The Politics and Pathology of The House Litigation Addiction

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on rejection of the lawsuit by the House of Representatives against the order issued by President Donald Trump to build the wall on the Southern border under the National Emergencies Act. I had previously testified against this lawsuit as a reckless and unnecessary move by the house. It is part of a litigation strategy that is clearly driven more by political than legal calculations.

Here is the column:

With a crucial defeat in federal court this week, one would expect the House Democrats to be embarrassed at losing long protected precedent supporting legislative authority. Instead, as a federal judge in Washington was rejecting their challenge to the executive order by President Trump to build a wall along the southern border, House leaders have nonetheless moved ahead with an assortment of other inadvisable gambles.

The first step for compulsive gamblers is to admit they have a problem. Democrats have a serious and growing problem. The court defeat was particularly stinging to those of us who have tried repeatedly to persuade House Democrats to recognize that they are destroying themselves with reckless litigation. I have spent decades writing, testifying and litigating in support of congressional authority. A typical Madisonian scholar, I favor the legislative branch in court battles with the executive branch. We have seen the steady erosion of legislative power over the years, and many of us have indeed tried to steer Congress away from reckless litigation.

For more than a year, I have objected to a dangerous strategy of pursuing litigation in a wide array of conflicts with the Trump administration. As someone who has represented the House both as a body and as individual members, my concern was that Democrats would fritter away hard fought victories on congressional authority. Despite such warnings, politics has trumped good judgment. Now the bill has come due with the decision by District Judge Trevor McFadden tossing a challenge by Congress and, with it, the claim that the House has standing to bring such a lawsuit.

In a House Judiciary Committee hearing in February, I laid out various reasons why such a challenge was unnecessary and unwise. First, other groups could bring the lawsuit, so there was no need for the House to risk its hard fought precedent. As shown in California, various states secured an injunction against the construction of the border wall. While I remain skeptical of the prospect of barring all construction in the long term, the case showed why there was no need for the lawsuit.

Second, on the merits, it was doubtful that any court would protect the House from itself. Congress unwisely passed the National Emergencies Act, giving a president virtually unchecked authority. However, it reserved the ability to rescind such order. It did not do so in this case, for lack of votes in the Senate. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the House were asking a judge to order a result that they could not secure for themselves in Congress. Ironically, Pelosi was finally proven correct, in an odd way.

When I was asked to represent the House in challenging the payment of billions to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act without congressional approval, Pelosi and all of the Democrats opposed the litigation. They supported the circumvention of Congress and opposed contempt proceedings for withholding information from Congress. In our litigation, Pelosi insisted that the case was guaranteed to fail and that President Obama should be able to unilaterally order the payments from the Treasury despite a refusal of Congress previously to do so.

We not only won the case but created long sought precedent recognizing the right of the House to bring such a lawsuit as a question of standing. In bringing this lawsuit over the southern border wall, Pelosi and House leaders have now allowed a bad case to make bad law and undermined future sessions of Congress in efforts to rein in executive overreach. It is a high price to pay for a courthouse photo opportunity and sound bite.

Just two weeks ago, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee and again begged members not to bring such lawsuits, including a threatened contempt action against Attorney General William Barr. I told Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) that, if the House repeated the arguments being made in the press, it was walking “into a world of hurt” in the further loss of needed precedent. Now, on the heels of this court defeat, the Democrats are proceeding with the equally dubious contempt action. Like bad gamblers playing in Las Vegas, the Democrats are doubling down on their losses, pledging to magnify their losses with an appeal and new challenges.

There also is the “preoccupation” of the Democrats with gambling. They are eager to get their base to forget about impeachment and instead focus on these litigation gambits. That is why there is still no initiation of an impeachment inquiry, as opposed to frivolous court and contempt actions. Then there are symptoms of gambling when “depressed” and concealing its costs. With a base angry over impeachment, these cases give temporary satisfaction even though they will achieve very little.

That is why pathological gamblers often show a “reliance on others to provide money to relieve desperate situations caused by gambling.” Rational legislators do not litigate close calls, and this was not a close call. Yet, at the very time that the court was dismissing it, Pelosi and House leaders were back at the poker table, scheduling a vote on contempt against Barr next week. It is a pattern that would make Pete Rose blush.

I have been one of the experts encouraging the House to use its contempt authority much more aggressively. However, this is not such a case. In the hearing two weeks ago, I testified that the contempt measure was facially and legally absurd, based on a subpoena demanding that Barr turn over a full unredacted report. Under federal law, Barr could not do so, and he could not release grand jury material to Congress without a court order.

At that hearing, Democratic witnesses and House members agreed that Barr could not release the full unredacted report. Thus, he is being held in contempt for not complying with a subpoena that he could not comply with under federal law. Moreover, Barr offered to appear before the House to answer questions, as he did before the Senate. But the House threw in an absurd condition that he would be questioned by House staff rather than members. The House Judiciary Committee insisted that it needed to do so because the special counsel report is evidently “complicated.”

Putting aside that neither the report nor the underlying laws are overly complicated, the Senate questioned Barr for hours. In the House request for testimony by special counsel Robert Mueller and others, there is no demand for staff questioning. Suddenly, the report is less complicated. In its decision, the federal court did precisely what I warned of in prior hearings. It not only dismissed the heart of the case for Congress but drove a stake into the heart of legislative standing, which is the essential element needed for the House to litigate such cases in the future.

All of this delights those who want an all-powerful executive branch, and House leaders are playing into the hands of advocates who have worked to create an uber-presidency. Litigating against executive power is like playing the house in poker as the odds always favor the casino. No one is more pleased than the White House to see Democrats back at the table.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

195 thoughts on “The Politics and Pathology of The House Litigation Addiction”



    More than a year before the Trump administration formally asked the Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, Kris Kobach discussed including the question with officials during President Trump’s 2016 election campaign.

    Kobach disclosed the latest insight into the behind-the-scenes discussions about the hotly contested census question during an interview earlier this week as part of a House Oversight and Reform Committee investigation into the question. Staffers for the committee’s Democrats released transcript excerpts on Friday.

    The revelation pushes the origins of the question within the administration back to as early as the last presidential race. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau and approved adding the question, previously testified to Congress that the Justice Department “initiated” the request for the question in December 2017. Ross later backtracked in a court filing, saying he began considering the question “soon after” he was appointed in February 2017, while noting that “other senior Administration officials had previously raised” the issue.

    In his interview with House oversight committee staffers, Kobach also confirmed that shortly after the president’s inauguration in January 2017, he met with Trump about the issue, as The Kansas City Star first reported. Kobach said he also discussed it with Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist and Reince Priebus, the president’s former chief of staff.

    The excerpts from Kobach’s interview come as the House oversight committee prepares to vote on a resolution to hold Ross and U.S. Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for not complying with subpoenas requesting the release of certain internal documents about the citizenship question.

    By the end of the month, the Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision on whether the Trump administration can add the question, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” to forms for next year’s national head count.

    Edited from: “Kris Kobach Discussed Census Citizenship Question With 2016 Trump Campaign”

    Today’s NPR

    So now we learn that Kris Kobach, the controversial A G from Kansas who spearheaded Trump’s failed commission to root-out ‘vote fraud’, was pushing the Citizenship Question before Trump had even been elected.

    1. “So now we learn was pushing the Citizenship Question before Trump had even been elected.”

      How stupid can one get. The citizenship question was on the census decades ago and it is logical when taking a census to find out who is and who is not a citizen.

      1. Given the number of the illegal immigrants in a state like California, determining whether or not they are citizens might affect the number of House seats and Electoral College votes.
        If the question is not asked, the illegals give CA. extra “bulk” in their population that has a positive impact on representation in the House.
        If there’s two categories ( citizens and non-citizen) within a state’s population, would the representation be based on the whole population, or just citizens?

        1. That is behind the entire policy of the left. Not what is legal, moral, right or wrong, rather whether or not it benefits the left.

        2. Tom and Alan..

          would have us think that because these people ‘shouldn’t be here’, we shouldn’t be counting them. But if we don’t count them, we won’t know how many are here. ..Does that make sense..??

          1. Of course it makes sense. The question is whether or not the person is a US citizen. That gives us a count of citizens and a count of people that aren’t citizens. If they are illegals and afraid maybe that is good because they don’t belong here and should be applying like all the people who have been admitted here legally.

            You must find it unfair that in the theater people have to show their tickets to get in and then have to sit in the seat they paid for. Your approach would make it so no tickets need be bought. How long would theater last under those conditions?

            Maybe you like to go to college football. All the players have to be registered but to you it is totally OK for one team to get a couple of pro footballer players to help them out.

            1. Alan, explain how this gives us a count of ‘non-citizens’ if no one answers. You’re just blatantly insincere on this. You know damn well the entire objective here is to literally sabotage an accurate census count.

              1. I concern myself with legal citizens. If non citizens refuse to fill out the census forms maybe they shouldn’t be in the country. If they are illegals they definitely shouldn’t be here and the states should be incentivized to make them follow the law.

                You are encouraging illegality and thievery. Weren’t you taught the difference between right and wrong?

                1. Alan wants to screw his own state, New York, just to show his loyalty to Trump, another New Yorker. ..Does this make sense..??

                  1. Firstly none of the above is remotely true. Are you sure I’m a resident of NY? It doesn’t matter because you get your facts mixed up.

                    Why is that family down the street barely making ends meet responsible for illegals? I worry for that family not for the illegal. Understand? When I count the money you earned last year I won’t include the money you stole. That stolen money will be returned to where it came from. Same for illegals.

          2. White House Maintains..

            ‘Citizenship Question Is To Enforce Voting Rights Act’

            Yet Claims Executive Privilege Shields The Issue (which it doesn’t).

            The House Oversight Committee released a memo Friday reporting on the committee’s recent meeting with former Kansas Secretary of State and longtime Trump ally Kris Kobach, that concerned the murky—and probably partisan—reasoning behind the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. But, of course, the committee wasn’t able to question Kobach without the Trump administration butting in. According to the memo, the White House “interfered directly and aggressively with the Committee’s interview,” instructing Kobach not to answer any questions about his communications with President Donald Trump and White House aides about the census. Though Kobach provided some new information to the committee, like confirming he met with the president just days after the inauguration to discuss the citizenship question, the memo notes Kobach “followed the White House’s orders for much of his interview.”

            The White House’s attempts to block Kobach’s testimony marks an escalation of the administration’s wide-ranging stonewalling of all House investigations concerning Trump. Yet the administration’s actions beg the question: what doesn’t it want Democrats to see? The White House claims the citizenship question was floated to “enforce the Voting Rights Act.” However, the news of Kobach’s shielded testimony comes a week after newly-discovered documents revealed the question may have been added for far more partisan reasons, as a GOP operative specifically stated the move “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.” It’s not exactly a stretch to assume Kobach’s testimony could have played into that narrative, given the Kansan’s passion for taking on the largely-nonexistent issue of voter fraud—which also just so happens to largely benefit the white Republican base.

            The problem with the White House’s executive privilege claims, of course, is that executive privilege is supposed to cover the president and officials in the executive branch. And while Kobach is about as pro-Trump as can be—his gubernatorial campaign slogan was “Make Kansas Great Again”—the one-time head of Trump’s voter-fraud commission is not currently an actual member of the Trump administration, nor was he during the time of the census communications. “The Trump Administration’s expansion of Executive Privilege to apply to anyone the President talks to—including those completely outside the government—is a vast departure from previous precedent and obstructs the Committee’s constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the Census,” the committee memo said. The Trump team, of course, maintains that their behavior is totally fine. White House Deputy Counsel Michael M. Purpura wrote in a letter to committee chair Rep. Elijah Cummings that “the Executive Branch’s confidentiality interests are not limited solely to communications directly involving the President and other Executive Branch officials.”

            Edited from: “The White House Didn’t Want Kris Kobach To Testify About The Census”

            Vanity Fair, 6/7/19

          3. Peter,
            I don’t think this issue has been resolved. Alabama filed a law suit over the impact of apportionment of House seats if the illegal immigrants are counted.
            On the issue of fairness, it depends on whether one thinks that those here illegally are entitled to have Congressional representation, just as citizens are entitled to representation.
            IMO, states that condone and harbor a large illegal population should not benefit from it with respect to the number of House Seats and Electoral College votes.
            Unless the Alabama lawuit dies on the vine, it’s likely that this and related issues will be decided by the Supreme Court.
            If I resided in Canada illegally, I would not expect my presence there to benefit a province’s representation.

            1. Tom, the purpose of a census to to measure, as accurately as possible, how many people reside in cities, counties and states. But this citizenship question is guaranteed to literally sabotage an accurate count.

              This won’t just affect California. This could could affect at least 20 states if not more. The 2020 Census could come with a giant asterisk explaining that the count isn’t really accurate. How stupid can you get!

              Officially the Trump Administration claims this question is all about Voting Right Enforcement. And the Administration has officially declared that intention in court proceedings. But these latest revelation completely undermine that position.

              1. Tom, you live in Washington State, don’t you?

                Here’s a piece from The Seattle Times estimating that a quarter million ‘illegals’ reside in Washington (most are probably in the Seattle area).
                Should Seattle be undercounted in the next census?

                Illegal immigration is on the rise in Washington state, according to a new study — and we’re one of just six states to see an increase.

                While discussions of illegal immigration often focus on Mexico, the data show the national rise is coming entirely from Asian countries, particularly China and India, and other regions of the world.

                The report, published by the Pew Research Center, shows the number of people living in Washington without legal permission reached 250,000 in 2014, jumping by about 40,000 since 2009.

                Seven states experienced a decline in that period. But most of the nation — all the remaining 37 states — saw no significant change.

                Overall, the population of those living illegally in the U.S. has remained stable at about 11.1 million since 2009.

                But the data show the makeup of that population has become much more diverse: The number from Mexico has been declining, while the total from other parts of the world has climbed.

                That trend is evident in five of the six states where illegal immigration grew. Only Louisiana saw its increase coming from Mexico.

                Edited from: “Our State’s One Of Only A Few Where Illegal Immigration Is Up”

                The Seattle Times, 10/11/16

            2. Peter,
              I agree with the argument that Alabama is making; I wasn’t proposing that the citizen-based representation be unilaterally applied to only one state. So, yes, if that’s the way it shakes out for Washington State, it should apply to there as well

              1. If I read the 14th Amendment correctly, federal representation is by inhabitants with some qualification. However, some state’s (such as New York) have constitutional provisions which exclude aliens in apportioning the state legislature, so need the citizenship data if they’re not to just ignore their own constitutions. (That aside, collecting data on citizenship is perfectly legitimate for its own sake).

                1. Tabby, the Trump Administration has already argued that the purpose of the Citizenship Question if ‘Voting Rights Enforcement’. Obviously that is not its purpose. So the question is disingenuous from get go.

  2. That no one has mentioned the eerily similar stammerings of Nancy Pelosi to Joan Crawford’s “no more hangers” seems egregious.

    Trump should send Nancy several cases of coat hangers along with that notoriously popular wine within San Francisco homeless poop circles… a case of MD 20/20. Knowing the left though they would probably use them for abortions

  3. “I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison.”

    – Nancy Pelosi, Politico

    Congress has irrationally and egregiously abused its power and weaponized itself and the legislative process in concert with Obama’s FBI, CIA, DNI, IRS and other “holdover” entities to falsely and maliciously prosecute a wholly innocent and duly elected President – there never was a crime and there still is no crime. The anti-Constitutional judicial branch has been “legislating from the bench” and by omission while conducting subversion and insurgency since 1861. Now Nancy Pelosi wants to throw President Trump in prison (where were Nancy Pelosi, Congress and the Supreme Court when the irrefutably ineligible Obama was unconstitutionally certified as a candidate by the states then unconstitutionally ensconced by the “deep state,” understanding that Obama can never be a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution)?

    America has been infected by improbable, guilt-ridden, self-hating “citizens” and invaded by allied, anti-American, foreign parasites. America is “auguring in” to the abyss of extinction (now we understand why the several States sharply restricted the vote as imperative “original intent”). Lincoln illegally and unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus and the Constitution and ruled as a tyrannical dictator by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.” Whatever shall President Trump do to “Save the Republic” in the face of the current and burgeoning high criminality and subversion by Pelosi, Congress, FBI, CIA, DNI, IRS et al., and the general “fake news,” hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy, subversion and insurgency?

    1. She was talking about her high school classmate Andrew Johnson. She hears him sometimes late at night in her mansion after summoning him with a scotch or two.

      1. Since Alphabet Inc./YouTube has removed Nancy’s drunken video

        Altered Nancy Pelosi video seems to have disappeared from Facebook. No one knows why

        But hope spreads eternal. there is that vast right wing, fringe, fake news, “nationalist”, “extremist” media outlet, the UK Daily Mail, that enjoys a volume of followers for which CNN’s Jeff Zucker would give her left arm

  4. Errors and omissions seem to be a significant part of the Mueller Report. No wonder he doesn’t want to testify. This single report of Solomon’s proves the Mueller Report more fraudulent than previously believed. What is troubling is that the Hill’s report has so many details that are and were known. Shocking when the entire report is read and so many details are described. How could Mueller not know?

    “In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

    But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.”

    Opening of Mueller’s report: “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” But he was working with the FBI something not mentioned by Mueller when he attacked Mueller’s meetings with Kilimnik.

    Solomon continues: “Yet, omitting his extensive, trusted assistance to the State Department seems inexplicable.

    If Mueller’s team can cast such a misleading portrayal of Kilimnik, however, it begs the question of what else might be incorrect or omitted in the report.”

    1. Allan wrote, “But he was working with the FBI something not mentioned by Mueller when he attacked Mueller’s meetings with Kilimnik.”

      L4D says–But John Soloman reported that Kilimnik was working with The State Department through the U. S. Embassy in Kyiv. John Soloman did not report that Kiliminik was working with the FBI. Moreover, John Soloman did not report anything about “Mueller’s meetings with Kilimnik,” least of all Kilimnik “attacking Muller’s meetings with Kilimnik.”

      Obviously, Allan, and only Allan, wrote the incoherent sentence at issue. John Soloman had nothing to do with Allan’s incoherent sentence.

      1. “John Soloman did not report anything about “Mueller’s meetings with Kilimnik,” least of all Kilimnik “attacking Muller’s meetings with Kilimnik.”

        Obviously, Allan, and only Allan, wrote the incoherent sentence at issue. John Soloman had nothing to do with Allan’s incoherent sentence.”

        Yes it is obvious especially since the quotation marks ended where my comment began and started again where Solomon’s words were again being copied. Yes, I accidently typed a wrong word but the entire report of Solomon was there for you to review word by word. In fact if you review all of his reports you will see that for the past year most of your conclusions were wrong and most of what you wrote was complete junk typos and all.

    2. L4D says–Excerpted from the John Solomon Opinion-Editorial to which Allan linked above:

      Three sources with direct knowledge of the inner workings of Mueller’s office confirmed to me that the special prosecutor’s team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well as Kilimnik’s intelligence reports to the U.S. Embassy, well before they portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.

      [end excerpt]

      Pay attention Allan: The three sources with direct knowledge of the inner workings of Mueller’s office are Manafort’s lawyers who were given pre-trial discovery of all of the relevant FBI interview notes that Mueller had requested the FBI conduct with State Department officials at the U. S. Embassy in Kyiv.

      1. L4D says–Ordinarily it would not be surprising that The U. S. Embassy in Kyiv might use a well-known Russian spy as a sensitive informant. Nor would it be especially surprising that Mueller would not publicly disclose the identity of a sensitive informant even though he was a well-known Russian spy. It might be a little bit surprising that John Solomon appears to be confused about these things. OTOH, given that Solomon’s sources are probably Manafort’s lawyers, it’s more likely that Allan is the only one confused about Kilimnik being a well-known Russian spy.

  5. Litigation In The News:



    The way Thomas Hofeller talked about redistricting — the drawing of political boundaries and the sifting of voters into buckets — you could be forgiven if you assumed he was speaking about a loved one or a favorite holiday.

    “Redistricting is like an election in reverse! It’s a great event,” he said with a smile at a National Conference of State Legislatures event in 2000. “Usually the voters get to pick the politicians. In redistricting, the politicians get to pick the voters!”

    A mapmaker and Republican strategist, he saw holes in the democratic system that could be exploited by technology and guile. Hofeller, who died in August 2018, saw a way to turn small vote margins into supermajorities for GOP legislators.

    Now a trove of his data has been uncovered that could undo some of the work he spent decades perfecting.

    In North Carolina, after Republican successes in the 2010 election, Hofeller helped draw new maps that netted the party 10 of the state’s 13 congressional seats, despite the popular vote in that state being nearly even.

    Hofeller also knew the key to success in this niche field was protecting against lawsuits. He spent 10 PowerPoint slides in a presentation he gave about redistricting in 2011 just on legal issues and privacy.

    “Treat every statement and document as if it was going to appear on the FRONT PAGE of your local newspaper,” he implored on one slide. “Emails are the tool of the devil.”

    Edited from: “Redistricting Guru’s Hard Drives Could Mean Legal, Political Woes For GOP”

    Today’s NPR

    1. Regarding Above:

      This development confirms what has long been suspected: “Republicans actively conspired to gerrymander congressional districts in several states. This particular passage highlights the impact of that work: “In North Carolina, after Republican successes in the 2010 election, Hofeller helped draw new maps that netted the party 10 of the state’s 13 congressional seats, despite the popular vote in that state being nearly even”.

      The gerrymandering in question helps explain why Congressional Republicans frequently take positions at odds with public sentiment. Their districts are safe!!

      Perhaps the most immediate and contentious issue at state is the so-called ‘Citizenship Question’ Trump’s Justice Department has placed on the 2020 Census. It turns out that Thomas Hofeller was ghostwriter of the Justice Department’s rational for reinstating that question on Census forms after it had been stricken decades earlier.

      The Hofeller Files could be a major development in a number of lawsuits regarding gerrymandered maps in several states. Plaintiffs now have actual files from a Republican strategist to bolster their cases.


        Thomas Brooks Hofeller (April 1943 – August 26, 2018)[1] was a Republican political strategist primarily known for his involvement in gerrymandering electoral district maps favorable for Republicans.[2][3] According to the New York Times, Hofeller’s “mastery of redistricting strategy helped propel the Republican Party from underdog to the dominant force in state legislatures and the House of Representatives.”[4]

        Republican gerrymandering

        Hofeller played a key part in gerrymandering notoriously lopsided maps, such as those in North Carolina (turning a 7-to-6 seat Democratic edge in the House to a 10-to-3 Republican edge) and Pennsylvania.[4] He once said, “Redistricting is like an election in reverse. It’s a great event. Usually the voters get to pick the politicians. In redistricting, the politicians get to pick the voters.

        After his death, his daughter made available hard drives that had been in Hofeller’s possession. Files on the hard drives showed that he played a key part in the decision of the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, which at the time was being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Commerce v. New York. Hofeller had conducted a study in 2015 which found that adding such a question would make it possible to draw district boundaries that “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.” Hofeller himself wrote the portion of the Department of Justice letter used to justify why the Trump administration had made this decision. The letter claimed that adding the citizenship question was necessary to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.[2] The New York Times described the files as “the most explicit evidence to date that the Trump administration added the question to the 2020 census to advance Republican Party interests.”

        Edited from: “Thomas B Hofeller




          Just weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the Trump administration can add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, new evidence emerged Thursday suggesting the question was crafted specifically to give an electoral advantage to white Republicans.

          The evidence was found in the files of the prominent Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller after his death in August. It reveals that Hofeller “played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ ” and that Trump administration officials purposely obscured Hofeller’s role in court proceedings, lawyers for plaintiffs challenging the question wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman. Furman was one of three federal judges who ruled against the question this year.

          The letter drew on new information discovered on hard drives belonging to Hofeller, which were found accidentally by Hofeller’s estranged daughter. Stephanie Hofeller Lizon then shared them with the organization Common Cause for a gerrymandering lawsuit it is pursuing in North Carolina.

          The files show that Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in redistricting, and then pushed the idea with the Trump administration in 2017, according to the letter to Furman.

          The evidence contradicts sworn testimony by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s expert adviser A. Mark Neuman and senior Justice Department official John Gore, as well as other testimony by defendants, the letter said.
          The Commerce and Justice departments did not respond to questions about the new information.

          Edited from: “Despite Trump Administration Denials, New Evidence Suggests Census Citizenship Question Was Crafted To Benefit.. Republicans”

          The Washington Post, 5/30/19


            Peter wishes to obscure the difference between legal citizens legal aliens and illegals. That is a hateful idea because illegal citizens take jobs and thus food off the table of families of American citizens. It also dilutes the money available for American citizens in need.

            In order to feel good about himself Peter wishes to steal from the American people.,

            1. Allan, you interrupted Peter Shill trolling for dollars in truly tweaked out behavior in an attempt to earn his pay. Don’t feed the addicts. Let them spin into oblivion

              1. “Allan, you interrupted Peter Shill trolling for dollars”

                Estovir, I am for full employment so if he makes a living that way it keeps him off the streets. All he is doing is posting the Washington Post without the ability to understand what it says. I am trying to enhance his education by providing some interpretation. I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

            2. In order to feel good about himself…

              Oxymoron. Anyone who trolls for dollars, gets repeatedly banned from these forums by the webmaster, and circumvents these bans to troll more and more, are all proof positive these trolls are crystal meth addicts. In Peter’s case, he is like this queen in the video being arrested while crashing from meth usage…poor little thing.

              Peter’s safe word is Pineapple Juice

              1. Estovir if your hope is that he gets banned from the blog that isn’t going to happen. He hasn’t done anything that would cause a banning. He has a right to be here as long as Professor Turley maintains the comment sections open to anyone.

                I’m glad you told me Peter’s safe word, Pinapple Juice, so if he should feel unduly stressed I will recognize it when that safe word is used.

                1. The one person who merits banning is Diane. I suspect Darren’s done it time and again, and she just moves on to a different Wi-fi hotspot.

                  1. In general I don’t believe in censorship so I wouldn’t advocate censoring her or anyone. I would advocate the use of a specific name and icon even if one could assume more than one identity.

                    1. Why?

                      The ability to post anonymously is important. That you don’t understand it, isn’t a surprise. Educate yourself.

                      You’re a waste of time, energy and breath, so don’t expect me to do it.

                    2. “Why? The ability to post anonymously is important. ”

                      Anonymous, you really are as stupid as you sound. Posting with an icon and an assumed name is as anonymous as posting under the generic icon ‘anonymous’. The only reason you do that is that you want your anonymous persona confused with other anonymous personas. You don’t even like your own persona so why should anyone like you?

                    3. Her basic object is jamming, or inhibiting discussion by adding a mess of superficially relevant verbiage. No one else behave this way, though Natacha’s posts have nothing in them but tiresome emotional spew.

                      Diane’s posting pattern indicates she’s (1) retired and (2) either collecting a per diem or something of a kook.

                    4. DSS, Diane is a kook and if she had a distinct icon one could more quickly bypass her comments altogether. The time spent observing her unwanted posts is not great enough to invoke censorship if anything is. When I glance over her postings I think of her and her partners as stupid comic strip characters and sometimes even get a laugh at her expense.

                      Remember, the entire comment section is a giant waste of time. Those on the left like Anon keep repeating the same points that are inaccurate and when responded to essentially run away. Those in agreement don’t seem to progress to an in depth discussion of anything.

                      What is interesting to observe are the characters on the list and how they respond to stimuli and how their minds work when challenged.



            If the Republican Party was a private business, free-market conservatives would denounce it as a symbol of crony capitalism run amuck: a company with an increasingly unpopular product only able to maintain market share through distortive government interference.

            There is deep irony in this situation. Republicans have long styled themselves the high priests of laissez faire, preaching the infallibility of market forces. And yet the party has become dependent on government interference through means such as the Electoral College and redistricting to sustain its viability. But this development is important as more than an opportunity to point and laugh at GOP hypocrisy; it dangerously undermines the legitimacy and stability of our political system.

            Perhaps the most striking, if crude, measure of the GOP’s dissipating ability to compete nationally is its presidential performance. No living Republican has won even a popular vote plurality as a non-incumbent. The last person to do so was the late George H. W. Bush, in 1988. In the seven presidential elections since he topped 53 percent, the GOP has only won the popular vote once, when incumbent George W. Bush banked a hair under 51 percent in 2004.

            Republicans (as well as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton) will be quick to point out that the national popular vote is not presidentially determinative. And while we can debate whether the Electoral College works as the founders intended (it doesn’t) and whether it needs reform (it does), the fact that for three decades the party’s path to the presidency has run through a systemic quirk should signal to GOPers that they have an enduring voter problem.

            But instead of fretting about diminishing market share, Republicans have sought other ways to use big government to maintain power. They rely on means such as gerrymandering, which the rise of big data has given unprecedented precision. So Ohioans cast 48 percent of their votes last month for Democratic state legislative candidates but the party only won 25 percent of the chamber’s seats. In North Carolina, voters cast 51 percent of their votes for GOP U.S. House candidates but the Tar Heel state’s delegation will consist of 10 Republicans and three Democrats.

            In Michigan, Democratic state House candidates won an aggregate 52 percent of the vote but less than 48 percent of the seats and half of the state Senate votes but only 42 percent of the seats. And in Wisconsin, Republicans won 64 percent of state Assembly seats on the strength of 46 percent of the popular vote. (New Jersey state Democratic legislators tried to enshrine their partisan gerrymandering advantage until a bipartisan national outcry and opposition from the state’s Democratic governor prompted them to drop the effort.)

            Edited from: “Republican Ideas Would Fail In The Free Market. Ignoring Voters Will Won’t Work Forever””

            from USA Today, 12/21/18

            1. Excellent work, Mr. H.

              I’m so sorry that “they” are finding fault with you for . . . Actually, we disagree with one another on a somewhat occasional basis. Don’t we, Mr. H.?

              [Don’t worry. You don’t have to answer that last question unless you want to. Consider it a free kick.]

              1. Diane, I think this Thomas Hofeller case is the most under-reported story in the country now. And one can see how much it upsets Republicans to have the veil come off gerrymandering and the citizenship question. But the public really needs to know how much our democracy has been compromised.

                1. L4D says–Rub their noses in it, Mr. H. Show them what sick puppies they are. Teach them never to make a big mess on our National carpet again.

                  Just don’t get yourself, blocked, deleted, nor banned by _ _ _ _ _ . Capiche?

                2. No, it’s a talking point for you, Peter. Nothing important.

                  It’s perfectly sensible to ask questions on citizenship, Peter, along with the reams of data the Census Bureau collects on other topics. And this kills me, the question your lawfare artists insist cannot be asked actually is the subject of interim surveys conducted by the Census Bureau. So, the data is there. It’s just the Democratic Party lawfare artists don’t want it used for apportionment and redistricting.

                  And it’s just like you to be plumping for the partisan interests of the Democratic Party while maintaining its somehow illegitimate for Republicans to look out for their own interests. And you’re striking these stupid self-centered poses on an issue where you’re simply wrong on the merits.

                  And it’s also just like the Democratic Party to countenance the grossest sort of dishonorable behavior. Hofeller’s daughter is a head case and has been a frequent visitor in the West Virginia court system. She conned her mother and siblings to be allowed into a house where she hasn’t been welcome in a while and stole contents off his computer.

                  That’s the Democratic Party. A criminal organization of liars.

                  1. Tabby, if Hofeller’s files are admitted as evidence in hearings regarding the Citizenship Question, they could have a devastating impact. And they should. Apparently those files tell us exactly what we suspected: “The Citizenship Question was a naked effort to suppress Hispanic votes”.

                    And feel free to post those articles regarding Hofeller’s daughter. They sound intriguing to me.

                    1. Peter, Hofeller is providing an opinion. The question itself proves its objective.

                      “Is this person a citizen of the United States”

                      Nothing is clearer than that. Do you have proof that this is not the primary reason? Remember decades ago this was one of the questions.

                      Skip the citations, skip the stories. A few sentences of proof backed up by a citation (with a location) will be sufficient.

                  2. “That’s the Democratic Party. A criminal organization of liars.”

                    DSS, the man wrote a book about this criminal organization.

                    “Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party ”

                    It’s quite a good book and describes the situation perfectly.

                  3. they could have a devastating impact.

                    They only have an impact if you assume the Democratic Party has a franchise to seek out the optimal district map and the opposition doesn’t. And I’m sure you can find a shyster on the bench who thinks that way. It’s pretty asinine, though.

                    1. Tabby, I don’t Democrats should be drawing districts either. I think independent commissions should. We did that in California.

                      And thanks for that tip on Hofeller’s daughter. I found an interesting story about her in the Huffington Post. She claims her mother allowed her to remove that bag of files from the house. She thought they were mostly photographs. If you know of another story, post it here.


                    2. There is no such thing as ‘an independent commission’ that’s trustworthy absent a clear practice manual on constructing districts. What you get with ‘an independent commission’ is

                      1. Maps drawn to protect incumbents; or

                      2. Maps drawn to promote the Democratic Party, as the supposedly ‘neutral’ commissioner(s) are suborned or are revealed to be Trojan horses, or as the court system intervenes.

                      However, you can’t enact a practice manual because regular procedures delineated in such a manual produce roughly equipopulous districts, not the absurd precision that appellate courts have required as a consequence of their inane equal protection jurisprudence.

                      Judicial intervention guarantees gerrymandering. If you want neutral principles dictating district maps, you need to end it.

            2. Excellent work, yet again, Mr. H.

              [“They” know they can’t win without cheating. That’s why they think that cheating is their “birthright.”]

    2. Peter, gerrymandering was a policy used by both sides. Through gerrymandering the dominant population doesn’t always get the vote so there are some reasons to consider it. If we have a state with a majority white population and white and black are distributed relatively evenly then if the vote was by race the black would lose every time. That leaves them without representation but by gerrymandering to provide an increased black vote in an area the black population might get a representative that is black. Farmers live is in sparcely populated areas and need a vote as well but they can be diluted by the urban dwellers. Therefore gerrymandering might help them

      I’m not saying gerrymandering is good or bad but it can be used to provide representation for those groups that are not well represented.

      Let us say that we use a computerized system made not to benefit any specific population. What would you then say if blacks lost a lot of seats?

      1. Peter knows perfectly well that gerrymandering is an antique practice, that it has long been used assiduously against Republicans as well as by them, and that federal courts demand the grossest sort of gerrymandering to maximize the number of black and hispanic majority constituencies.

        Either that or Peter knows nothing.

        Fraud or ignoramus. You be the judge.

        1. DSS, Peter knows nothing but what he is told to know. He might have some knowledge in the recesses of his brain but that knowledge lies there dormant.

          Do you believe that knowledge can never wake up?

        2. “Fraud or ignoramus. You be the judge.”

          Not mutually exclusive categories.

      2. I just love it. Federal courts and Democratic pols contrive to minimize white representation in every kind of venue, by hook or by crook. This man proposed to limit representation to citizens, and that’s baaad in Peter’s addled head. This is how Democrats ‘think’

        1. That type of Democrat doesn’t think. That is where the problem lies.

        2. right, and if whites ever organize to resist their electoral dispossession, then they are racist by definition
          even though the people trying to reduce white power, weren’t called racists for wanting to reduce white folks vote. sauce for goose but not for gander

          hell of a racket politics

          the reality is, whatever groups are in conflict with whatever other groups. just deal with it as best you can and don’t worry about names they call you, too much

      3. Alan, we don’t need gerrymandering. Independent Commissions can draw electoral maps.

        1. Peter, that is one reason I don’t like party politics. I blame both parties but you started off blaming only Republicans.

          You say: “Independent Commissions can draw electoral maps.”

          As we are now seeing even independent special prosecutors aren’t so independent. I posted 2 items to read carefully elswhere demonstrating that Mueller was presenting one side of the picture. I would love true independence but based upon many of your comments you would hate them and call them right wing.

          I believe Alcee L. Hastings, who is black and a Democrat who was impeached for bribery was reelected in a district that was gerrymandered. What will Enigma say?

          There are two sides to the issue of gerrymandering and neither side doesn’t have cracks in its advocacy.


        Opponents of gerrymandering — i.e., Democrats — just secured an important victory in a federal appeals court, when a three-judge panel ruled that Ohio’s congressional maps are an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

        “We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional and effective and that no legitimate justification accounts for its extremity,” the judges wrote. “The 2012 map dilutes the votes of Democratic voters by packing and cracking them into districts that are so skewed toward one party that the electoral outcome is predetermined.”

        “Packing and cracking” describes taking the other party’s voters and packing them into as few districts as possible, so they win overwhelming victories, or cracking them into minorities in districts where the party is then guaranteed to lose. These tactics are how map-drawers “waste” the opposition’s voters, rigging statewide balances of power.

        The Republicans who gerrymandered in Ohio after the 2010 Census were very successful. This swing state’s congressional delegation includes 12 Republicans and just four Democrats. In the 2018 elections, the Republican candidates got 52 percent of the statewide two-party vote for House and the Democrats got 48 percent, but Republicans held 75 percent of the seats.

        Edited from: “A Court Just Dealt A Blow To Rigged Elections. It Probably Won’t Last”

        Edited from: The Washington Post, 5/3/19


        Note that last paragraph: Ohio’s state congressional delegation in comprised of 12 Republicans and just 4 Democrats. But in the 2018 Election, Democrats got 48% of the votes! ..Now that’s gerrymandering..!!

        1. I didn’t bother to study what was written but today the Democrats will argue against gerrymandering only to do it when it benefits them. That is not my idea of good government.

          You never bother to look at both sides of the coin. You are a hyperpartisan.

        2. They’re not opponents of ‘gerrymandering’ except in the static-infested space between your ears. Neither are appellate courts, who insist on it all the time. They’re opponents of inconvenient gerrymandering.

          1. Which is exactly why more states should adapt independent commissions for redistricting.

            1. What would the qualifications need to be to sit on such a commission?

              1. Olly, I don’t think Anon is capable of understanding what you are really asking. Take note, the first thing he does is goes to Wikipedia to provide you an address. Does he know what Wikipedia says? No. Does he understand what that means? No.

                He cannot grasp the idea behind the question.

                1. What good is redistricting without voter ID, illegals voting, absentee ballot and vote harvesting?

                  1. These guys cannot gracefully accept defeat at the ballot box. They are little dictators.

                  2. Olly, those are separate issues surrounding our election and no excuse for continuing the disenfranchisement of voters through partisan gerrymandering.

                    By the way, fraud in the act of voting is virtually non-existent in the US as numerous studies have shown, including the complete failure of the partisan Trump committee which disbanded.


                    1. no excuse for continuing the disenfranchisement of voters through partisan gerrymandering.

                      By the way, fraud in the act of voting is virtually non-existent in the US

                      Again, we see your sorosphere contacts told you to lie brazenly.

                    2. “By the way, fraud in the act of voting is virtually non-existent ”

                      One won’t know until a real audit is taken and that hasn’t happened. We have an idea of how easy it is to register to vote from James O’Keefe and proof of incidents of fraudulent voting all on video. People that wish to hide the truth dismiss O’Keefe because what he shows demonstrates the lies these people wish to hide.

                      This is the same mindset that believes that late term abortion doesn’t exist because all of the evidence was incinerated or otherwise disappeared.

                      To prove voter fraud is extremely tedious requiring trips to different locations / states, interviewing multiple people, checking out government records etc. so that the cost per name in time and money is extaordinary especially since there are roadblocks preventing discovery. One can only shine light on the tip of the iceberg unless there is widespread cooperation by the government’s involved. But the winners of those elections have a vested interest in preventing discovery and they have control over the data.

                      Of course there are simple ways of preventing much of the fraudulent voting. Voter ID’s, cross checking voter registration roles, deletion from voter registration rolls when the voter is inactive. Of course people like Anon don’t want any of these things because they know voter fraud likely has turned many elections. They want to make sure their candidate wins even if it involves fraud.

                      “It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes.” Joseph Stalin. (That version of the statement is attributed to Stalin but one doesn’t know if it was the right version or if he said anything like that at all. However, the statement provides an understand of the man Stalin and an understanding of the nature of people that wish to follow in his footsteps.)

                      One example of many can be seen below.


                    3. those are separate issues surrounding our election and no excuse for continuing the disenfranchisement of voters through partisan gerrymandering.

                      You’re dodging the question. Fraud and corruption in our election process exists, has always existed and will exist in the future. There should be no acceptable percentages of disenfranchisement. There is no logical argument to dismiss efforts to make this process as airtight as possible, if one is truly concerned about fraud and corruption.

                    4. PS Olly, I answered your question last night and the follow up this morning. You have not responded directly to either, and are clearly seeking to obfuscate from the discussion on gerrymandering and the possibilities for non partisan commissions. This is a simple question of fairness which potentially or actually affects us all and one we should be able to unite on.

                    5. You think your response answers the question, but it does not. ALL efforts must be made to tighten our election process. PERIOD. If your answer to that is anything but, absolutely, then you’re not seriously interested fairness, the franchise or our democratic process.

                    6. when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

                      WTF! Voting makes you a citizen? Yeah, no, I’m fairly confident that’s not how citizenship is granted in this country.

                    7. Olly, I see you are not actually interested in a reasonable discussion. You asked about how a non-partisan commission on redistricting would select members and I connected you to information on how California does it. As I predicted, there wasn’t much there to complain about and you didn’t immediately shifting to right wing talking points about voter fraud. I then connected you to the complete failure of Trump’s own politicized commission to find any, and you respond by just repeating the same BS.

                      Disappointing, and I won’t waste more time on this subject with you.

                    8. Olly, so you’re a poseur, not interested in facts or specific measures to increase fair representation.

                      Duly noted.

            2. ‘Independent commissions’ are fraudulent. If they’re not incumbent protection schemes, they protect the Democratic Party.

              It’s not that difficult to contrive a practice manual to draw districts which allows for scant discretion and distributes that discretion to local actors. But, you have to accept some variation in the population of districts. Which appellate courts keep insisting, in a grand ass-pull, is not acceptable.

              1. Absurd’s situational ignorance and illogic is duly noted, as is highlighted by the fairness of the Cailfornia Commission explained above as well as the complete lack of partisan motivation by Democrats to devise such a system in a state who’s legislature they control completely.

                1. There is no ‘fairness’. There is merely discretion exercised in favor of one set of interests over another. You cannot have ‘fairness’ without minimal discretion exercised.

                  1. Tabby, after an Independent Commission redrew California’s map, a number of Democrats were forced to run against each other. Some of them were shaken out. So this idea that Independent Commissions are merely a tool of Democrats is just misinformation by a sour apple conservative.

                    1. A ludicrous claim from absurd, who will defend anything that helps his team, including stealing SC seats and now gerrymandering.

                2. Exclusive–Election Fraud Expert: California’s Ballot Harvesting Favored Democrats

                  “Democrats “stole the election” in the 2018 midterms through ballot harvesting.

                  “The practice explains several mysteries about the 2018 election, such as: why mail-in ballots caused massive shifts toward Democrats in races Republicans thought they won on Election Night; why Republicans won the turnout battle in the primary, but lost it in the general election; and why Democrats with party backing defeated fellow Democrats without it”


                  1. Allan,
                    I’ve lived in SoCal for 40 years and have family and friends that saw the results of that fraudulent practice first hand. Their district’s demographics have remained consistent, exit polling showed their incumbent candidate with an overwhelming margin for victory, consistent with previous elections. And then that all changed due to ballot harvesting.

                    1. Olly, there is no question of fraudulent voting. This has been happening for years. There is loads of evidence from all different angles including video evidence. The simple solutions are not acceptable to the extreme leftists and the stupid. The extreme leftists have suceeded all over the world to gain power fraudulently.

                    2. Olly, this sentence in your article stands out: “There have been no credible reports of “ballot harvesting” being employed illegally or systematically to amount to election fraud”.

                  2. Again, we know systematic fraud is taking place, because:

                    1. It’s legal in certain loci, called ‘ballot harvesting’

                    2. Democratic operatives have an insane reaction contra ballot security measures.

                    3. Close elections go to Democrats, and the avenue is through ballots tabulated after election day. Statistical studies have been done substantiating this.

                    With the advent of widespread use of postal balloting, Democrats can steal a much wider range of elections than they could previously.

                    Shmucks like Mark Crispin Miller accused the Bush campaign in 2004 of tabulation fraud. (John Kerry knew this charge was nonsense). In New York, that sort of thing would require widespread collusion. The avenues are through postal ballots, registering ineligible voters, registration in multiple states, &c.

                    Any city has neighborhoods (commonly heavily Democratic) populated with single people who move in and out in quick succession. Canvassing such areas for petition signatures is tiresome because there are so many relict entries and because people like that are never home. These are fields for voter impersonation by ACORN types, though it’s cumbersome. My last pass at party politics was in a small town where I look at the print out and I see right away the name of a women I knew had moved away four years earlier. In my first pass at party politics (17 years earlier), you didn’t see anything like that. Thanks, League of Women Voters!

                    1. Anon likes to repost. But can he defend his ideas? Of course not. I will repost the President’s own words that seem to encourage illegals to vote. It knocked Neil Cavuto’s socks off but leftists just ignore everything they don’t like. In Anon’s case it is expected. He is notably not a nice person.

                  3. Alan, see if you can find a mainstream source to back that contention.

                    Your Breitbart article is a farce! It pretends there are ‘no’ Republicans in California to challenge ‘vote harvesting’.

                    Because of California’s size, there are more Republicans here than most states in the country. If those Republicans knew of districts that allowed widespread fraud, they would jump right on it.

                    What’s more, there are Hispanic Republicans in California. Devin Nunes represents a district that is largely Hispanic. So again your article is ridiculous. Articles like that are written for conservatives far from California.

                    1. “Your Breitbart article is a farce! It pretends there are ‘no’ Republicans in California to challenge ‘vote harvesting’.”

                      No. It proves that the Democrats are better at harvesting votes than Republicans and suggests that the claim of illegal and illegals voting is true. Take note of how the late votes counted seem to turn elections. That is how Allen West lost in Florida when he had a clear victory.

      1. L4D says–Mac Rebbeneck needs to be honored here on this blawg.

        If you got love trouble, got a bad woman you can’t control
        I got just the thing for you
        Something called “Control In the Hearts Get Together Drops”
        If you work to hard and you need a little rest
        Try my utilize rub put some on my drop fix and jam
        Put some in your breakfast


        Try a little bit ah
        Gris-Gris gumbo ya ya
        Hey now
        Gris-Gris gumbo ya ya

      2. L4D says–Mac Rebbeneck be coming to get y’all soon:

        I rolled out my coffin
        Drink poison in my chalice
        Pride begins to fade
        And y’all feel my malice

        Put gris-gris on your doorstep
        Soon you’ll be in the gutter
        Melt your heart like butter
        A-a-and I can make you stutter

        Come Get It, Get It, Come, Come
        Walk on guilded splinters
        Come Get It, Get It, Come, Come
        Walk on guilded splinters

        1. Woe is L4D. I spelled the man’s name incorrectly. I better get me some gris-gris spell-check manual correct fast.

          Mac Rebbenack. (a.k.a. Dr. John, The Night Tripper) Yeah. That’s right. Mac Rebbenack.

          1. O! I been saving this one all day long extra special just for Pwesident Twump:

            I been in the right place, but it must have been the wrong time
            I’d have said the right thing, but I must have used the wrong line
            I been in the right trip, but I must have used the wrong car
            My head was in a bad place and I’m wondering what it’s good for
            I been the right place, but it must have been the wrong time
            My head was in a bad place, but I’m having such a good time

            I been running trying to get hung up in my mind (oooh)
            Got to give myself a good talking-to this time
            Just need a little brain salad surgery (oooh)
            Got to cure this insecurity

            I been in the wrong place, but it must have been the right time
            I been in the right place, but it must have been the wrong song
            I been in the right vein, but it seems like the wrong arm
            I been in the right world, but it seems wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong


            Slipping, dodging, sneaking, creeping, hiding out down the street (oooh)
            See me life shaking with every ho’ I meet
            Refried confusion is making itself clear (oooh)
            Wonder which way do I go to get on out of here

            I been in the right place, but it must have been the wrong time
            I’d have said the right thing, but I must have used the wrong line
            I’d have took the right road, but I must have took a wrong turn
            Would’ve made the right move, but I made it at the wrong time
            I been on the right road but, I must have used the wrong car
            My head was in a good place and I wonder what it’s bad for

            Six or seven more hours before the Sun goes down. The Night Tripper rolls out of his coffin ’round midnight.

  6. Politics & Pathology: Is comedian Tracy Morgan a democrat or republican?

    Tracy Morgan says Sarah Palin’s one hot mama

    Comedian Tracy Morgan says he finds Sarah Palin, sexually attractive. “Sarah Palin, you’re the hottest MILF in the world,” Tracy said to an interviewer. MILF is a crass acronym for a mother with whom one would like to have sexual relations.

    Here’s Tracy in a road rage incident after buying a used car for $2 million in NYC.

    1. “when they go low….we go high”

      -Michelle O

Comments are closed.