
So the office must not be like a CEO who is responsible to some bunch of corporate elders, he must necessarily be more like a Roman Dux Bellorum. That logic applies to whichever party holds the office.
Particularly in the nuclear age.
Your comment is ridiculous. Changing the US President should be hard to do. Being “unpopular” is hardly a reason to remove him/her. That’s a very shortsighted view by those who can’t think beyond the here and now.
wipman , your post IS correct…the Corrupt Democrat Party wanted ‘Obama’s FIX Put in for Hillary to win, as it is ALL about Power/Control/Money with them and they wanted the “Gravy Train for making Millions/Billions for themselves to continue.”
[WE the people who were Sick of the Deep State/Smelly Swamp and NOT taking care of America, Spoke….at the ballot box and elected POTUS Trump, who DID care about this Republic. While the party of Corruption/Obstruction did NOT get their own way, is NOT grounds to remove THIS SITTING POTUS.
On topic, this Loud, Filthy Mouthed Muslim Should NOT serve another day as a new member of Congress, with the Muslim Takeover in OUR government, that Obama, Soros(of MoveOn) Hillary, Keith Ellison Put in Place. REMOVE HER and anyone else who is promoting VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS, along with their Hatred of OUR CHOICE for POTUS.
wipam,
Exactly. The primary reasons people started calling for Nixon’s head on a pike in the fall-winter of 1973-1974 were gas lines, doubling/ tripling of gas prices, stagflation, etc.—- events unrelated to Watergate, and not remedied by bouncing a president from office.
She represents a black majority district which incorporates large chunks of Detroit. If the residents of Detroit wish to understand why their municipality is where the wheels have fallen off western civilization, they can look in the bloody mirror.
Tabby, what is your comment saying regarding the complexion of Detroit?
This is obviously one of those dog whistles that we all understand; and a not-too-subtle one at that. Furthermore, it seeks to completely trivialize the history of a now fallen city while ignoring the fact that ‘many’ cities in the Great Lakes region have suffered similar declines. Are we to believe your dog whistle rationale explains the histories of all those cities?
You hear the dog whistle, Peter, because you’re a dog.
And, no, Peter, there’s no place like Detroit. Unlike you, I’ve actually examined the descriptive statistics.
Excuse me, Tabby, but I have spent countless hours studying the histories of U.S. cities. Numerous cities have suffered declines not unlike Detroit’s. Detroit only stands out because it ‘was’ the biggest of fallen cities.
Saint Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo have all experienced huge declines in populations and economic power. And three of those cities are based, like Detroit, in the eastern Great Lakes region. There are many smaller cities in that region which have suffered huge declines; like Gary Indiana and Youngstown Ohio. One can’t keep using the dog whistle argument to explain the declines of so many cities.
Peter you should read “Slaughter of Cities” by E Michael Jones about the effort by the plutocracy of decades gone by to destroy ethnic neighborhoods as a tactic to maintain power. This is a different perspective with fine grained insight into Philly and you might enjoy it
Jones ca. 1990 had eccentric insights. He gradually decayed into a purveyor of paranoia.
Perhaps you are right, but that is a fine book and its theme of “urban renewal as ethnic cleansing” is genius. That was precisely the story for many neighborhoods in chicago and it explains the circuitous route of highway 94 as it wends through the city
Yeah, Kurtz, the Dan Ryan Expressway was built along a path that essentially became a Berlin Wall of sorts.
Various factions intentionally cooperated to divide ethnic neighborhoods to reduce their potential power to compete against the machine.
Overall, I think Major Daley both Sr and Jr were pretty good, all things considered, but Sr had a hand in that too, according to what i am told.
Now i am not the one who observed this, just repeating what a lot of savvy people understand. I just pulled this off the net in ten seconds
https://dianerehm.org/2016/05/24/how-highway-construction-has-affected-listeners-lives
Much like the railroad tracks in pretty much every major city.
i would add one more thing which is that globalization and offshoring and Milton Freidman esque free trade dogma did a lot to destroy the “Rust Belt” from Chicago to Ohio, not just black crime Oh, yes, and a lot of that mischief was championed by Republicans, er, and Bill Clinton too dont forget.
and Donald J Trump has stepped forward to try and rectify the free trade insanity which is long overdue and God Bless him for it. We all who yet live in the Rust belt thank him for trying. Above every dirty trick the Democrats could lob at him along the way.
1. The ill-effects and beneficial effects of trade regimes are overstated.
2. Trade liberalization has been the preferred policy of every administration since 1933. It wasn’t local to the period after 1980.
3. Tariffs tend to be consequential for the trade in undifferentiated goods like agricultural products, not manufactures.
4. Our problems with trade regimes mimic our problem with tax regimes. The text consists of special interest carve-outs. See Jagdish Bhagwati on this point. There is a problem with reciprocity as well in re some of the countries of the Far East.
5. The real value of manufacturing output has never declined. Manufacturing value-added is a lower share of value-added-in-general and a lower share of the workforce is employed in manufacturing than was the case in 1970.
6. I doubt you can arrest that process (which is driven by technology and comparative labor costs) without implanting worse pathologies. (Such as industrial corporations who resemble Britain’s quondam portfolio of nationalized industry, propped up by the Treasury).
overall that seems reasonable and certainly there are limits to what can be achieved with protectionist measures. but I think you underestimate the impact of Friedman and the “Chicago Boys” in advancing free trade dogma during the Reagan era.
I also think that low value added industries may be strategic. If they are strategic then they need to be given some special attention. Carve outs may be exactly necessary in other words. Just let them be truly strategic and not patronage.
Certain rare earth minerals for example, are strategic, and China is monopolizing them because they are playing a long game and the US is not. Nothing here is a long game, except for the long game of capital and “democracy” codependently using the endless waves of migrants washing up onshore after another.
Certain rare earth minerals for example, are strategic, and China is monopolizing them
You’re not making sense.
https://www.seeker.com/tech/materials/chinas-monopoly-on-rare-earth-elements-tightens-with-purchase-of-us-mine
you get the idea now?
No, I don’t. The notion you can manufacture a global monopoly of consequential minerals is a fantasy. Even forming stable cartels proved beyond the capacity of the governments supervising large-scale mineral exports during the 1970s.
maybe a fantasy but as I have discovered sometimes one can realize one’s own fantasies in real life. and china has the fantasy of controlling rare earths and moves towards accomplishing it. trade policy must consider strategic resources and industries is the point. it is a necessary evil and a matter of prudential policy making and implementation not free trade dogma.
Excuse me, Tabby, but I have spent countless hours studying the histories of U.S. cities.
Well, it didn’t do you much good.
Gary, Indiana is component of greater Chicago. It’s problems derive from a mix of bad policy, bad division of labor among local units, and disagreeable trends in intra-metropolitan migration. Same deal with Detroit, with two qualification: industrial shifts meant more of an economic headwind for greater Detroit than was the case for greater Chicago. In truth, though, economic headwinds weren’t much of a problem for 1st tier cities, Detroit and Philadelphia excepted. Second tier urban settlements e.g. Cleveland and Buffalo were smacked worse than greater Detroit and some 3d tier cities (e.g. Youngstown and Scranton / Wilkes-Barre, IIRC) were smacked even worse. With the qualified exception of Youngstown, none of them suffered an implosion in the quality of life anywhere near as severe as that of Detroit (where the homicide rate is 48 per 100,000). Accomplishing that feat required studiously bad policy by Detroit’s municipal leadership. Coleman Young was arguably the worst core city mayor in the United States in his time.
Oh, Harold Washington was pretty bad too. What did they have in common?
What? No. Chicago’s severe problems antedated Washington. We can check the data from 1983-87, but I don’t think major indicators were getting worse during that era.
Kurtz, does anyone even remember Washington’s opponent??
Epstein was clearly gong to be a puppet for Fast Eddie. Everyone knew it! Epstein was a joke and what happened to Fast Eddie? Did you yearn for ‘his’ leadership??
If you mean Ed Vyrdolyak, why yes, I personally am very fond of Mr Vyrdolyak. I admire him and consider him a fine lawyer and a gentleman and a very wise politician. Chicago has been lucky to have him all these years and he’s exactly the sort of smart and successful local leader, who was hounded by an out of control federal persecution machine, for decades. Don’t get me started!
Let’s just say, I consider him one of my formative influences and leave it at that. I wouldn’t want to embarrass him. LOL
Harold Washington achieved the feat of being worse than Jane Byrne, which took some effort. But yes he sucked badly.
Make no mistake, countless Chicagoans benefited from Ed Vyrdolyak’s leadership over many decades. The son of Croatian migrants — the kind of migrants that were a benefit to America and not detractors– He is precisely the sort of Chicagoan that Carl Sandburg wrote about:
Hog Butcher for the World,
Tool maker, Stacker of Wheat,
Player with Railroads and the Nation’s
Freight Handler;
Stormy, husky, brawling,
City of the Big Shoulders:
They tell me you are wicked and I believe them, for I have seen your painted women under the gas lamps luring the farm boys.
And they tell me you are crooked and I answer: yes, it is true I have seen the gunman kill and go free to kill again.
And they tell me you are brutal and my reply is: On the faces of women and children I have seen the marks of wanton hunger.
And having answered so I turn once more to those who sneer at this my city, and I give them back the sneer and say to them:
Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning.
Flinging magnetic curses amid the toil of piling job on job, here is a tall bold slugger set vivid against the little soft cities;
Fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action, cunning as a savage pitted against the wilderness,
Bareheaded,
Shoveling,
Wrecking,
Planning,
Building, breaking, rebuilding,
Under the smoke, dust all over his mouth, laughing with white teeth,
Under the terrible burden of destiny laughing as a young man laughs,
Laughing even as an ignorant fighter laughs who has never lost a battle,
Bragging and laughing that under his wrist is the pulse, and under his ribs the heart of the people,
Laughing!
Laughing the stormy, husky, brawling laughter of Youth, half-naked, sweating, proud to be Hog Butcher, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads and Freight Handler to the Nation.
–Carl Sandburg
I toast “Fast Eddie” and celebrate his fame! He is a living legend. May he continue to live a long and prosperous life and enjoy his retirement!
His name was Bernard Epton. And it’s doubtful he’d have been a ‘puppet’ of Vrdolyak. They’d have had to co-operate.
When i was little and Gary still smelled like sulphur, I thought it was Mordor. Dark, dirty, stinky, and full of orcs. At least now it doesn’t stink.
Tabby, Cleveland wasn’t always ‘second tier’. Neither was Buffalo.
Cleveland was a Top 10 City for about 80 years; ranking # 5 in 1920.
It sounds incredible now, but Buffalo actually ranked in the Top 10 in 1860,1900 and 1910. As recently as 1950, Buffalo had a density rate greater than Detroit’s. Buffalo even had a seat on the Mafia’s national ‘commission’ when it was formed by Lucky Luciano in the early 30’s!
Buffalo ceased to be a top tier city during the Depression. No clue why in assessing the effect of the industrial shakeout which took place 40-odd years later you would classify it with Detroit and Chicago. Greater Buffalo is as we speak < 1/10th the size of Chicago, < 1/5th the size of greater Detroit and < 1/3 the size of greater Minneapolis – St. Paul. It's about 1/2 the size of greater Cleveland, which is no longer a top tier city either. The tract development in and around Miami has in its population increased 10-fold since 1950. It is a top-tier city.
There’s certain ironies here and let me explain. In her foul talk, this representative sounds like an American and not much of a Muslim.
i have spent a lot of time in Dearborn which is a nice nearby suburb of Detroit and more or less the Arab capital of the USA. I have NEVER heard a Muslim woman say those words ever. They are epxected to be modest and not say F*&K in public.
It is welcome behavior, this sort of modesty. Overall, I do not dislike the hijab I find the public face of feminine modesty a welcome change for the obscene talk of the contemporary harridan.
The irony here is that the “Muslim” Talib or whatever her name is, is actually evidencing the decadence and corruption which is typical of American womanhood as such, rather than the modest Muslim migrants.
See, I do not dislike migrants per se; and I do not especially dislike Muslims; but as a native born American I claim our right to police our borders and maintain the character of our polity— however flawed we may be.
Peter, what are you saying? Are you trying to say that the black people are at fault for running down places like Detroit and Chicago? Oh, the horror! the horror! lol
Yes well it’s sure one possibility!
here, get a look at what a wild pack of black youths did in Chicago. A mob of them just attacked three asian people
https://wgntv.com/2018/12/30/teens-attack-3-people-at-cta-train-station/
next up: documentaries about Liberian cannibals and the question:
what do these things have in common?
Kurtz, I was a Store Detective on Michigan Avenue for most of my 20’s. You needn’t tell me about Chicago.
Chicago is fractured in such a way that the North Side is still a prosperous, vital city. And the Near West Side and Near South Side have made dramatic comebacks. But most of the South Side has been in a 60 year decline; not unlike Detroit. It’s hard for common folks to gain professional experience when jobs in their communities are largely nonexistent. Not every Black man can put on a suit and apply for office jobs in the Loop. Sadly it doesn’t work that way.
I lived in Streeterville for 3 years. I had a lot of friends in Bridgeport. My girlfriend lived in Lincoln park. I have relatives that have lived there off and on for a hundred years. I don’t live there now but not too far. I know it some too.
The things you said are objectively true. The reasons are complicated. That is besides the point of black kids and adults wildly committing violent crime. I don’t need to go very far every year shows one atrocity after another. It was recently chicago was breaking homicide records, but it seems like not too long ago they were throwing kids out windows in the Robert Taylor homes too, but those are now gone, along with Cabrini Green.
I see people whining about Louis Farrakhan on here but his example shows that the black community actually has the power and ability to self organize and direct itself in an orderly fashion towards self empowerment. That was the policy of Marcus Garvey and Booker T Washington. but the American left & Democrat party only promotes those leaders who are in the grievance business in the vein of WEB Dubois and this is where it ends. With another outrage, yesterday’s just a bunch of hooligan black kids beating up some Asian kids waiting for the L.
Chicago, whatever it was in the past, is also now mostly just Mexican. Whole Mexican towns and villages have emptied out into Chicago. It’s a story as dramatic as the migration of blacks from Mississippi — but one that’s not yet written.
Good luck to whomever files bankruptcy which is where it’s got to end up eventually.
just like Detroit.
Never before have I seen Marcus Garvey and Booker T Washington lumped together for sharing the same policy. I’d also love to hear your definition of “grievance business” which sounds much like you believe their complaints have no merit and weren’t ongoing.
Well you don’t read much maybe. I am not the first to draw the parallel. Find your own citations.
I don’t need to elaborate on the grievance business. It’s obvious. Shake down whitey for stuff. Blame every pathology on slavery and hold out the hat for more more more.
See, that’s a policy for the betterment of certain organizations that are essentially rackets, shake down outfits. They become the self-anointed spokesmen for the community, and they get paid to manage the community, to be the voice for it, and to take the money and say the right things that please those who pay them. ‘
And, the more one organization “Represents” its “community” to the exclusion of all other competitors, the more it can extract a big shakedown payoff in exchange for its endorsements. If the shoe fits the NAACP then it can wear it.
This is not just a dynamic affecting black people. Although it is. It is a dynamic that works with respect to “holocaust survivors” too. Edgar Bronfman’s pet organizations (AJC? cant recall name) get all the “reparations” to swell their coffers and the average Jewish person who survived a labor camp may never see one thin dime.
I’m neither black nor Jewish; I would not know. White folks pretend not to have ethnic leadership at all, which is stupid self delusion, of course. But that’s a different dynamic. About the other things, I’m just relating what some black and jewish people have related about their impressions of the ethnic “leadership.”
ha ha, since were talking about Chicago, the shoe fits Jesse Jackson and his shake down operation PUSH which seems to be now defunct
So again, DuBois had no real complaints, it was just grievance based on nothing. During the majority of his lifetime schools were still segregated, during the entirety of his lifetime, black people were under the thumb of either the Black Codes (immediately after slavery) or Jim Crow. Yet you decide it was grievance and looking for handouts while he risked his life to oppose this racism?
While Booker T Washington and Marcus Garvey had some common beliefs in the same way most humans might want world peace. Washington believed thru education the black man would eventually be accepted and seen as equal. Garvey wanted to get the hell out and go back to Africa as he led the Pan-African Movement. They couldn’t be further apart.
I’m so glad to have you to explain black history to me.
The Black Codes lasted about three years. Jim Crow laws were put into place in increments over the period running from 1877 to 1914 and then dismantled in stages between 1948 and 1965.
W.E.B. Du Bois – Feb 23, 1868 – Aug 27, 1963.
I think we can agree that The Black Codes started in 1865-1866 at the end of the Civil War. We seem to disagree with how long they were in force. There was no single set of Black Codes, each (and every) Southern State passed their own set of laws and the Reconstruction Period did not eliminate all the Black Codes, I heard about some still being on the books in Mississippi and the occasional one changed by various states. Jim Crow began immediately after the Compromise of 1877 which included the removal of Federal troops from the South. I’d love to hear your version of the dismantling of Jim Crow starting in 1948. If we look at Brown v Board in 1954. We wouldn’t want to forget it ws to be implemented “with all deliberate speed” and in Fllorida where I live, some schools were still segregated in the 1970s.
I still submit that there was not a moment during Du Bois life, absent of either the Black Codes or Jim Crow.
No, the Black Codes were eliminated by 1868. And you’re conflating parallel school systems with racial clustering derived from residence patterns. ‘Racial balance’ among schools in a given commuter belt was never an object worth pursuing. The Court used debatable sociology as a basis for a legal decision and after that it was in for a dime and in for a dollar.
The problem with segregation is that the unit cost of setting up an instructional program is sufficiently high that you really cannot have substantially equal availability for a minority population in most commuter regions. You might approximate it for primary and secondary schooling in Mississippi or Louisiana or south Alabama. In areas like western Virginia, you cannot, and the modest local black population was transported all over hell-and-gone to attend tiny county high schools with simplified curricula. And you could never make it work in the realm of higher education. The net effect of segregation in higher education was in effect to ban blacks from the state medical school (to take one obtrusive example). This problem persists even when you have equal per pupil expenditure. If you’re ever going to be fair, you have to have non-racial admissions criteria for low census programs.
Dismantling parallel systems is an activity quite different from insisting on ‘racial balance’. The public interest bar and their accomplices in the judiciary manufactured a great deal of local conflict with their inane social engineering projects (see Boston for the echt example). And, while they were doing this, the quality of instruction for black students was declining because of the erosion of behavioral and academic standards. (See Thomas Sowell on how his experience of high school differed from that of his niece, who attended the same high school 12 years after he did).
What blacks would benefit from would be schools with serious behavioral and academic standards and with per-pupil expenditure roughly similar to the general run of schools. That such a school might be 90% black is not a problem. That another school is 98% white is not a problem, so long as blacks can readily enroll in low-census programs housed at that school. Open enrollment, voucher systems, &c would have been much more agreeable solutions to problems in schooling in this country than the ‘solutions’ people like Arthur Garrity imposed.
let me spell the connection out for you. both espoused black self reliance with an emphasis on business ownership and development.
you like most people are incredibly unfair to Garvey. i won’t explain that, he’s not my cause, even if I admire him. you can look it up.
the matter of segregation is slightly more complicated than “segregation bad, integration good.” this is an issue for every ethnic minority group that sees over generations, “ghettoes” and then outward assimilation.
integration has a certain unintended side effect that may be a problem… segregation forced all classes to live together. the higher socially attaining persons close proximity helped inspire and lift up others in the same ethnic community. ……..
but with integration, the successful folks moved out. hence, the declining prospects of the formerly segregated areas.
this has been seen in other “ghettoes” long before blacks. jews experienced the same thing with emancipation (here i am thinking of France in the time of Napoleon)… but, as we know and should admire, they definitely already understood the need for jewish owned business interests and for the uplift of the lower attaining members of their community. have black folks learned that? doesnt look that way to me.
other ethnic groups faced similar dilemmas and still do. Asians for example. they seem more successful at dealing with it too.
white people, unfortunately, have dwindled in their ethnic solidarity and common cause, in the absence of greater formal segregation. like blacks, the white upper classes have pulled away from poorer whites and thrown them overboard.
the whole thing has been exacerbated by a non-related real estate use and development trend which is the demise of the “mixed use” type neighborhood due to zoning codes separating business and residential. this has made a lot of things worse including “ghettoes” even if they certainly were never intended to do so. The “new urbanism” is a school of land use that endeavors to address that.
I don’t care what your views of black history are, nor the average black persons. I am free to admire some black leaders and not others. Yes I admire Marcus Garvey and booker T. No i do not admire WEB Dubois. Unlike the average white person I am not trying to impress black folks with my opinions. I hold them for the value they have for me not you.
You are free to hold your own opinions as well. I am fully aware that Garvey is even less liked than Washington by the powers that be, now as much as when he was deported.
I don’t have “a view” of black history. That’s what happens in Texas schoolbooks. I have knowledge.
a view is what anybody has. you have a view and it’s grounded in your experiences. however i suspect you were born after 1965 so you do not actually have personal knowledge of social existence prior to the Civil Rights act of 1964 and related statutes. So in that respect you have a “view” too.
you are free to dismiss my opinion because i am white– that’s something I have consistently heard my entire life when I previously tried to talk to black people. most white people hear it and very quickly stop bothering. for this the “bitter angry black man” has mostly himself to blame, for the continuing failure to connect with others in society outside narrow circles.
you are so entrenched in your own circles you have no idea how arrogant it sounds. constantly we hear what white people should do or say to curry favor with blacks. and yet when does the black person stop and consider their own tone? this reminds me of AG Holder’s invitation to an honest discussion about race
one where black people get up and call white folks racist and everyone applauds’ and then maybe a stupid white people stands up and say what they think or feel and then get in trouble for it.
so, here’s my honest conversation, like it or not
Farrakhan’s example shows only that an obnoxious sectary can gain a five-digit following and keep it. He has little to offer the black population of Chicago and should be ignored.
on the contrary he is smart, tough, and comparatively well educated.
he has helped his people and the neighborhood along Stony Island with his little pocket of order among the disorder.
I don’t know what you mean a secretary; he was a musician before he became a minister.
he is anti-jewish however, and that catches him a lot of opprobrium.
certainly he has espoused many strange things along the way and I don’t ascribe to NOI on any religious topic; nonetheless I tell you like I did enigma, I am free to admire those whom I do. for whatever reasons I do, and you are free to differ.
It’s hard for common folks to gain professional experience when jobs in their communities are largely nonexistent. Not every Black man can put on a suit and apply for office jobs in the Loop. Sadly it doesn’t work that way.
1. For the record, the employment-to-population ratio for the non-black population is 0.61 as we speak. That for the black population is 0.58. That’s not a large difference.
2. Were the ratios identical, about 1.05 million more blacks would be employed in this country.
3. N.B. in the black population you have (1) proportionately large number of short-term unemployed (i.e. longer searches between jobs), (2) higher participation rates in the Supplemental Security Income program, and (3) higher participation rates in the TANF program.
4. Participation rates in SSI exceeding the rate of the non-black population account for about 370,000 ‘missing’ workers (assuming that 61% of current adult recipients would be working if they weren’t on the dole); participation rates in TANF exceeding that of the remainder of the population account for 85,000 ‘missing’ workers, and the longer job searches account for about 350,000 ‘missing’ workers.
Some people of any description are disengaged from the labor force. This is proportionately more common among blacks, but when you control for the proportionately larger population of the institutionalized, the proportionately larger welfare rolls, and the longer (but still temporally circumscribed) job searches, the employment levels of the two subpopulations scarcely differ.
No clue why you’re rattling on about ‘professional experience’ or ‘suits’. Bourgeois employment is not an aspiration for most people of any description and it certainly is not for blacks, among whom only a modest minority have the discrete training or basic human capital for such employment. Blacks are wage-earners.
The crime problem on the South Side or the west side hasn’t much to do with ‘lack of jobs’ and has a great deal to do with a decision by the authorities to police these areas in a light and circumspect fashion. You need to deter, punish, and incapacitate the feral young men causing all the trouble.
I agree with the last paragraph even if I am not smart enough to follow the preceding.
one thing few people mention is that a lot of the unskilled labor jobs which used to be done by uneducated black folks like mowing lawns or cleaning houses?
are now done by Mexican immigrants. Especially in Chicago.
If they were smart they might actually applaud DJT efforts to police the border— but I won’t hold my breath.
To This is absurd…………..Are you the artist formerly known as Teaching Spastics☦?
Cindy, yes, and many other monikers along the way. The writing style however does not change.
Thank you, Foxtrot…yes indeed, the style is the same.
Cindy Bragg,…
– There also appears to be a return of one frequent early AM commentator after a bit of an absence.
Either that or someone in the same coven with her has the ability to channel L4B.
Tom Nash………….veddy interestink!
It’s very frustrating to see Democrats call for impeachment over their fantasy of Russiagate. He’s a war criminal. Impeach him for that.
The real grounds for impeachment will never be mentioned by Democrats because they are also war criminals.
I don’t have a problem w/her language. Respect is earned and Trump hasn’t earned any respect. He can’t even stand up for our soldiers. He will keep putting them in harms way knowing full well that there is no reason for the US to be in Syria or Afghanistan except for the immense war/drug profiteering he and his business buddies will all reap for our soldiers lives, shattered minds and lost limbs. I’m supposed to respect him? I’m supposed to respect a man who kills civilians for profit and on a whim?
WTF is wrong w/people using harsh language to describe a man who does such things? I don’t see it.
He’s a war criminal.
The term ‘war criminal’ does not mean what you fancy it means.
a2,
You don’t know what I think the term “war criminal” means. This renders your statement meaningless.
War criminal has a legal definition and you can look that up as well as any other person. That’s what I’d recommend Some people will do that research and I’ll let them do it. They can make up their own minds based on real information!
War criminal was a term in vogue in 1945 to describe exceptional brutality in the pursuit of poltico-military objectives. It wasn’t meant to be used for merely prosecuting a war. Quit pretending anything you say is worth anything.
For sure a2! Personal attacks is where it’s at for you!!!! I’ll just expect that from you as that’s all I’ve seen in response to me so far. Carry on!
The term ‘personal attack’ doesn’t mean what you fancy it means, either.
JILL…
just another HATE filled DemoKKKrat
WE ❤ TRUMP
Of course, all newly arrived demented trolls love Trump.
ho,
I’m not a Democrat. You are new here! I think Teodrose Fikre really has a point w/this tweet:
“Stop fawning over politicians and being loyal supporters of elected officials; government is not a reality show or a soap opera, it requires keeping people in power in check not fans acting like teeny-boppers.”
enumerate what alleged war crimes you think he has broken and your evidence. let me know what lexicons you take these “crimes” from while you’re at it.
she is a female dog and it is said that she smells like a pig.
she should get the boot. how’s that for respect?
“War criminal”? Clueless.
The media wing of the Democratic Party made such a to do about the Billy Bush tape, which was a surreptitiously recorded private conversation in a stag setting. Now we have Democratic pols making public speeches where they use curse terms that were seldom heard in any venue in 1975.
In 2016 the independent constitutionalists provided 40% of the vote in the counter revolution against the fascist left and their drive towards one party, one leader no franchise. This time there were votes where 2% stayed home.
Did you think the fight was over?
We got rid of most of the RINOs
Split the left into six or seven factions
Kicked Clinton out serious politics
Exposed the deep state, the fourth branch and the dirty cops
Did you think the fight was over?
We campaigned with zero budget under the motto of Ballots Not Bullets
The left lost the support of the military and most of Law enforcement
The alternative to staying home is give in to the mobocracy or call out the military.
Are you going to stay home next time. which means every local race or question on the ballot. EVERY TIME.
The major protection is our military and Pelosi won’t pay them with funds already voted on, approved and set aside. But she thinks nothing of violating her oath of office. Unlike our military.
And all they have to offer besides the usual tax increases is porn. Now the governments own TV channel has to be listed as x rated because of scum?
I find her proposal for a 70% income tax rate even more profane.
Tlaib seems like one happy Muslim. Why, I’ll bet she’s so ecstatic that she could throw a homosexual off of a tall building!.
LOL, or provide govt funded clitorectomies.
Nick….lol…….hers doesn’t seem to have affected her personality at all, right??!! 🤣
I think it’s very un-Islamic for a woman to talk that way., For some people however, the merits of the religion are lost on them, and it’s just a tribal marker.
That’s true of many religions.
In this case the blame does not go on Islam, it goes on an obscene foul mouthed female dog of a politician who does not belong in Congress.
It’s really getting harder and harder to not hate the Dem party.
This is because you have had different life experiences than the other half of the population has had. It’s stressful when others advocate for ideas in opposition to your own mental structure.
Get back to us when your ‘life experiences’ extend beyond high school and video games.
So that is why this lady is such a jerk?
Tlaib is a Palestinian operative with ties to Hamas. Trump isn’t the target. The Jews are.
What’s strange about her is that she grew up in a family that didn’t have two nickels to rub together, but on enrolling in college cadges a degree in an impractical subject. Her capsule biographies are silent about what she did for a living prior to age 28. She enrolls in law school at age 25, but never practices law after earning her degree. Instead she lands a job as a political staffer and from that riser runs for political office. She’s a foul-mouthed cold-climate analogue of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I think her degree is from the same law school that Michael Cohen attended; it’s considered to be one of the very worst in the country, but given the language used by both Cohen and Rabid Tlaib, its graduates seem to be trained in expressing themselves with sophisticated, complex legalise-talk.
AFAIK, Cohen passed the bar exam without a hitch and proved adept at leveraging what assets he had. Pity he’s a dishonorable wanker.
Any Code of conduct for these Barbarians.
An example of the state of the Democrat/Bolshevik party.
Don’t compliment them by comparing them to the Bolsheviks. They are worse. The Bolsheviks had a plan. The Democrats are just a bunch of bandits.
Darwin vs Caspar Milquetoast and Ocasio-Cortez
The the Republicans need to wise up, look around and check their calendar. It is now the 21st century. The time for the old boy 1920’s Republican party is dead and gone. Reps need to understand that Trump is the catalyst forcing the new Republican party to evolve into the current era. The party of prissy little cowardly Caspar Milquetoasts and anal retentive Ward Clevers who discard the very foundation this country is built on out of fear of being called names or having evil people out to get them think ill of them is evolving into a 21st Century Real World Real Time Constitutionally based party. The CM’s and arWC’s can either get left behind with their memories, mementos and correct tie wearing, fork using, cocktail swilling days or they can come along for the ride. Either way it doesn’t matter, the evolution continues on its own whether they like it or not.
The problem with the Democrats is pretty much the same. Their Walter Mittyesque attitude and the trajectory of their mission is going to bring them down because it’s headed toward a collision with the light of the sun. They are not going along with evolution either. They are a bunch of drugged up failed hippie revolutionary terrorist wannabes with burned out brain cells stuck back in the sixties. Even though they raised their millieflake spawn to be ruled it has gone wrong on them and they don’t even have a clue what they have created with these kids or what they’re in for when at whatever late age their Frankensteins finally reach the separation and indviduation stage. They created self-absorbed monobrained subjective world view gullible fools, paralyzed by their lack of skills and knowledge to navigate in the real world with indoctrination deliberately instilled by their parental and authority figures to arrest their development, make them easily controlled and hate their own true self. Millies were raised to be ruled and as cannon fodder.
They are programed to latch onto whatever mommy tit big gov dangles before them and act out the hatred and violence carefully cultivated in them toward whatever the leftist media directs them at. Unfortunately for their creators these self-absorbed pawns do have a modicum of respect for life, self preservation and desire for good left in them and want desperately to try to live that out. The failed hippies don’t understand that. Neither do they realize or care that the Sixties are over and more over they don’t care about the millies because their good qualities don’t fit the Democrat agenda. The Democrat goal has never been to better a single effin’ thing. Their goal was, is and will always be absolute power. Their mission is to preserve frozen in time forever their fossilized archaic glory days, live out their dreams of power and rule from that fantasy base. Dems will use what ever political system and means necessary to keep the power they do have and expand the power they don’t have and never let evolution of their minds into the future to try to create a world where universal peace and respect for others can take place. Unfortunately for them their favorite techniques like devolution, subversion, dismantlement and cultural attrition to create a clean canvas to solidily paint their core belief system on, are statring to fail. The bad reality for them is evolution is cosmic. It’s bigger than nancy pelosi, joseph stalin and karl marx and it WILL happen. The millies will catch on as will the plantation slaves and those designated as in need of a final solution. Most are not weighted down by the psychotic need to recapture some kind of violent bomb tossing youth fantasy or install a state centric government base ruled by a hand full of power mad control freaks. So far most are still free (physically anyway) and in a place that affords them the tools and freedom to choose to reject the destiny the Dems have chosen for them, although that window is closing quickly. Millies especially still have that fire for the quest to find what life means for them in inside and what truth really is. They also still have the capacity to evolve out of their socially engineered darkness of the mind. Once most of them see Exhibits A thur Z 535 in Congress acting out their real nature and implementing their real goals and experience the impact in their everyday lives of what the Democrat Communist death cult has done to them and has in store for them, they will most likely choose what evolution dictates and do what it takes to save their foul mouthed Frankenstein asses, even if it means killing their creators.
wow. you mayt be insane…..
Too deep and too true for ya, huh, Becka.
Short version.
Call out the military to uphold their oath office. Apprehend, tribunal, carry out sentence.
That is if Pelosi will agree to pay them with the funds already approved?
Second version
Call out the military to uphold their oath of office apprehend and handcuff Pelosi first, Schumer second tribunal carry out sentence.
Restore The Constitution as the oath states.
Same as two except while in charge turn on the payroll system.
Dawn, you are starting to see the logic but not quite all the way there yet.
Too bad the extreme idiots always get the attention now and distract from any productive discussion. The many thoughtful comments are swept aside
Martha …..thoughtful comments….from Democrats? Pray, tell…..Do regale us with examples of such comments.
Would love to hear them.
I’ve been tangling with partisan Democrats here for a couple of years. They’re almost completely innocent of any interest in public policy, Martha.
I could never have imagined that any Democrat could descend below Trump’s antics, but Rep. Tlaib managed to pull it off. This is a new low in public discourse. She should be required to stand in the well of the House while the other 434 members turn their backs on her. I doubt she’s smart enough to understand what they’re doing, but at least they’ll be sending her a message of how unacceptable her behavior is.
Warren:
If you’ve got the time, I can show you oodles of Democrat statements and behavior lifting them just above whale poop but not by much. Let’s start with the call to violence of MadMax Waters against anybody in the administration:
I kind of agree here. Maybe not with the public shaming but i hope someone takes her aside and straightens her out right quick.
It seems we elected a lot of people who slept through “U.S. Government” classes in high school.
The barbarians are indeed, at the gate.
Actually, they are in the White House swinging from the chandeliers.
If you really believed what you post, you’d use your real name.
Warren:
“If you really believed what you post, you’d use your real name.”
**********************
I will. You have the beginning of a political war with a misogynistic 7th Century religion getting its first taste of power. Ms. Tlaib is an authentic anti-Semite and vile BDS radical. She eschews Western values and is a threat to them. She’s the one who ought to be impeached for sedition. Does that cover the waterfront for you?
that would require gonads and leftists lack those….and brains
None of these phonies have real names. They aren’t human they are machine parts of The Collective of The Party programmed to do as their ruling class says do. while Ad Hominem requires a human presence all we can say is ad machina and why not impeach AND Convict Pelosi for violation of oath office. ‘support and defend’ clause, ‘purposes of evasion;’ clause’ Giving the oath to others no qualified to take the oath..
So that the SPLC and antifa can vacuum them up and target you for slander, harassment, and random violence.
No, don’t be goaded folks
My Real name is Walter E. Kurtz
With language like this, surely even you can admit JC, that the barbarians are indeed swinging from the light fixtures in the two other Houses of Government, whereas the President is displaying a phenomenal amount of restraint considering the incessant bashing he’s received since taking office, unlike any other President or human being before him.
No problem let the White House Police eject them straight to a jail cell.
Michael,
What you recommend is exactly what “left” wing people do to try to prevent the speech of right wing speakers-you want them shut up and jailed! I’m asking you to rethink this position. Free speech must be defended, especially when you disagree w/that speech. Stand up for her right to free speech then make your case against what she said.
It is the mark of totalitarianism to say that another person should be arrested for because they tried the patience of dear leader.
Jill it’s gratifying to find a balanced person like yourself here..
Acromion,
I appreciate what you said. Thank you.
LMAO
Whatever you think. See Mespo’s post above. Keep believing what you want to believe.