White House Orders Conway Not To Testify On Hatch Act Violations

350px-US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svgHouseofRepSealI have previously testified and written about the questionable litigation strategy of the House Democratic leadership in fighting privilege assertions, including recommending cases that it should litigate as a matter of separation of powers.  This week another conflict has arisen as the White House again invoked absolute privilege over a staffer.  The White House said it will not allow presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway to appear before a House committee looking into her repeatedly violation of the Hatch Act, a federal law that limits political activity by government workers.  The position of the White House in entirely untenable and would fail in the courts.  This is the type of case that the House should litigate with vigor.

In a letter from White House lawyer Pat Cipollone, Democratic Chairman Elijah Cummings of Maryland was told that Kelly was ordered not to appear or to testify.  It is a manifestly improper position to take. Conway (who for full disclosure was one of my former students) is accused of repeated and defiant violations of federal law. That is the very touchstone of congressional oversight and a core function under the separation of powers. Under this approach, staffers could commit any number of federal violations or crimes and simply defy congressional committees in their investigation of the matters.

Notably, the Special Counsel, Henry Kerner, is a longtime congressional GOP staff member and has denied Conway’s assertions that this is merely an effort to silence her. As I have previously written, this is a direct and existential challenge to the Office of Special Counsel.  They had to act in the face of such flagrant and repeated violations.

As I have discussed before, it is not clear to me that the Democrats actually want to go to impeachment or complete most of these investigations.  There seems a type of planned obsolescence where the leadership will run out the clock while assuring its base that they are really investigating Trump for a purpose other than embarrassment and harassment.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to want to use investigation to gather material for the 2020 election but stop short of any substantive effort at impeachment. 

This however is the type of defiance that cannot go unanswered by the House if it is to maintain its constitutional position as an equal branch of government.


615 thoughts on “White House Orders Conway Not To Testify On Hatch Act Violations”

  1. Peter thinks that censorship by those that control the media is wonderful. That is both Fascist and totalitarian. A column written in October 2016 lists the videos that were banned at that date. I suggest Peter in particular view a few of them and tell us why they should be banned. He can’t so others should view the videos and see what type of person Peter really is.

    Watch the 21 PragerU Videos That YouTube Is Censoring


    1. If he were a woman, you’d be telling us how “ugly” he is, one might guess.

      1. he’s fat and not handsome, but he can play the pipes which makes him a champ in my book

        most women are too weak to play the pipes, but here’s a hottie who’s an exception

        1. sorry that’s 3 hotties. i love the slutty tartan outfits. playing metallica too, wow. you can thank me later.

  2. The illegitimate GOP court just ruled to uphold partisan gerrymandering because ….. the slave owning founders said so. Until we take back the presidency (from the minority who has had it just enough times to steal a court seat) and some right justices croak, the only way to make our representation fair will be state level constitutional amendments to proportion by non partisan committee. Time to get busy.

    1. Everything you said in your comment is wrong! The Slave owning founders said nothing about gerrymandering because they fixed it in the Constitution to prevent drawing separate districts in the State for the purpose of selecting representation for each State for the Federal House by Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1;

      “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

      Which is further explained in Federalist #52 by Madison.

      The Supreme Court actually has no basis for deciding any question of drawing districts in a State, because it is a process in each State’s own Constitution for the assembly of their own Most Numerous Legislative Branch and is unalterable by any congressional Statue on the State or Federal level, and is also unalterable by Federal Constitutional Amendment, and is not alterable even in the State Constitution unless they change the process for assembling their own Most Numerous Legislative Branch!

      All that hogwash you were talking about for control of Congress and Control of the President is also Unconstitutional, because only the States are members of Congress, and only the States are represented in Congress, and only the States have Electors that Vote for the purpose of selecting the President and form the electorate for that purpose, and only the States have Suffrage in Congress to reach Majority Consensus, by Proportion in the House and as Equals in the Senate.

      Parties have no Constitutional Rights or Suffrage to participate in any aspect of the Federal Government, even if they can participate in a State.

      For someone commenting on the Blog of a Constitutional Law Professor, you lack even the basic knowledge of the Constitution to even comprehend the processes and Principles contained within it!

      1. Why do You always Capitalize Nouns? Are you a Fan of the German Language?

        1. Asked by one of those people who complains about anonymous comments, but “hides” when it suits.

          1. That was me. I sometimes don’t attribute when the post is less than a line long. I need to keep up my post count here, and only have so much time. Sorry. PS I promise that if it’s something substantial I will put in my nom de plume.

        2. What, are you an English teacher? If you were you would understand that we use punctuation for emphasis and separation, and I also capitalize verbs like By and With, especially when they are being egnored!

          1. not at all,. i use nonstandard omission of capitalization at the beginning of sentences in favor of caps lock when i am raising my voice which is often

            you are free to use whatever frivolities you wish to adorn your erroneous message about whatever you keep repeating here every day which is grossly incorrect but nobody bothers to explain why it’s so far off base there is likely no helping you get back on course. i will pray for you however, peace be with you

            1. I’m still laughing at you!

              If you are saying I’m wrong in my understanding of these principles, then you are saying Madison is wrong. So argue with Madison, I know he’s dead, but he did write a good portion of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers which elucidate how they arrived at the Constitution in the form which it was ratified and became the Supreme law of our Country!

              Show your work, don’t just expect anyone to accept your position by your word alone, reference the Constitution!

              1. i’m not your teacher. you’re not paying me. so sorry, no lessons coming to rectify your errant opinion about the parties.

                1. Since I know you are too arrogant to read it for yourself, I’ve taken the liberty to reprint the first paragraphs of Federalist #52 by Madison, which I know you will not read because you think reading is beneath you and an assault on your intelligence.

                  Federalist No. 52.
                  From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.

                  MADISON TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: From the more general inquiries pursued in the four last papers, I pass on to a more particular examination of the several parts of the Government. I shall begin with the House of Representatives.

                  The first view to be taken of this part of the Government relates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected.

                  Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican Government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the Federal Government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the Federal Constitution.PUBLIUS.

                  And I wouldn’t ask you to teach me anything, you are too ignorant!

              2. I’m still laughing at you!

                I never thought I’d write this but Peter Shill is predictable and entertaining, but you ….you’re just nucken futs

                Take that ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

                1. What, am I supposed to cry or bleed from a blow of ignorance.

                  I’m laughing at you too, in fact all of you regular posters on this site are a source of endless comical entertainment!

                  1. You all are a joke, and I expected more intellectually inspired discussions on a site run by a Constitutional Law Professor. But even he doesn’t seem to be able to interact on an intellectual level, and he allows this juvenile bantering to continue like it is actually a substantive interchange of ideas of Government and law!

              3. federalist to Kurtz: “I’m still laughing at you!”

                I was at the Montpelier Estate and showed a few of federalistpapersrevisited postings to Madison. He rolled over in his grave laughing, saying that when he was alive he used to read the works of similar fools that never amounted to anything.

    2. This reply seems thoughtlessly partisan as well as contrary to the facts. In the two cases of gerrymandering, one favored Republicans; the other favored Democrats. The decision says simply its not the place of the court to resolve political disputes of this kind. In a third case in June, SCOTUS upheld a decision against race based gerrymandering. These decisions hardly favor one party over the other. In other decisions, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have split – sometimes siding with the left wing of the Court, sometimes not. Kavanaugh just sided with the left on the Apple iPhone case and Gorsuch sided with them on two cases involving civil liberties. In contrast, the left side of the court has a much more consistent record of voting as a block. The emerging record of disagreement suggests that a simplistic right-left distinction isn’t accurate and won’t predict their votes very well.

      1. Of course it’s thoughtlessly partisan and ill-informed, Dr. t. It’s from Anon, who first came to these threads as JanF. on or around Feb. 24, 2019. The JT column she commented under was about Bernie Sanders, dated 2-23-2019.
        It was pretty hard to miss from day one that JanF/ now Anon/ sometimes anon1 approaches EVERYTHING as a hyper-partisan hack. Changing aliases he/ she posts comments under dies not change that.

      2. Dr T, the long term effect of this ruling can cut both ways, but the advantage is heavily Republican at present and we got a team ruling, much like Bush v Gore from the court, which without doubt both fits their parties current goals and lacks any reason beyond promoting that self interest and a mindless form of “originalism”. There are no logical fair minded excuses for this BS.

        Citizens of good will should work together to replace partisan gerrymandering with non-partisan committee districting so that our rights as voters are not buried by locked in seats and party favorable mapping.

        1. the two party duopoly gets a lot of justifiable criticism but jerrymandering is the least of its sins

          this material cuts to the bone for nearly every issue at hand today including that one


          concept of the political and critique of liberalism

          the application to today depends on the understanding of how our system cleverly divides the old fashioned office of the dictator into an unelected cadre of judicial tyrants (article III lifetime tenure appointed judges and SCOTUS) alongside a powerful executive (POTUS) who is yet elected with regularity

          the cleverness of this is what has kept our American constitutional regime vital flexible and yet strong

          but if you refer too much to unelected judges and other unelected appointees like your “committees” or whatever then you will lose the democratic element which is the underpinning of legitimacy and be left with a totally unaccountable federal leviathan

          that has been the tendency of the Democratic party since it had the landslide victories which FDR brought them. it is an anti-democratic tendency however and one that a few Democrats have warned about strenuously. I always liked what Jimmy Trafficante had to say about it but he had a bad haircut and got in trouble with some powerful forces and like so many others who wander off the beaten path ended up prosecuted for “corruption”

          one of the things I like about Turley– whom i seriously believe is a Democrat– is that he has a sense of protecting the Congressional prerogatives and democratic elements of our system which are the underpinnings of legitimacy.

          1. Let me put it like this guys. If insolvent BOA can get a huge line of credit just for being a really bad failure, and if immigrants can come get free health care just by sneaking in successfully and then saying the right asylum mantras at the proper time, THEN SIGN ME UP FOR SOME FREE STUFF TOO!

            1. BoA was in trouble because it assisted the Federal Reserve and the Treasury in containing the financial crisis by buying Countrywide and then merging with Merrill, Lynch. IIRC, it’s bridge loans were paid off in < 2 years.

              The real bad actors in the financial sector were Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Countrywide, Citigroup, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Lehman Bros, Bear, Stearns; Merrill, Lynch; Morgan Stanley, and (perhaps) Goldman Sachs (as well as the bond rating firms). Lehman was liquidated in bankruptcy, Washington Mutual and Bear, Stearns were swallowed up by JP Morgan; Countrywide and Merrill, Lynch were swallowed up by BoA; Wachovia was swallowed up by Welles-Fargo; Morgan Stanley managed to improve its balance sheet in sufficiently over a period of 15 months to attract Japanese capital, and Goldman Sachs was in sufficiently satisfactory shape to attract capital from Berkshire Hathaway.

              1. DSS, you mention BoA to Kurtz so you hit on two of his major interests, money and “hotties”. BoA is a young singer that Kurtz might fancy.

                1. i found this one, boa kwon. she’s cute but I can’t relate to the kids this young


                  if they remind me of my daughter, then all I can think is to say “quit acting like a tart and go put some proper clothing on”

                  I can only have impure thoughts about women who are at least a decade older than that!

          2. Committees are typically chosen by balanced and bipartisan groups by a fair formula.

            There is nothing democratic To protect about parties protecting their interests at the expense of voters. As I noted the only rational for continuing this BS is partisanship or the lame and mindless “originalism” the GOP court pulled from their a.s. It is clear they believe in the former use the latter for dressing up.

            1. decades of utopian instincts are behind your thinking there. it’s kind of like keeping sex work illegal or prohibiting alcohol or pot. some things are too much trouble to make illegal. jerrymandering is one of those things. the cures are worse than the problem.

              1. Too bad you can’t tell us how. Maybe you can put up something worse than a purple state like Florida – went for Obama twice, Clinton once and the last 3 GOP governors won by much less than a point – having a state legislature and Congressional Delegation which are at about 75-25 or 67-33% GOP. That’s one party rule within a very split electorate and has real consequences.

            2. So you think that committees are chosen by a fair bipartisan formula? That is the most naive statement of ignorance I have ever read, and not to get into the particulars, because you wouldn’t understand anyway, every committee must have representatives from every State, or the committee can have no authoritative powers and must only report findings to the full House or Senate for debate and voting by the States Themselves to reach Majority Consensus according to the Mode of Assembly, Proportional in the House and as Equals in the Senate.

              Only the States are members of Congress, and only the States have are assembled into Congress, and only the States are represented in Congress, and only the States have Suffrage in Congress to reach Majority Consensus of the States!

              There is no such thing as reaching a Bipartisan Majority Consensus, or Control of any Governing institution by Majority Party Affiliation.

              You might think my opinion on Parties in our Government is errant, maybe you should think again after you wash your brain out with soap.

              This is the United States of America, Not The United Parties!

              You two need to get a room!

              1. I’m only doing this once.

                Absent a sensible ruling from the court which is not happening with this illegitimate bunch, the action will have to move to the states. Some already have non-partisan committees performing their reapportioning.

                1. The courts have absolutely nothing to do with any rulings regarding reappointment, where do you guys come up with this stuff. The Constitution is clear, no matter if you can read and comprehend it or not.

                  And please don’t try again, once was too much!

                  1. This article is wrong from start to finish! Assembly in our Government is not through competitive elections to express policy choices and positions. All our elections are to select representatives from among us to assemble as if the people were assembled themselves! Assembly in our Government is based upon population alone, and is redistributed based upon the census every 10 years which accounts for population increases and migration, so is the distribution of Suffrage and Power, the only control in a properly assembled congress in a Republic is voting in the assembly to reach Majority Consensus according to the Mode of Assembly, Proportional or Equal.

                    There are no Parties, especially National Parties, in a properly constituted Congress based upon the principles of republican Government, or by the Federal Principle.

                    Why is this such a hard concept to understand, Proportional Representation allows for Equal Representation and Suffrage without drawing Districts or Parties to fight over control.

                    Our Government is unique and not a normal western democracy where the parties compete for seats in Congress and the Party, or Coalition, which wins a majority of the seats selects a Prime Minister and forms an administration to govern till the next election cycle. Our Governing system is fixed and all composition and distribution of representation and Suffrage is specified, and Congress is our Government, and forms the predominant part of the administration of our Government, the President is only an administrator to manage the day to day operations of the Government at the direction of Congress.

                    The United States, in Congress Assembled, The Union that makes us the United States of America.

                  2. Something like it flies in 6 states already, so there is hope even with our illegitimate SC acting like the RNC, which is of course where it takes it’s direction.

                    Citizens will probably have to take the initiative to break this f…d up logjam which has resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters across the nation and the hyper partisan Congress, where the primary is the main concern for most incumbents.

        2. This statement of Anon magnifies his stupidity: “Dr T, the long term effect of this ruling can cut both ways, but the advantage is heavily Republican at present”

          Do I need to explain why?



    In a defeat for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court leaves the citizenship question blocked for now from the 2020 census, in part because of the government’s explanation for why it added it in the first place.

    The majority said it “cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given” by the Trump administration.

    The complicated decision comes more than a year after Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, overruled the unanimous advice of Census Bureau experts and approved the addition of the question, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

    The high court’s decision could have profound political consequences. The new population counts from the 2020 census will determine for the next 10 years how many seats each state gets in the U.S. House of Representatives and how many Electoral College votes each state gets in presidential elections beginning in 2024. They also help determine how some $900 billion a year in federal money is allocated across the country for roads, schools, hospitals, health care and more.

    According to the Census Bureau’s own expert estimates, the addition of the question will likely reduce census responses among households with at least one noncitizen by at least 8 percentage points. That translates to an estimated 9 million people not participating in the constitutionally mandated head count of every person living in the U.S.

    The bureau has also found that responses to the question would produce data less accurate and more expensive than existing government records on citizenship.

    Dozens of states, cities and other groups challenged the addition of the citizenship question in court. The challengers maintained that Ross’ motivation for adding the question was political. Ross said the Justice Department wanted the citizenship information for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Three federal district courts subsequently found that explanation “pretextual” — in other words, a sham.

    The high court’s decision comes amid a variety of new developments.

    On June 12, the House oversight committee voted to hold Ross and Attorney General William Barr in contempt for failure to produce emails and other documents involving the citizenship question. Unless there is an agreement, the full House could vote on the contempt citation, but the timing is unclear. And unless the issue is resolved through the usual process of negotiation, it would be litigated in the courts.

    In a separate development later that same day, organizations challenging the addition of the citizenship question in New York asked the Supreme Court to send the census case back to the lower court if necessary to resolve what the plaintiffs called newly discovered evidence casting doubt on Trump administration claims. The groups cite unpublished documents regarding the citizenship question on the late Thomas Hofeller’s hard drives, which were found by his daughter.

    Hofeller, who died 10 months ago, was long one of the Republican Party’s top strategists on redistricting. Attorneys for the challengers in New York, led by the ACLU, contend that his hard drives contain documents showing that Hofeller “played a significant, previously undisclosed role in orchestrating” the addition of the citizenship question to be able to redraw political maps to favor Republicans and non-Hispanic white people. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of New York is set to review these allegations this summer.

    “These allegations cut to the heart of this case,” attorneys for the New York challengers said in their Supreme Court filing.

    They said that the Hofeller documents, which were discovered after the census case was argued before the Supreme Court, show that the administration’s rationale for adding the citizenship question was “concocted” to hide a racially and politically discriminatory motive.

    In an opinion released earlier this week, Hazel said the new evidence “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose — diluting Hispanics’ political power — and Secretary Ross’s decision.”

    Edited from: “Supreme Court Leaves Citizenship Question Blocked For Now From 2020 Census”

    Today’s NPR

    1. I’m glad they’re asking. They should ask. I could care less if you guys think it’s racist. It’s not, but I wouldn’t care if it was.

      How can it be racist? they ask people for their race too and that’s not racist, so how can asking for citizenship be racist?

      There have been census operations since the time of Jesus. DONT YOU THINK THE ROMANS ASKED JOSEPH IF HE WAS A ROMAN CITIZEN? Gosh! Not a big deal. Always a mountain out of molehill.

      1. Kurtz, the court found that the administration’s original explanation was more than likely a lie.

        1. The article III Unelected Lifetime Judges need to mind their own business and stay out of the way of the Executive doing his job on this thing.

          1. America. We can’t have national borders, can’t even have a census because the screeching harridans of the mass media and the unelected federal judiciary know better than 4 thousand years of civilization.

            but in this day when “boys will be girls and girls will be girls/
            its a mixed up muddled up shook up world”

            except for Lola. l o l a lola.

        2. The decision didn’t say that the question of citizenship was wrong to put on the census. In fact I think there is widespread agreement that it would be Constitutional and that the executive branch had the authority to do so. It was referred to a lower court for review and then might reappear at the Supreme Court once again. I can’t be exactly sure since I haven’t yet read the decision.

          Trump is correct and the citizenship question should be placed on the census forms. In fact illegal aliens shouldn’t even be permitted to stay in the country because they are illegal. The politics that was involved came from the left that in essence is now calling for open borders

  4. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/27/elizabeth-warren-debate-landmine-227241
    I saw about half of the debate. I’d never heard of John Delaney, but I thought he scored some points against Warren and DeBlabio.
    We’ll probably be hearing more about this “MediCare for All” fantasy tonight from Bernie Sanders and others.
    Sanders has about 16-17 Democratic Senators who back his MC for All sham. So it’s possible that this proposal could get some real traction in the campaigns, but absent a successful Jonathan Gruber-type sales job, the fiscal realities and forced elimination of private insurance involved in a MC for All system could prove to be the “landmine” Greenfield mentions in his article.
    Several weeks ago, I saw Biden make some comments about the serious, fundamental flaws of Sanders MC for All plan. It’ll be interesting to see if he goes after Sanders tonight on this issue.

    1. Delaney built a business, as did Yang. It’s a fairly unusual credential among Democratic Party honchos.

      1. Where was Yang? they locked him out. Well, I guess they gotta draw the line somewhere. At least Tulsi was in and she spanked them i hear. Not that the competition was all that tough.

          1. i may try and watch even though i hate tv

            Yang will hopefully get a chance to talk but maybe they will distract everyone with mayor pete’s fumbling the ball recently in his modest hometown


            AGI is coming. What AI we already have is changing the workforce rapidly. With AI and robotics changing the workforce from the top and swelling hordes of foreign migrants banging on the door, the prospects for the American workforce in 5-10 years are very troubling

            Bezos and Wapo and Google et al hate and fear Wang because he has promised to tax them. Oh, you think they hate Trump? They hate Wang even more, because what he has said will not be forgotten even as they push him aside.

            They call Wang crazy for suggesting basic income. And yet nobody called the Federal Reserve Crazy when it was loaning insolvent Bank of America a billion dollars a day at virtually no interest, right before the TARP.

            Money: it’s a fiction. Who controls the fiction however controls nearly everything else, too.

    1. Spartacus was a Thracian and he probably spoke Latin, Greek, and some tribal dialect of his nativity

      Corey Booger does not deserve the name.

      1. Mr. Kurtz,
        I’m not sure that Booker even wants the name, any more that Warren likes “Pocahontas”.
        I have a feeling that he’s stuck with it anyway after making that stupid comment during the Kavanaugh hearings.

      2. “Spartacus was a Thracian and he probably spoke Latin, Greek, and some tribal dialect of his nativity Corey Booger does not deserve the name.”

        Since Booker follows Warren should we call him Tonto?

        1. unfair to Kris Tonto Paronto the guy who nearly bought the farm in Benghazi

          I’ll stick with Cory Booger

  5. I did not watch the debate but Tulsi Gabbard winning the debate? fascinating. No doubt the left wing MSM see it differently


    First poll has Tulsi Gabbard as the shock winner of the first Democratic debate and Beto O’Rourke as the clear loser

    Drudge Report poll shows Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii winning the debate
    Gabbard got nearly 40 per cent of people saying that she won the debate
    Elizabeth Warren came in second place while John Delaney came in third
    Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, is a Hindu woman born in American Samoa
    She is considered controversial due to her foreign policy views
    In January 2017, Gabbard met in Damascus with Syria’s Bashar Assad
    Meeting took place after Assad allegedly used chemical weapons during civil war

    1. According to some reports Gabbard got less of a chance to speak yet she won the debate. Is that telling us the Dems do better when they keep their mouths shut? 🙂

    2. She’s the “anti-stupid-wars-everywhere” candidate. FYI, we know that at least one of those “chemical attacks”-the one in Douma- was a clearly a false flag.



      Way better than crazy Liz or Sleepy Joe or Booger or Beto; or Anarchist Julian who wants to legalize border jumping.

      1. Why don’t you check your oddsmaker site for the high/low on strokes and coronaries for Biden, Sanders, and Trump. I’ll vote for Biden but I think I’d take Bernie for living until 90 and Trump for 1st to bite it.

  6. Beto did a respectable job speaking in Spanish during the debates. Cory “This Is Sparta” Booker largely spit and stammered in unintelligible gobbledegook that displayed the partial birth abortion he is. His facial expression when Beto spoke made him turn white: sheer panic

    1. “Beto did a respectable job speaking in Spanish during the debates.”

      The big question is whether or not Beto speaks Russian.

    2. Personally i like the Spanish language, but I find it obnoxious how they pandered to the “latino” vote and one of those clowns went so far as to suggest we dismantle the border by legalizing border jumping. Really! It’s all so “inhumane” at least compared to EVERY “LATINO” NATION ON EARTH WHICH ACTUALLY HAS SIMILAR LAWS FOR THEIR BORDERS… but oh, woe is me, the US is so “Inhumane” They all want to come here!

      I’ll tell you one more thing. It’s easy to memorize a speech in a foreign language. what’s hard is listening and responding intelligently and CONVERSING in it. Don’t think because I can recite a poem in Esperanto that I could actually speak it.

    3. Cory Booger and his shiny bald head and that intense beady eye stare make me think he’s on crank or maybe just too much Adderal.



    This Silicon Valley conspiracy is merely an expansion of ‘all’anti-Trump conspiracies. With Trump the conspiracy keeps getting broader.

    Every president encounters political resistance. That’s to be expected. Stakes are high in Washington. For that reason presidents need to win the Popular Vote by decisive margins. It gives their agendas legitimacy. Presidents don’t get that with an Electoral College victory.

    One must note that Bill Clinton won with less than 50% because of Ross Perot’s third party race. Victories like that are no more desirable that Electoral College Only. Both translate into ‘less than half the public’.

    So of course Trump has encountered resistance at all levels of society and government. Career Civil Servants have no duty to support Trump policies. Trump might be a one term president. 4 years is a small segment of a 30 year government career.

    Had Trump been a real professional in politics, he would have understood that resistance is natural. Bill Clinton seemed to understand that. He knew Ross Perot had spoiled both victories.

    But with Donald Trump there’s always a WIDER conspiracy. ‘Another group of’ elitists disrespecting our great leader’. Another group for supporters to hate! Every day Donald Trump incites supporters to hate another enemy. Which means the conspiracy keeps getting bigger. That’s not a normal president. That’s a paranoid megalomaniac!

    One can see from comments on this blog that Trump supporters are always angry. And coincidentally, they’re always angry at whoever Trump attacked in tweets or comments to Fox News. Whoever Trump attacks is going to be skewered by Trump supporters.

    Because Trump supporters are easily incited, Silicon Valley is nervous. They don’t want to let social media platforms become organs of hatred. And again Donald Trump could be voted out next year. So Silicon Valley has no logical reason to let Donald Trump abuse their platforms. No responsible corporation wants to enable a paranoid megalomaniac.


    1. One can see the talking points are starting to develop on the left and Peter is starting to parrot them. So far there is misdirection and no direct answer to the video that shows how Google is intentionally conspiring to prevent the election of Trump in 2020. Peter certainly has a direct answer to that question. We are waiting for the answer Peter how a company is permitted to use editing of its site to deny access of alternative points of view and how that site can suddenly demonitize videos they don’t like or remove the videos completely.

      Should the telephone company or electric company be permitted to deny service to those that belong to the Republican Party? Review the video and let’s hear from you again.Certainly with all you concern over “fairness” this issue should be at the top of your list. Elizabeth Warren has seen the problem that exists. Why haven’t you?

      1. …Peter is starting to parrot them…

        Alan is now up to bat with Peter Shill humping Alan. Yesterday it was “Anonymous”, last week it was Karen, me a week prior, and at this rate he will start humping the dog….

        1. Estovir, Peter has been up to bat hitting fouls and strikes. I remember all his posts saying there wasn’t a border crisis. That is because Peter looks in his rear view mirror instead of where he is going. The border crisis is just one example.

          “On February 15, President Donald J. Trump declared a national emergency to address the security and humanitarian crisis on our southern border. That month, more than 40,000 alien families arrived—an unprecedented surge that America’s outdated and overstretched immigration system is ill-equipped to handle.

          Something to share: 26 times they called the border crisis fake news

          Congressional Democrats were swift and nearly unanimous in their response, as Washington Examiner columnist Byron York detailed today:
          “A fake crisis at the border,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed.

          “A crisis that does not exist,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

          “There is no crisis at the border,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declared.
          The media was quick to endorse that narrative. Morning Joe deemed the emergency “an imaginary border crisis.” The Washington Post editorial board called it “make-believe.” The New York Times “fact-checked” the President’s claim of a border crisis and reported it false—before contradicting themselves two paragraphs later.

          How times change. “This nation is facing a humanitarian crisis at the southern border,” House Democrats tweeted today. Don’t mistake that for an admission of fault. They make clear the problem isn’t Congress’ years of refusal to fix America’s broken immigration system. Their culprit is U.S. law enforcement, whose officers are guilty of running “concentration camps” for illegal immigrants, as one freshman Congresswoman put it.

          President Trump has requested $4.5 billion in emergency aid—$3.3 billion of it marked for humanitarian assistance—to help law enforcement address the historic surge in large migrant groups arriving at our southern border. Congress has yet to pass it.

          Just as crucial, the only long-term solution to this humanitarian crisis is for Congress to close the catch-and-release loopholes that fuel child smuggling into the United States. As long as children can be used to evade our laws, they’ll continue to be put in danger.

          So far, Democrats have resisted every single effort to shut off the magnets for child smuggling. “Fixing the laws would solve everything,” President Trump said today. “And they could do it so quickly. It’s so simple,” he added.

          “They know what to do. They just don’t want to do it.””

          1. To be fair, Peter is a mindless Democrat so should he be blamed?

            “Democrats’ outrageous border cruelty

            By Post Editorial Board

            Democrats are finally acknowledging the border crisis they claimed didn’t exist, yet many still want to deny aid to suffering migrants. It’s beyond cruel.

            Nearly everyone now agrees border officials are overwhelmed and conditions at facilities used to hold and process migrants are deplorable. Reports describe children having to sleep on floors, without adequate food or necessary provisions.

            Yet many Dems — who for months insisted the crisis “does not exist” (Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer) and is “fake” (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) — are nonetheless now insisting that any emergency aid comes with tough conditions that risk a veto by President Trump.

            Indeed, some resist any funding at all, simply because it would pass through Team Trump’s hands. “I will not fund another dime,” vows Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, arguing Trump can’t be trusted.

            Got that? Border officials are detaining migrants in what the freshman firebrand calls “concentration camps,” but she won’t lift a finger to improve their conditions — essentially, as long as Trump is president.

            A few other Dems echo her radicalism, but even less kooky ones offer a similar, lame excuse for holding aid hostage: They don’t want funds used to enforce immigration law (which Congress passed).

            Hello? A failure to enforce those laws is precisely what triggered the crisis in the first place. Until migrants know they can no longer cross the border illegally, they’ll keep doing just that — and in numbers the nation is ill-equipped to handle.

            More important, humanitarian aid should be a top priority. If Dems truly care about the conditions of migrants packed in squalid facilities, they’ll back funding to address those conditions even if some of that money might go to enforcement.

            Pelosi says, “We have a sacred moral responsibility” to protect children and families — yet the House bill holds enough poison pills to have sparked a Trump veto threat.

            And somehow Democrats still insist it’s the Republicans who lack compassion.”

          2. Allan, I am heartbroken at the image of yet another dead child at the border – this time a little girl just shy of two drowned with her father.

            His mother said that she’d begged him not to go, but he wanted to earn enough money to build a house. So he took his wife and toddler. Now, in the past, the man would immigrate alone, get stability, and then send for his family. Now, kids are a passport to guarantee entry in the US, without the lengthy legal immigration system. They pay upwards of $15,000 to organized crime, bring a child, the younger the better, and force their way past the line of people legally immigrating. They are entitled to live in the US, and the country has no say about it.

            So he get to the Rio Grande, and is stuck at a camp on the Mexican side. Frustrated because he doesn’t want to wait any longer to present himself, with the child, to the border, he swims with the little girl across the strong current of the river, plunking her on the bank on the other side. Then he leaves the toddler there, alone, on the bank of a rushing, polluted, murky river, and then turns back for his wife, whom I presume can’t swim either. Obviously, the child jumps back into the river after him. He goes after her, manages to put her in his shirt, where the water must have kept hitting her face, and then he tires, gets swept away, and they both drown, while all his wife can do, apparently, is scream helplessly on shore.

            Lots of parents make terrible mistakes, and only some of them are lucky enough to learn from them. Some of those mistakes doom their children or themselves. In this case, his doomed both of them, and broke his wife’s heart forever. Politicians are blaming the country, but if an American father did this, everyone would be condemning him. What kind of father takes his little girl into swift water and leaves her unattended on the bank, because he wants to build a house? They were not fleeing desperados. No one was shooting at them from the bank. He felt entitled to entry into the US, knew his kid would get it for him.

            These deaths are our country’s fault, only not in the way that the Democrats claim. Our policies turned children into border passes. The younger the better. When unaccompanied children were allowed to stay, and send for their families, we got surges of unaccompanied children, put into the indifferent care of organized crime by their parents. Many were raped, sold into slavery, abandoned along the way, were injured, sickened, or died. For those who claim that only a life or death situation would induce a parent to do that, why did the number of unaccompanied minors surge after we enacted a policy where unaccompanied minors could stay? Why weren’t parents coming with them? It was because it was a way to get through the border, which speaks volumes on what the parents value most, themselves or their children. They probably all thought the worst would never happen to their own children. They could pay organized crime to babysit and everything would be fine.

            Later, politicians who favored illegal immigration fought for families to stay together, and remain in the US. That, at least, mean that there was a surge in parents actually traveling with their children. Once it became clear that the youngest children were better at pulling heart strings, we saw families leave older ones behind, and make the dangerous journey with their youngest, most vulnerable children.

            We have created a financial inducement for parents to risk young children, and a lot of them are dying. Bring a kid, enjoy the benefits of our economy. It’s sick. We need to stop denying our role in this, and shut this down. Dems would have us open the border up even more, perhaps drive sorties out into Mexico and bring everyone in who shows up. The result would be a tsunami of even more.

            Enough. We need to send the message loud and clear to respect our legal immigration laws or don’t come.

            I am worried about 2020. If the Democrats win, it will be open borders. They work hard for more and more illegals to come and overwhelm our infrastructure, with a long list of policies. Most of them don’t qualify for asylum, and are coming for economic reasons and a better neighborhood. Most skip deportation orders. When Trump ordered those with deportation orders removed, Democrats made it a campaign issue for them to stay. Their actions mean that there is no reason we can deport anyone. They are going to keep at it until the economy collapses, along with housing and jobs markets.

            1. When climate change really hits and there’s a few big hurricanes that wipe out housing in Central America, the thousands will turn to tens of thousands and the big question will be DO WE HAVE ENOUGH MACHINE GUN AMMO TO STOP THEM?

              Toughen up people it’s going to get ugly

            2. “Now, kids are a passport to guarantee entry in the US, without the lengthy legal immigration system. ”

              Karen, this is how the left works. There is no doublt about it. There are a few leftists that actually believe in their dreams but know nothing about reality. Then there are leftists that are plain Fascists that like to rule or think they are ruling. What is left are envious or downright stupid people that don’t understand human nature and are too lazy to learn about it or anything else. We see a good amount of that on the blog.

              “He felt entitled to entry into the US, knew his kid would get it for him.”

              I think entry into the US was hyped by certain groups and even funded by them. There are a lot of terrible people in the world that use virtue signaling to make themselves feel human.

            3. Karen manufactures a story from whole cloth and a very few facts by pretending she can mind read the dead father. The goal? Allow her to continue in her lack of compassion for people much like our ancestors while ignoring the brutality of her leaders policies.

    2. Trump supporters have a sense of humor. Democrats and their media comrades by and large do not. The “anger” is coming from the Democrats and the media. And Hollywood.

      1. Don’t forget West Hollywood😉; just look at all of the screaming, all-cap letters from HHHNN.

    3. Peter, since you seem to go off topic I figured maybe another article would help put you back in place. I made sure to include the address.

      Take special note of the privileges granted to Google and others.

      “The release of this information couldn’t be worse timing for Google as it coincides with recent inquiries and significant discussion on whether or not Google and other content providers, which historically have been protected by The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), should be striped of their ISP “Internet service provider” immunized designation as the more they police, edit, remove, and censor information, the more they become the “publisher” of that information.”

      Google is conspiring against the American people by interferring in the release of information that doesn’t agree with Google’s view of America. Further explanation below.

      “Not Good: Seems Now, Not “Trump” or Even “Russia”, But “Google” is Meddling in Election

      PALM BEACH – Unless you have been living under a rock for the last two years, you’re likely very much aware that American’s have been absolutely inundated with 24/7 news cycles surrounding the “Collusion Delusion“ and Donald Trump’s alleged and now debunked ‘meddling‘, “interference“, and then “obstruction“, all related with the Russians and the 2016 election.

      Google insiders have blown the lid and whistle on Google’s alleged plan to prevent a “Trump situation” in 2020 on hidden camera.
      While there has been near limitless talk about what Trump refers to as an illegal Witch Hunt, and the Greatest Hoax in political history, you’ll probably hear very little about the “real” collusion that is planned and in full swing for 2020.

      According to an undercover video by “Project Veritas” an effort launched by activist James O’Keefe, the very real threat which has been born, bread and currently alive within the boundaries of the United States, is online giant Google Inc.

      In the released video, Project Veritas creator James O’Keefe interviews a whistle-blowing Senior Google Executive regarding leaked documents and undercover videos alleging that Google is fully engaged in a social experiment of their very own – and that the world’s search giant is and has been for the last two years, ramping up for the coming election including other social engineering projects aimed at creating the “desired narrative”.

      U.S. Congressman Lou Gohmert released the following statement regarding the stunning and quite frightening information coming to light.

      “This video shows Google’s biases are now a threat to a free and fair election, all while they hide behind the immunity given by Congress years ago when they were supposed to be a simple ‘town square’ where everyone’s voice could be heard without biased results. In fact, Google references a significant role they see themselves fulfilling in the 2020 elections. This discovery should set off alarm bells throughout the country. It is no secret that Google has a political agenda. Multiple brave tech insiders have stepped forward and exposed Google’s censorship of content and specialized algorithms. This media giant’s ‘social justice narrative’ should distress all Americans who value a free and open society. Google should not be deciding whether content is important or trivial and they most assuredly should not be meddling in our election process. They need their immunity stripped and to be properly pursued by class action lawsuits by those they have knowingly harmed.”

      The release of this information couldn’t be worse timing for Google as it coincides with recent inquiries and significant discussion on whether or not Google and other content providers, which historically have been protected by The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), should be striped of their ISP “Internet service provider” immunized designation as the more they police, edit, remove, and censor information, the more they become the “publisher” of that information.


      1. Alan, as I noted, with Trump the conspiracy is always getting wider. Now we’re supposed to believe Silicon Valley is the enemy. Another reason for Trump supporters to hate California! And the enemies list keeps growing. That’s a sign your leader is mentally unstable. It’s also a sign that Trump supporters are equally unstable. Which gives Google and other companies good reason to not want anything to do with Trump and his supporters.

        1. Silicon Valley is the enemy. Project Veritas work (which includes an e-mail from a wheel at Google who refers to Dennis Praeger, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson as ‘nazis’) is just the latest smoking gun.

          The problem we have is that the institutional situation has generated media platforms that have many features of monopoly, have legal privileges apposite for common carriers while behaving like publishers, and the companies themselves are run by people clowns in bubbleworld.

          1. Tabby, no one outside the rightwing media bubble has any respect for James O’Keefe and Project Veritas. O’Keefe’s credibility was totally lost years ago when he was arrested trying to impersonate a telephone repair man at a Congresswoman’s office. A stunt like that would get any journalist blackballed for life.

            1. It’s the kind of methods that law enforcement has always used, ruses and snitches, and it’s the kind of thing that SPLC and other sorts of “watchdogs” also specialize in too. Sauce for the Goose!

              Veritas est veritas.

            2. Unfortunately Peter, you know nothing about James O’Keefe or the blatantly political and probably illegal actions taken against him including destroying the tapes that could prove his only problem was enterring a Senators office under an assumed name something he didn’t realize was illegal. That is something that the MSM used to be applauded for.

              One doesn’t have to characterize the man for it is not he who has been doing most of the video’s but a lot of other people. Today they have lawyers to make sure that the laws of each state are carefully followed. The quality videos, however, demonstrate crimes of the left and were used by the FBI to convict people of serious crimes. Project Veritas has also proven that certain laws were being violated and caused states to change their laws. He has also exposed groups that were getting money while openly breaking the law. I can go on listing his accomplishments but it falls on deaf and deliberatly ignorant ears

              One has to be pretty stupid to believe that Jame’s O’Keefe hasn’t produced accurate videos with such effects. Though his videos last about 15 minutes to an hour he has the complete tapes of the entire interviews and opened them up to be viewed by others. Typically your MSM uses short strips that might contain 5 words taken out of context yet you post that type of stuff all the time. O’Keefe has tremendous credibility something you lack while O’Keefe has been tested in court and prevailed.

          2. “Silicon Valley is the enemy.”

            You’re taking cues from your leader, now. I though you were better than that

            1. It’s not the enemy, it is our best export. At the same time, like our other best exports, US debt, or US made weapons, we have to be careful about what they’re up to and how operations may actually come to damage American people’s privacy and lives

              Oh I remember when Democrats were big on privacy

              I remember when Democrats were careful about “corporate bigwigs”

              Now that Silicon Valley is voting 90% Democrat, not so careful anymore!

              1. This is absurd x 9 says: June 27, 2019 at 12:29 PM

                Silicon Valley is the enemy.

                It was TIA who said “Silicon Valley is the enemy.” (Just clarifying.)

              2. “Oh I remember when Democrats were big on privacy” — Mr Kurtz @12:58 pm

                We should all be “big on privacy.”

        2. Silicon Valley has been in an incestuous relationship with DARPA and the surveillance state for decades.

          You could go back to Ross Perot and “Online data’ or how about the old Ma Bell monopoly where according to Gordon Liddy the FBI could ask for a no warrant wiretap on anyone anytime they wanted and get it no questions asked.

          The information industry is our best industry but it’s in serious need of some antitrust action just as it was when Ma Bell got hammered into pieces. Just do it!

          1. Kurtz, Peter is mindless. If one claims he isn’t mindless then that would make him a Fascist.

        3. Really Peter? Are you a Fascist with a capital F so that you support politicians and large corporations that merge their efforts in order to control a nation? Have you not noted the delisting, demonitization, shadow banning etc of those groups that disagree with the group that can be considered wannabe Fascists? If you haven’t noted it we can show you what has been banned including the video by Project Veritas releasing Google’s intentions that was totally legitimate and removed from youtube as the number of viewers started spiking.

          Then you use the old Stalinist method of getting rid of enemies without killing them, “That’s a sign your leader is mentally unstable”, accuse the enemies of being mentally ill. Are you a Stalinist as well? I can’t say since to date you haven’t advocated killing your enemies and you don’t seem to have the background. You don’t seen to know enough or even know what you are talking about.

          It seems I had you pegged wrong. You are not just a mindless leftist but a Fascist admirer that wishes to impose your beliefs on everyone else.

      2. Good point and CDA safe harbor provisions already weakened by SESTA and FOSTA that the chicken lilly livers at google and amazon were afraid to oppose.

        The biggest vendor of porn in america? Google, the middle-man who will direct any errant child to a cesspool of filth online that would get a normal person locked up!

        And yet they’re afraid of whores talking about which tricks are safe online. Sad!

    4. Peter, unlike these other folks, I think you are smart. And I like to hear from you every day.

      But y can raise your IQ 10 points easily if you learn to think for yourself and quit regurgitating Wapo Amazzon Bezos owned talking points. OF course wapo is against this, their BOSS BEZOS is afraid!

      1. Kurtz, WaPo carries more news than any other source. Their stories are well-written and highly detailed. That everything I want from a source.

        1. including your preferred flavor of bias

          do what you people are always recommending those in the “Right wing bubble” do and get outside your usual information stovepipe! it’s good advice for anyone

        2. Here’s a little something in which the glorious Washington Post (and other publishers) had no apparent interest and yet everyone should read it.

          Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange

          by Nils Melzer
          Jun 26

          By Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

          On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, 26 June 2019

          1. yes that’s a good one

            I know, you may think I am deluded. How could life in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection. Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years. So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with repulsion and disbelief.
            Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the US had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, two women made the headlines in Sweden. One of them claimed he had ripped a condom, and the other that he had failed to wear one, in both cases during consensual intercourse — not exactly scenarios that have the ring of ‘rape’ in any language other than Swedish. Mind you, each woman even submitted a condom as evidence. The first one, supposedly worn and torn by Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure. The second one, used but intact, supposedly proved ‘unprotected’ intercourse. Go figure, again. The women even texted that they never intended to report a crime but were ‘railroaded’ into doing so by zealous Swedish police. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to US extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.
            Alright, I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help breaking a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks. In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was too weak.

            Professor Nils Melzer
            Well then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with US elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered US voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil lawsuits for just compensation?
            But surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist, skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip, and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.
            In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.
            Very well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well, this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere «mudslinging» in public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.
            Yes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.
            Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.
            This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.
            None responded positively.

            1. The sad thing about the American Left is that never were a group of seemingly well educated people so utterly lacking in perspective and wisdom.

              Was it always so? I don’t think so. I suspect that things really went downhill when the Left completely abandoned any serious interest in economic issues in favor of antagonizing working class white people. Of course by abandoning the working class whites, they actually abandoned working class everybody else too, in favor of what the Left used to call the “lumpenproles” but now such terms are forgotten too


              Sometimes I think today’s Left is the revenge of Bakunin on the Soviets.

              I have a book by Bakunin, forget the name, and have read some of his essays. It’s a reply of the crazy anarchist Democrat SJWs of today, whining about every pathetic unemployable at the expense of the mass of the workers. Now I fully understand why the Soviets ruthlessly suppressed the anarchists. They were toxic poison to any organization wanted to seriously attempt to improve the lot of the majority.

              When you are worse then Bolsheviks, then you have sunk very low!

              That’s the level of Democrat candidates like Julian whatever who wants to legalize border jumpers. Just a nutty anarchist! Show him the door already, please!

              1. btw in that last post didnt mean there julian assange, i meant this julian cortez? maybe his name, from texas, who was arguing about beto about legalizing border jumping. can this guy be serious? talk about a fifth columnist!

                no border, no nation! even the Soviets understood that. Anarchy is what these nutjobs want and anyone who embraces it deserves to have to put up two big families of hungry hondurans in their own home at their own expense, indefinitely!

                1. “The sad thing about the American Left is that never were a group of seemingly well educated people so utterly lacking in perspective and wisdom.” -Mr. Kurtz

                  I lean left, but I couldn’t agree more.

            2. “This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.
              None responded positively.” -Nils Melzer closing

              That tells us a lot.

          2. Aw, poor Julian Assange. Here we are wasting our time worrying about children in cages when that great martyr Julian Assange has been badly treated. Where are our priorities?!

            1. if you read it he gave you a serious answer

              “Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.”

              For my part, I’m not worried about children detained after illegal border entry attempts. It’s going to get a lot worse than detentions within a few years, you wait and see. You will look back on detentions and think they were humane, in retrospect. And some will wish more had been detained, when that might have had an effect.

              But that’s your answer from him.

            2. The Current P.H. shows his true colors and his fundamental lack of understanding, in his response to Nils Melzer’s article about Julian Assange. “The Current P.H.” just doesn’t get it; he’s clearly not a critical thinker.

              1. Unfortunately “The Current P.H.” doesn’t grasp this:

                Assange’s Indictment: A Threat to Everyone


                (Peter Hill — The Current P.H. — is blinded because he believes that Assange helped in the election of Trump. He doesn’t understand what the Dems did to lose the election — all by themselves.)

                Nils Melzer:

                “Well then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with US elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered US voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy?”

                (I’m a Dem, Peter. And the Dems lost because they gave the nomination to Hillary. With Sanders, we might have seen a different result. That that Dems lost has nothing to do with Assange. Assange’s mistake is that he reveals the rot…and that’s why the U.S. government — and you — want to silence him.)

                1. Dude, you’re a Bernie Bro, not a Dem. If Assange wanted to inform voters he would have sought private Trump and RNC correspondence so the sheet would have been balanced. He was just a Russian/republican hack and stooge, not a hero.

                  1. False. He is not a republican. he’s not even an American and basically a leftist. Calling him a liberal might be too far to the right. the key fact is that he’s a publisher, the stuff he got he should be able to have published under the Pentagon Papers case, without facing persecution.

                    But, Pentagon papers case was to protect the NYT, literally, case name NYT v US., and NYT is anon’s darling, and internet journalists like Assange are the NYT’s COMPETITION, so they are throwing the COMPETITION UNDER THE BUS.

                    Simple as that!

                  2. I’m not a Bernie Bro, “bro.”

                    “He was just a Russian/republican hack and stooge, not a hero.” -says Anon1, naively

                    And if you had any understanding of the way the world works, you’d be standing squarely behind Assange.

                    1. Don’t know or care what you are, but you’re not a Dem. I’ll never stand behind Assange and nothing you posts indicates you have any understanding of how anything works, let alone the world.

                      Buh bye.

                    2. LOL. So I’m “not a Dem.” (“Anon” thinks he knows all — which is part of his problem.)

                      Sanders: ‘People Are Saying’ I’d Have Been Nom In 2016 If System Wasn’t ‘Rigged’


                      As for how the world works, you clearly have no idea at all.

                      If you want to blame anyone of our loss in the last election, blame Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, among others. Hell, blame yourself.

                    3. I saw Bernie – an old personal friend from 40+ years ago who I helped campaign for Senator – say that last night and my respect dropped seriously for him. He knows better and he might as well have been quoting Trump who always hears “some people are saying”.

                      I read Wasserman’s emails. You tell me the what the “rigging” was genius. Take your time. You’ll need it.

                    4. You’ve got your mind all made up, Anon. I’m not about to waste any more time on you.

                    5. Same thing as your “wasting my time”, except you repeated a stupid lie of the kind I feel obliged to correct – I am a Dem.

                      You’ve been corrected.

            3. Yes, Peter we should worry about children that are in cages and put there under the Obama administration starting I think in 2014. Not only that but the mainstream media that took those pictures from the Obama era and blamed Trump should never be permitted to report news again because they are liars. They had the pictures and the dates but didn’t care. James O’Keefe has actual videos and many different people that will vouch for its authenticity.

              Peter prefers the liars that knowingly published pictures from the Obama Administration and blames them on Trump. They committed a type of fraud that is particularly dishonest.

        3. Anyone can be a mindless boob by just subscribing to the Washington Post and actually believe them, their anonymous sources and the number of times they have been proven wrong.

          The Washington Post makes the Enquirer look good.

  8. OT Getting Closer:

    “The sheer political panic evidenced in Samantha Power’s emails shows that ‘the fix was in’ against the incoming administration even before the 45th president was sworn into office,”

    ‘Unmasker in Chief’ Samantha Power spewed anti-Trump bias in government emails

    Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power may share an unflattering stage with a text-loving FBI agent and his Donald Trump-hating paramour from the bureau.

    Fired agent Peter Strzok and ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page are infamous today for texting on FBI phones their anti-Trump sentiments while allegedly having an affair. They played key roles in the now-debunked Russia collusion investigation.

    Continued at: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/450490-unmasker-in-chief-samantha-power-spewed-anti-trump-bias-in-government

    1. You notice they weren’t cited for violating the Hatch Act.

      1. She and her husband are quite a pair. Cass Sunstein for those who don’t know.

        1. Cognitive infiltration is a term coined by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule to refer to the use of government and third party “cognitive” provocateurs and front groups to “infiltrate” social networks, other online groups, and “real life” groups built around “conspiracy theories.”

          cass sunstein propaganda theoretician and a real jerk!, who’s going to trick all the little people into believing what he wants you to believe


            1. salon thing:

              ” Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.”

              of course “SALTING” is an old union organizing tactic, and this Sunstein idea was just an adaptation to the internet era.

              Now they claim that “Russian bots” do that; a cute reversal, which notion you could call
              “throwing the snitch jacket” considering who it was coming from

            1. facebook uses AI algos to adaptively censor content that Zuck does not like

              the memory hole is now instantaneous and they have robots doing the editing

              at least Zuck around 4:30 has the honesty to admit that there are fundamental tradeoffs in values between freedom and “safety” etc. yes there is some truth in that, sometimes

              and he raises the obvious point that it can be troubling for a private company to be making all the editing choices

              of course that is always what NEWSPAPERS have done. private companies that have edited private opinion

              Sunstein is a really creepy dude. of course they gave him a berth at Harvard, which has long been infested with the creepiest.

  9. OT, but how cringe worthy is this Democrat debate? I would be scared to death if any ONE of these Dems EVER got the helm. Holy smokes. Vote vote vote, people and do NOT let these Dem nutcases EVER get the reins of power. I will never vote Democrat again!

    1. Julián Castro:

      “On January 20, 2021, we’ll say adios to Donald Trump.”.

      1. Someone summed up the debate thusly: “Esto es un tren wrecko.”

        To which I said: “Si”

          1. Ha! Word on the street says tomorrow night the pandering Democrats will speak French. Or maybe Klingon.

            1. “the pandering democrats” offered by Anonymous (one of the regs playing games) @ 12:23 a.m.:

      2. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/26/beto_orourke_vs_julian_castro_on_decriminalizing_illegal_immigration.html

        So Julian castro wants to decriminalize illegal immigrant invasion altogether. Traitor!

        Now what we can see is the beginning of Civil War 2. We just blew through another milepost.

        What borders do is protect the natives, from invasion. Invasion is not just something that happens when men on horses with swords or tanks come. It can also come in teeming masses of the hungry and oppressed. Yes the world is full of hungry and oppressed. And enough of them coming here will make a slave out of you, too.

        So Julian Castro intends to enslave you to pay for the hundreds of millions of poor central americans whom he really represents, or not. Julian Castro, wants your vote, so he can make you a tax-slave to foreign invasion from the South!

        Not will require voting for Donald Trump, at the very least, and probably a whole lot more before it’s all done.

        Imagine an Indian chief circa 1800 telling the other Indians to just make nice with the teeming masses of invading white colonists. Well, we see where that got them!

        Lucky for us, we have technological advantages. For now.

  10. Peter, you are our resident expert on the Washington Post. To my knowledge WaPo hasn’t had any news on the O’Keefe video showing that Google is conspiring to prevent Trump from winning in 2020 or anyone else like Trump. What page of the Washington Post tells us differently? This is a huge story. Unless I am wrong and the story is on the front page of WaPo tell me why that newspaper hasn’t reported it?

    Additionally when whistleblowers used to disclose important things of this nature they used to go to the media especially the NYTimes. Why is it whistleblowers don’t trust the media?

    1. Peter, I should also ask why didn’t you comment on this immediately since we know that you have been against collusion and looking for it everywhere?

  11. “White House Orders Clapper To Initiate Coup D’etat In America”

    Clapper: Obama Ordered The Intelligence Assessment That Resulted In Mueller Investigation

    ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: The 2017 assessment that the President says he now agrees with, that was done while you and then NCI Director John Brennan were still in office. So, how can we reconcile the President attacking you, but apparently after a very long time finally, allegedly saying — or saying he allegedly agrees with the product of the intelligence community that you, yourself oversaw?

    JAMES CLAPPER: Yes, well, this is — yes, as we’ve come to know the President, he is not a stalwart for a consistency or coherence. So it’s very hard to explain that. One point I’d like to make, Anderson, that I don’t think has come up very much before, and I’m alluding now to the President’s criticism of President Obama for all that he did or didn’t do before he left office with respect to the Russian meddling. If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel Mueller’s investigation.

    President Obama is responsible for that, and it was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place. I think it’s an important point when it comes to critiquing President Obama.

    – Real Clear Politics, 7/24/18

    1. Obama’s Cyber Chief: Susan Rice Gave ‘Stand Down’ Order In Response To Russian Meddling

      Former President Barack Obama’s cybersecurity czar confirmed Wednesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice told

      him to “stand down” in response to Russian cyber attacks during the 2016 presidential campaign. (REUTERS)

      Reuters, 6/20/18

      Former President Barack Obama’s cybersecurity czar confirmed Wednesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice told him to “stand down” in response to Russian cyber attacks during the 2016 presidential campaign. Michael Daniel, whose official title was “cybersecurity coordinator,” confirmed the stand-down order during a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing held to review the Obama and President Donald Trump’s administrations’ policy response to Russian election interference. Rice’s order to Daniel was first reported in “Russian Roulette,” a book published in March that details Russia’s meddling in the election. In the book, authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn reported that Daniel was developing strategies to respond to Russian cyber attacks on U.S. companies and political campaigns. He proposed using what’s known as denial of service attacks to take down Russian propaganda news sites and to attack Russian intelligence agencies. (RELATED: Christopher Steele Visited State Department Shortly Before 2016 Election)

      Another idea was to announce a bogus “cyber exercise” against a Eurasian country. The goal was to put the Kremlin on notice that its infrastructure could easily be targeted by the U.S. Rice opposed the proposals, according to “Russian Roulette.” “Don’t get ahead of us,” she told Daniel in a meeting in August 2016, according to the book. Daniel informed his staff of the order, much to their frustration. “I was incredulous and in disbelief,” Daniel Prieto, who worked under Daniel, is quoted saying in “Russian Roulette.”
      “Why the hell are we standing down? Michael, can you help us understand?” Prieto asked.

    2. “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

      – Lisa Page to Peter Strzok

  12. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-07/the-hatch-act-rule-kellyanne-conway-broke-should-be-unconstitutional
    I don’t know how this “Conway story” will ultimately play out; I’d be very surprised if Trump fired her, unless a Court decision forced him to do so.
    I don’t pretend to have a comprehensive knowledge of the details and applications of the Hatch Act, or related court cases.
    The linked Bloomberg article gives one perperspective on this ( wriiten in early 2018).

    1. good article Tom and i certainly agree with it.

      “Conway did arguably break the rules. But the provision of the law that she broke seems at least borderline unconstitutional as applied to her. The circumstances of the case show why the First Amendment should be interpreted to protect a federal employee who is talking politics in a public forum.

      As a literal matter, the watchdog’s finding seems vaguely plausible. The Hatch Act, which dates back to 1939, says that federal employees in Conway’s position may not use their “official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” (The Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, is unrelated to Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian election meddling.)

      The act also says, however, that an “employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates.”

      Conway is “counselor to the president.” Her job doesn’t fall within one of the Hatch Act’s exemptions, which include the president and the vice president.

      Before the Alabama election, Conway went on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends” and on CNN’s “New Day” in her role as presidential adviser. She was billed as counselor to the president. While on air, she sought to affect the outcome of the election by promoting Moore and trashing Jones (“weak on crime, weak on borders … a doctrinaire liberal”).

      As special counsel Henry Kerner detailed in his report, Conway got talking points from the White House communications office before she went on. The talking points discussed Moore, but didn’t tell Conway that she should endorse him or oppose Jones.

      Conway and the White House have an answer to the charges. They say Conway was just reporting Trump’s views. On this theory, she wasn’t using her official authority to influence the election. She was serving as a kind of passive amplifier of Trump’s view. And the law exempts Trump himself from its reach.

      That answer doesn’t fit the text of the statute, or its purpose. A presidential adviser relaying the president’s views is still acting on her official authority. The whole point of the law is to stop federal officials from using governmental power to advance partisan ends. Whether they are doing so at the president’s behest is irrelevant.

      But there’s a better reason to be worried about the special counsel’s finding: The relevant provision of the Hatch Act may well be unconstitutional. It is certainly very vague and hard to apply, given that the law allows Conway to express her views about candidates.”

      1. if Republicans tuck tail at petty accusations like this, then they will lack the mettle to do sterner things which lay ahead.

        i say this hatch act garbage is a trifle. damn these small torpedoes and full speed ahead

        1. Mr. Kurtz,
          Neither Trump nor Conway seem inclined to cave on this issue.
          I can’t see that a “compromise” solution is possible when one group is demanding that Conway be fired and the Trump Administration is saying that’s not going to happen.
          The Administration’s response to the Congressional “subpoena cannons” being fired off is a related matter, and seems to have been formulated as a reaction to the volley of 80+ subpeonas fired off as soon as the new 116th? Congress was sworn in.
          That seems to leave court intervention/ decision as a strong likelihood. I’d like to see the court(s) deal with some of the issue that the author (a law professor at Harvard, I think) brings up.

    1. Wow. That is a powerful campaign message.
      Best part: “Goodbye Hillary!”

      1. Trump actually hit 55% more than once. You can look it up yourself but who cares. The polls said he was going to lose the election and he won. You still haven’t gotten over it.

        1. If I prove it to be true will you then recognize that you are stupid? I think that is a fair exchange. I show a poll that has been discussed on this blog showing Trump at 55% and you recognize how stupid you are. OK?

        1. Peter, Trump hit 55% approval though you might not want to recognize it. I don’t care about these numbers very much because many of the polls are trying to push opinion.

        2. “The 55 percent number was those who have an unfavorable impression of President Trump.” — Fox Business

          APR. 11, 2019

          Trump Touts 55 Percent Approval From Poll That Found 43 Percent Approval

          By Adam K. Raymond


          President Trump’s approval rating is 43 percent according to a new poll from Georgetown. His disapproval is 52 percent and his unfavorable rating is 55 percent.

          On Wednesday’s episode of Lou Dobbs Tonight, the Fox Business host and Trump favorite got those numbers wrong. And on Thursday morning, Trump tweeted about them.

          Not enough people watch Dobbs to bother with correcting him, but once Trump amplified the false finding, corrections began pouring in. The most significant came from Mo Elleithee, the executive director of Georgetown’s Institute of Politics and Public Service. “This graphic is incorrect,” Elleithee tweeted.

          Here’s the full clip of Lou Dobbs hyping Trump’s “robust” 55 percent approval rating, which Trump tweeted this morning.

          As @MoElleithee from @GUPolitics has pointed out, the poll actually shows a 55 percent unfavorable rating and a 43 percent approval rating.

          As of post time, Trump’s tweet remained up.

          Update: Fox Business issued an on-air correction Thursday, but Trump’s tweet is still up.

          “It’s been a quite start to the day for President Trump, though he did send out a tweet this morning from the Lou Dobbs show last night on Fox Business. That tweet featured a poll that was not entirely accurate, which Fox Business would like to correct. According to a poll from Georgetown University, 58 percent of respondents approved of the president’s handling of the economy. That portion of the graphic was right. However, the graphic also showed that 55 percent of the respondents approve of the president, that number is not correct. The 55 percent number was those who have an unfavorable impression of President Trump.”

          1. The article above might be true but it has nothing to do with the 55% approval rating of Trump reported by one of the polls that has been discussed on this blog.

            If anonymous will admit she is stupid I will provide the link.

  13. Obama set one heck of a precedence for failing to allow testimony. Now everyone wants to do it.

  14. So? Names and details change. It would not be unusual for this type of statement to have been used by multiple people with slightly different details and the same person more than once. I don’t attribute the absolute origination of this type of statement to only one person. I don’t even know if Churchill said it or not. Your original comment was unecessary except for self promotion.

    1. E Jean Carroll told Anderson Cooper that most people think of rape as sexy and fantasize about it. He quickly cut to commercial.


      She said it wasn’t rape because it hurt. Anderson Cooper said “most people think of rape as being violent.” She responded that “most people think of rape as sexy.”

      There might be something wrong with her.

      1. On another interview, she told them that she wasn’t going to file rape charges out of respect for all of the Latina women who are raped 24/7 on the border “without protection.”

        She comes across as very strange. I still hope this claim is investigated.

        1. Well, we KNOW there’s something wrong with you. You see, hear and perceive through the Trump/Faux News prism that Trump is not a misogynist, but rather, a victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy to de-legitimize his “presidency”. Therefore, anyone who says anything negative is automatically suspect, as are their allegations, no matter how credible. E. Jean Carroll is a well-respected writer. And, you are wrong: she made clear that the reason it was rape is because she did not consent, not because it hurt. She also made clear that she felt that her assertion of criminal rape charges so many years after the fact and which would get a lot of media attention if there were a criminal trial, pales in comparison with the Latina women who are brutalized constantly here and now. Crimes against them deserve our attention, not her, and that’s what she said. Her claims are very credible and backed up by contemporaneous consultations with friends when the incident happened. Trump has been proven to lie about this incident when he falsely claimed he never met her. You, Karen, as usual, made up a false narrative as a cover.

          1. E. Jean Carroll is a well-respected writer.

            She’s an advice columnist for women’s mags. That may get you a good income. It doesn’t get you respect.

            Her claims are very credible and backed up by contemporaneous consultations with friends

            What’s amusing about you is that you proceed as if you had no clue what you sound like.

            1. At the time Trump raped her, she was a well-respected staff writer for Saturday Night Live. Many talented people have also been SNL staff writers, like Conan O’Brien and Tina Fey. In fact, when he voiced an interest in lingerie as a gift for some woman, after rejecting some millinery items she suggested, it gave her the idea to write a comedy sketch of someone like Trump trying on womens’ lingerie, which is the only reason she went with him toward the fitting rooms. She thought he was going to put on the lingerie item he had chosen, but he raped her instead. Before it published the piece about this, The New Yorker interviewed the friends she told about the incident. She kept the clothes, but didn’t put them on again until she posed for the cover for the piece about this. The clothes may have DNA on them. The incident she describes constitutes first-degree rape in New York, and NY eliminated the statute of limitations for first-degree rape, so Trump could still get charged. His only defenses. besides denial: 1. She’s “not my type”; and 2. I never met her, disproven by photographic evidence.

              1. She was a writer for SNL during the 1986-1987 season.
                She alleges that she was raped in 1995? or 1996?……she seems unclear about the year.
                If Natacha wishes to bolster the allegations made by Ms. Carroll, she might want to at least get the timeline of the allegations right.

                    1. Are you on the prowl looking for someone that “grab ’em by the pussy”?

                      There are people like that and those are the one’s that like to talk about things said by men in locker rooms.

                  1. Again, it was “grab ’em by the pussy” Trump.

                    (One of the regs is playing games again. It’s how they roll.)

              2. Drip, drip, drip.

                “Huntington Beach resident Summer Zervos’ defamation lawsuit against Trump can proceed, court rules”


                “Zervos’ lawyers said Trump’s words were factual falsehoods that subjected her to threats and cost her business at her Southern California restaurant.

                “Zervos appeared on “The Apprentice” in 2006, when Trump was the reality show’s host. She says he made the unwanted advances the next year during get-togethers she hoped would yield career advice.

                “She says she didn’t go public with her allegations for almost a decade because she admired Trump as a businessman and thought he had had just a couple of episodes of bad behavior with her. Both Trump and Zervos are Republicans. Her resolve to stay quiet changed, she said, after an “Access Hollywood” recording emerged in October 2016 of Trump boasting about groping women.

                “Zervos is seeking a retraction, an apology, and compensatory and punitive damages.”

              3. Natacha, your words are like raping a woman for the second time. You demean their suffering as does Carroll.

              4. ” … well-respected staff writer for Saturday Night Live.”
                Still chuckling five minutes after coming across this contradiction in terms. Here’s how another “well-respected” SNLer practiced his “art”:


                Hey maybe our “Sexy Rape Vic” will end up in in a coke-heroin coma lying in a filthy bungalow strewn with “empty wine bottles, dirty laundry and pizza boxes.” To quote Macaulay: “What better way for men to die ….” (sorry, Tom).

              5. She thought a 6’3″ man was going to put on a lace bodysuit, in her size, over his suit? And she went with him to watch him put it on over his clothes?

                A bodysuit is not a one size fits all garment. They’re snug. Although Carroll is a tall woman, her build was not like Trump’s 6’3″ frame.

                Her story makes no sense. Yes, her accusation describes rape. She said it wasn’t rape because she didn’t allow him to go through with it. I found that off-putting, as rape victims don’t allow anything. I don’t agree with her definition.

                Maybe she owns clothes with Trump’s DNA on it. That would be important evidence, although I don’t know if it would mean that he raped her in a public place.

                The photograph showed Carroll and her husband speaking with Trump and Ivana at an event. The man has met tens of thousands of people at events over the past few decades. He wouldn’t remember very many of them. He does have a history of dating a lot of beautiful women, and for some affairs. Obviously, a photo at an event does not prove they knew each other.

                Why would a woman with a history of abuse accompany a married man she described as someone she recognized, but didn’t know personally, into a dressing room with lingerie? Usually, that’s a hookup. Either she made the whole thing up, they hooked up in a dressing room as a fling, they made out in a dressing room but she changed her mind, or Trump raped her right there in a department store. Any of these could possibly be true. The only way to find out is to ask questions.

          2. Natasha, absurd apparently listens to the voices in his head so often he lets them complete his sentences, leaving the rest of us with dropped draws.

            1. “JanF.”/ “Anon”/ “anon1″/” now back to anon” can always look to Natacha as a model of rational discussion.

          3. Natqacha – you apparently did not watch the video with Anderson Cooper. Go watch it, replaying it if necessary, and get back to us.

            1. If you are interested in the truth, then you investigate the strengths and weaknesses in a story. If you are only interested in political warfare, then you ignore the weaknesses, and attack those who would ask questions.

              This was a high end, popular department store famous for its customer service, in the most populous city in the country – NYC, during business hours. The dressing rooms have to be unlocked by an attendant to try anything on.

              Her story is that he went into a dressing room with her, and a “colossal struggle” and assault ensued. She said that after 19 previous men had sexually abused her, she accompanied Trump into a dressing room so that he could try on a lace body suit, over his clothes. The body suit was in her size. I suppose she went in there with him to help him stretch it a whole lot. How did she get a man into the locked dressing room, and why would no one respond to an assault in progress in a public space?

              The thing is, that none of us know what the truth is, and what’s not. Not you. Not me. Nor anyone. What we have is a story, and a rebuttal, but no proof. The accuser has also accused 21 men in total, and made a very similar accusation of a public assault by another man. I posted a video to Anderson Cooper in which she briefly mentioned rape fantasies before he immediately cut to a commercial break.

              There are concerns, for sure, but that doesn’t mean for sure she’s lying. Just that her story bears further scrutiny. I am not inclined to believe any stranger based on her word alone, nor am I inclined to believe Trump’s denial based on his. Why aren’t you asking any questions? I suspect you would believe anything because you dislike Trump, but that’s not justice, is it? An investigation will hopefully uncover the truth, and that truth should be based on facts, whether it hurts or helps Trump.

              When anyone makes an accusation, the appropriate response is, prove it to the best of your ability. Convince me.

      2. She responded that “most people think of rape as sexy.”

        While at the gym this morning at oh dark hundred, the TV monitors were assaulting members with CNN, MSNBC and local affiliates. Each and every one of them were doing their best to rape viewers with their lies, violent thrusts and nonconsensual penetration. Mueller is “testifying” July 17th. For the next 3 weeks Americans will be gang banged by the main screed media with “mueller, Mueller, MUELLER”, so that Jerrold Nadler and Nancy Pelosi can get off since their appetites are of another realm. Eeeeuuuwwww

        Can’t they be placated with a quickie? how about them performing a partial birth abortion, decapitate Mueller as if he were a new born infant, and explain to Americans they are just trying to give us a choice since the creature is an inconvenient truth?


        1. Could they not have found a less inept, corrupt and dishonest cop to run an objective and comprehensive investigation of potential Russian interference? Muler talks about Russia “interference” on the interweb when he doesn’t even know what a Facebook or Twitter is. A $5k budget to troll on the internet is peanuts compared to billions of dollars of anti-Trump rhetoric pumped out by left media right here in this here country. Bob Muler is wearing no clothes.

          1. Bill, Mueller has been out of the news for several weeks now. We’ve moved on to other stories.

            1. Peter, apparently the Washington Post hasn’t yet told you that Mueller will be testifying before Congress on the 17th.

              1. LOL

                Oh boy, Peter Shill is going to be all over you in a bad way. Use protection!!!

                1. Estovir,
                  He keeps seeing you as “anonymous”. I think I was “anonymous” to him once, when I was not in fact “anonymous”.
                  With all of the “anonymouses” floating around here in these threads,
                  are you gonna fess up and claim claim credit for gaslighting Peter, even if that isn’t you?
                  Or just keep him guessing?😆

                  1. I would think Peter loves anonymous since most of his postings from the Washington Post involved anonymous sources. Estovir makes Peter feel warm and cozy just like home.

                    1. Estovir makes Peter feel warm and cozy just like home.</em!


                    2. Alan, how hypocritical of you to say that. Half of your comments are from unknown sources. They are more than likely obscure rightwing blogs that most of us would never recognize.

                    3. “Half of your comments are from unknown sources.”

                      The sources are unknown to you as are the people that have written the op eds. To you anything not printed on the left is valueless material. That is why you don’t know very much.

                  2. Tom, last week Estovir attacked Professor Turley for causing views on this site to decline. But stupid videos like the one above and too many ‘Anonymous’ are what’s really ruining this site. To anyone with a serious interest in law and politics, these threads are looking more and more like some generic rightwing blog for losers.

                    1. i see some serious contributions being made but they come like diamonds buried in a pile of manure. separate the dirt of interpersonal conflict and the dung of nonstop anti Trump propaganda and there’s some valuable words delivered underneath

                    2. I’m betting the mountain of extraneous verbiage from Diane, recycled WaPoo articles from you, and shrewish rants from Natacha and Jill had a more severe effect on page-views. Be better, Peter.

                    3. Look to your left.

                      Do you think this post of yours added quality to the blog? No.

                      Quality begins at home. Try it some time.

                2. Is she suffering from a slug infestation? I suppose a salt ring would be very effective in keeping a horde of slugs and snails from invading, very sloooooowly…

                1. If these threads appear to some as “a generic right-wing blog for losers”, those with that perception may find a “comfort zone” if there’s a comment section in publications like Huffington Post, ShareBlue, the New York, Atlantic etc.
                  There are plenty of publications out there for those who need to be wrapped in a left-wing media bubble.

                  1. Many of the left wing sites don’t permit conservative points. Lefties have very thin skin and a soft underbelly.

                2. We know Peter that you have to be hand fed information, but we don’t care. You are almost always behind the times and have to play catch up.

      3. the lady is a nut, but she was right in her assertion, at least on the female side

        rape is one of the commonest woman’s fantasies.

        I did not know these until I read a book by self described “feminist” Nancy Friday which explored it at “painful length” My Secret Garden

        of course, rape is illegal and should remain such, and it’s demeaned not so much by private fantasies, as by false public accusations lacking in credible evidence

        1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-03-14-9603140243-story.html
          Mr Kurtz,
          “Speaking of which”, I have to admit that I never heard of the literary giant E. Jean Carroll until a few days ago.
          Nor do I read Elle magazine. But Ms. Carroll evidently has a following that goes back well over 20 years.
          This 1996 article from the Chicago Tribune has an example of, and observations about, her “work” as an “advice columnist”.
          I don’t know how well her previous books have sold, but her current book could not have been given a more effective PR campaign or promotional tour if she’d spend millions on an advertising agency’s hype.
          I don’t know how she can top the “buzz” she’s created for this book, unless she teams up with Michael Avenatti or Gloria Allred or Lisa Bloom.

          1. Never heard of her either. I bet she is chuckling all the way to the bank.

            And who is promoting her account via Twitter? That’s right, David French. I’m beginning to think we had a string of culture-war losses because the evangelical bar is chock-a-bock with people just perspicacious enough to supervise real-estate closings.

            1. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/23/books/cat-stevens-gives-support-to-call-for-death-of-rushdie.html
              Cat Stevens had some best-selling albums in the early 1970s, and his subsequent career never seemed to come close to that early success.
              30 years ago, as Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens was reported to have joined the chorus of those calling for the death of Salman Rushdie.
              There was subsequently a revival in the sales of his records.
              Some wag joked that The Cowsills had also called for the death of Rushie, hoping for a similar revival of their record sales.
              Not exactly the same thing, but this media blitz that Ms. Carroll is getting as her book is published reminded me of the value that “free media coverage” can have in boosting sales of a product.
              And of the Cat Stevens/ Cowsills joke.

          2. from your thing Nash — a quote of E Jean’s man hating verbal garbage.

            “Dear Miserable:

            Listen here sugar britches! You want a boyfriend, you get one! Scout the Army bases! Meet the fleet! Don’t wait till Miss Destiny rides again to take control. Hook up that Wonderbra, funky reader, strap on those sling-back sneakers and CHARGE! And, do try Sally Hansen’s Cream Remover for the Face. Now, git, you silly poopface, or I’ll come to Memphis and flog your sorry butt!

            E. Jean

            For all us who are “tormented, driven witless and whipsawed by confusion,” there is E. Jean Carroll, the interactive advice columnist.

            For three years, she has been telling the lovelorn and the hairy-lipped what to do. Nothing throws her. Cross-dressing. Bad hair days. AIDS. Ice cream binges. Adultery. Waffle thighs. She deals with all of it in her monthly column in Elle magazine, her call-in TV show “Ask E. Jean” on America’s Talking (3 p.m. weekdays, 10 p.m. daily on the cable channel) and her new book, “A Dog in Heat Is a Hot Dog and Other Rules to Live By” (Pocket Books).

            Carroll, 53, is a former Miss Cheerleader USA–“You don’t know rapture till you’ve led 40,000 people in a cheer”–and current contributor to Esquire. In between, she has lived on a ranch in Montana, walked across New Guinea, covered wars, married and divorced, married and divorced, and written for “Saturday Night Live.” A 1987 sketch that had William Shatner falling in love with his butt was nominated for an Emmy.

            Q–You’ve had a rather checkered life . . .

            A–Thank God. You want to have a complicated, checkered life. If you haven’t had one, start today.

            Q–What qualifies you to give advice?

            A–My birth. I was born a genius. I was born to avenge my sex.

            Q–How do you go about giving advice?

            A–I have a very special, very bizarre gift. When I hear a voice or read a letter, I can immediately enter the person’s bloodstream. I understand everything. On the other hand, I remain very cold and dispassionate.

            Q–You advise people on everything from removing unwanted facial hair to dealing with rape. It seems like an awesome responsibility.



            A–Yeah. I sit and worry about this stuff all day long. On the way home, I’ll worry about what I said or forgot to say. I’ll get home and call people and tell them I screwed up. I worry all the time. I’ve got these stacks of letters that say, “Please, please, please help me.”

            Q–What does it mean that people are writing to a stranger for advice?

            A–It means they don’t have anyone else to turn to or they’re too embarrassed and they’ve read the column and they like my take on things. They know I’m pretty much going to tell them to do it, whatever it is. Go do it! That’s the voice that’s been lacking for females for the last 4 1/2 million years: that obnoxious, screeching sound of E. Jean telling young girls to be raucous.”

          3. she keeps reminding people of how a long time ago she was attractive. she sure isn’t attractive now, not because of her age but because of aging poorly

            nothing less attractive than an angry middle aged woman who has lost the attention her looks and bad behavior once commanded, and now is pathetically manufacturing libels to regain the eyeballs which have now turned away

            a woman over 50 can be both beautiful and interesting, and she is neither

            1. She’s 75. Old. She hasn’t qualified as middle-aged in a dozen years or more.

              1. And at this point in her life she has nothing to lose by telling her story.

    2. The Washington Post has filled its pages with innuendo directed against Trump. They aren’t acting as a news source rather they are acting as a trashy gossip paper that talks about women with three heads married to a man with four. This claim sounds like it has zero merit but appeals to your type of individual.

      1. The author does not dispute that since Kessler lists the known facts and the reasons for his judgement, we can weigh them and agree or disagree, and I have done both. Getting the facts together is the key, not his judgement.

  15. Barack Obama and Joe Biden had plenty of mistakes, misdeeds, lies, blatant corruption, and scandals, yes, scandals, during their 8 years in the White House. But the media? Not a peep about ANY of it. The media still, to this day, protect Obama and nearly all Democrat politicians.

    When every article about Barack Obama being on yet another extravagant vacation, hanging with rich and famous celebrities (which is all he did for 8 years in the White House) ends with the following sentence, then you KNOW the media double standard is fully in effect ——–>

    “We’ve come to expect this type of setting from Obama in the few years since he’s left The White House, and after 8 years … he deserves every minute of R&R he can get.”

    Did you get that?? They just spent time renting a $60k a week villa in France.
    Did you get that?? $60k a week!!! Oh but, as the sycophantic media tells us — Barack “deserves every minute” of his nonstop luxurious celeb filled vacations —why?? because he worked so hard for 8 years. Oh really?? It’s Un-f’n-believable. What a crock. Barack Obama is a fraud. And most of us know it.

    1. Anonymous says: June 25, 2019 at 8:05 PM

      “When every article about Barack Obama…ends with the following sentence, then you KNOW the media double standard is fully in effect ——–>

      “We’ve come to expect this type of setting from Obama in the few years since he’s left The White House, and after 8 years … he deserves every minute of R&R he can get.”

      Aw, come on. Every article? Or just one TMZ article. Are there others? Give us some links.

      I smell “envy”…and maybe a little bit of something else.

      1. The something else you smell is disgust. Barack Obama got elected because he is half black and could deliver a speech. Other than that, the man had done little in life besides smoking pot, snorting cocaine, some community organizing and agitating, and part time law lecturing. Then he chose a political “career” and ultimately spent 8 years in the White House traveling the world on AF1, partying with every celebrity he ever wanted to meet, and working hard on his public image, popularity polls, and golf game.

        What did he “do” for the working people in America? Obamacare? Please. He accomplished nothing. He traveled the world trashing America. And now he is a mega rich jet setting celebrity himself — which is all he ever wanted to be. He is mega rich because someone ghost wrote books for him and Michelle that made them uber rich. Woop de do.

        But Donald Trump is sneered at? He actually DID something other than be a “politician” who got rich off the taxpayers. Donald Trump took what his father gave him and he built something. He built buidlings. He built a business. He built a brand. He is now “doing” things to actually help make lives better for working Americans. He is not “becoming” a mega rich celebrity BECAUSE of his position as president, unlike Barack Obama.

        Barack Obama’s glamorous life is what it is today BECAUSE he got rich being a politician in “public service”….Please. There is something seriously wrong with people applauding him and his family every where they go. Why? What did he actually “do” that made Americans better off? He becamse a super wealthy celebrity who hangs with the 1%, that’s all he’s done. He’s made off pretty well for himself after only 8 short years of “working” as a “public servant” — wouldn’t you say? He sickens me. So does his wife.

        1. Sure, the ACA which is the lasting first step toward universal coverage and which maintains popular support, led us out of the great recession – worst since 1929 – and into now the longest US recovery since WW2 and while out-perfoming all but neck and neck Germans on recovering from the world wide recession, new Missile treaty with Russia, deal ending Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapon, Paris accord, the TPP, new CAFE standards, bipartisan immigration reform which passed the Senate but road blocked by GOP in House, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act, and on and on. He is presently ranked as our 12th most effective president by historians.


          1. Hogwash. Every bit of it. Barack Obama was and is a complete fraud, an empty suit, a puppet on a string — who was created by, elevated by, and still protected by the so-called “watchdog” media.

            1. I feel your pain buddy. Your guy is not only an ignorant lying narcissist who couldn’t make a deal with his own party, he’s a fat toad who disgusts most Americans.

              Good times.

                1. “I am with you. I will fight for you. And I will WIN for you.”
                  –President Donald J. Trump

                  Yeah baby!! It’s time to get off the Democrat Pain Train and hop on board the Trump Train!! No PAIN, No PAIN! Just WINNING for America! Choo Choo baby !! 🙂

              1. Anon — btw, your guy was a lying narcissist too. Those are two qualifications for just about any successful politician. And now your guy, Barack is well on his way to becoming a billionaire who hangs with the 1%. Who was he taking care of? The black community? Nah. Well, maybe IF you count Al Sharpton and black celebrities and pro athletes who regularly partied with him at the White House. Was he taking care of Hard working Americans? Nah. Who are we kidding. Obama took care of himself. Barack Obama skated off to HIS billionaire lifestyle having done NOTHING for anyone but himself. He’s the very definition of “narcissist.”

          2. Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus led us out of the 2008-2009 recession.
            Which officially ended in June, 2009.
            Anyone who thinks that ObamaCare is what led us out of the recession might benefit from a course in remedial economics.

            1. Tom correctly notes the stimulus package, which was about $900 billion – less than Trump’s stimulus package – and included about 1/3 tax cuts for working people with the balance going to helping local governments (about 100 teachers were kept on in our county through it for example) and infrastructure programs was the primary government action that got us going again. Automatic increased spending for unemployment, food stamps, etc was another part. By contrast, Trump’s tax cut stimulus is costing about $1 trillion, with most of the going to the richest, and was started – unlike the Obama Stimulus package – at a time of economic growth, and now with diminishing returns.

                1. Anon has a lot in common with a gerbil. They both dig holes and run around in a wheel while never getting anywhere.

              1. There were several “stimulus packages”, resulting in deficits of over a $Trillion for the first 3 years of the Obama Administration.
                ( I’d have to double-check that to be sure….I think it was 3 years).
                Had a major chunk of it been spent as advertized….on “shovel ready projects”….we would not be going back as often to the discussions about our crumbling infrastructure.
                The “Cash for Clunkers”, the $10,000 credits for homebuyers, and some other goodies in these stimulus programs did have positive impact on boosting auto sales and re-inflating the housing market, but these cyclical industries would have recovered in time, as they had recovered from previous recessions.
                The depth of the 2008-2009 recession just meant that it would be a slower-than-average recovery.
                There’s still an ongoing debate years later about the allocation choices
                of the stimulus programs’ money, and whether it was worth stacking on the $Trillions in additional debt that only got us back to a c. 2- 2 1/2 % anemic growth rate.
                Without rehashing that debate, ObamaCare itself was not a significant factor in the recovery from The Great Recession.

                1. No one has said that the ACA was part of the recovery that I am aware of.

                  “The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019….”


                  Still less that the Trump stimulus, spent when needed, unlike the Trump Stimulus, and most of it went to working people, not Ivana and Jared.

                  1. The quote from anon’s earlier comment about ObamaCare appears below in the italicized text..

                  2. Without presenting comparable numbers, it’s easy to claim that the Trump tax cuts “cost more than” the Obama stimulus spending lrograms.
                    The primary thrust of fiscal stimulus in the Trump Administration was/ is the tax cuts; not Cash for Clunkers, a $10,000 credit for homebuyers, subsidies for Solyndra and similar companies, oher subsidies for appliances, hybrid vehicles, etc.
                    I didn’t like many aspects of the Trump tax cuts and I’ve said so. But the fact is that those cuts were at the core of Trump’s fiscal stimulus, whereas the Obama stimulus programs involved huge spending programs ( as well as tax cuts).
                    There’s been no “apples-to-apples” comparison in anon’s presentations and claims made about “the cost of the stimulus programs” of the Obama era v. the Trump era.

                    1. Anon doesn’t know what he is talking about and is just repeating left wing talking points. Don’t forget Anon / Jan F. Took an HR Block course to prepare his taxes and now he thinks he is an expert on the economy.

          3. the ACA which is the lasting first step toward universal coverage and which maintains popular support, led us out of the great recession – worst since 1929 –

            That’s cute. The people at Correct-the-Record need to up their game and send you less risible talking points. Casey Mulligan’s period critiques of the effect of Obamacare on labor markets are worth a read.

            The recovery in production began in the spring of 2009 and it antedated any direct effects you could associate with the Democrat’s stimulus bill. All of the measures to address the banking crisis were in place before Obama took office and the amendments to monetary policy were in place as well. The only thing the Obamabots added was legally dubious measures to benefit their clientele in the auto industry.

        2. Is this ‘Anonymous’ really Estovir?? Or is it someone equally as stupid? Because the comments above are exceptionally stupid, even for Estovir.

    2. Let’s encourage Obama to hobnob with the rich and famous so that he and his ugly wife stay out of politics forevermore. I wish them all the fun which can be had!

      1. Good point, Mr. Kurtz. But they’ve been hobnobbin’ with the rich and famous since the very beginning of their rapid “rise” to power and prominence. And now? The Obama’s are living the lifestyles of the rich and famous 1% who they always railed against. At a certain point, you’ve made enough money, right Barack?? Talk about hypocrisy.

        Here’s a question….the Obama’s said they stayed in Washington DC only so their daughter could finish high school. She just graduated. Where will the Obama’s be moving to now? Or will they stay in Washington DC?

        Mark my words, they are scheming, plotting and planning and they are up to no good. Just watch if they stay in DC.

        1. they are lazy and they are done with politics. they are having fun and not going back to the hard work and hassles of being officials. they’re done mark my words

          of course they are hypocrites but that’s almost like saying politicians are narcissistic. of course, it’s practically a job requirement.

          1. They are “lazy” to be sure. That’s what happens when you are adored and adulated and sucked up to for just being “you”….

            And Michelle who has been touted and endlessly praised for her sense of “style” with her photos being plastered all over magazine covers, has no idea how to dress. Look at any photos of her travels around Europe and elsewhere, she is unbelievably tacky and lacking “style” in any sense of the word. She has an unlimited budget for clothing and she looks tacky and cheap even in a $600 top.

            Like I said, and I am not alone in my sentiments, the both of them, frauds and America-haters that they are, disgust me.

        2. A student who worked on the Harvard Law Review offered later that Obama seemed to want to be the President of the Review rather than accomplish anything with the job. Another, who had at an earlier point in her life known the singer Joan Jett, said that Obama and Jett were the only two people she’d known who she’d witnessed remanufacturing their personalities in real time. Look at his career: two years and change as a copy editor for a company which produced corporate newsletters under contract, two years and change working for some Alinskyite outfit in Chicago, three years as a law student and summer clerk, a year and change writing a useless book, five years (pro-rating part time and seasonal labor) teaching law at the University of Chicago, about three years practicing law, and 12 undistinguished years marking time in legislative bodies. Betwixt and between, he ran the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for the Joyce Foundation — right into the ground. His wife wanted him out of public office ca. 2000, and was quite disappointed that land the presidency of the Joyce Foundation in 2000, a position he’d interviewed for and promised a handsome salary.

          As for her, her work history over the period running from 1991 to 2008 was pure patronage, graft really. She quit practicing law in 1991 and allowed her license to lapse two years later. It’s not clear what she did all day for 17 years, but it is known she got handsome raises each time her husband landed a better position.

          It’s doubtful MO is interested in much other than shopping, decorating, recreation, and girl talk. As for him, its a reasonable wager any object other than running his mouth and playing golf has something to do with spiteful exercises in wirepulling harassment of people who annoy him.

          1. I agree about Obama but if you are under-rating Joan Jett you will catch hell from me, I am a fan of hers and Lita Ford alumnae of the Runaways


            Just so happens i was watching this video “cherry bomb” just yesterday on youtube

            1. She wasn’t remarking on Jett’s music. Just how the experience of being in the same room with Jett changed over time.

          2. Thanks absurd, I love excuses for posting this commentary from an Obama Law School Classmate who became an officer in The Federalist Society and in WH Counsel for Bush W.

            “Bradford Berenson Harvard Law, class of ’91; associate White House counsel, 2001-’03

            ….You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits…..

            ….There were at least a large handful who probably had the intellectual and personal characteristics to be good leaders of the Review. From among those, the conservatives were eager to have somebody who would treat them fairly, who would listen to what they had to say, who would not abuse the powers of the office to favor his ideological soul mates and punish those who had different views. Somebody who would basically play it straight, I think was really what we were looking for.

            Somebody who would basically play it straight, I think was really what we were looking for.

            It was very hard to find. And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill

            And Barack very much fell into the latter category. …

            [After Obama is selected,] he does a very able job as president. Puts out what I think was a very good volume of the Review. Does a great job managing the difficult and complicated interpersonal dynamics on the Review. And manages somehow, in an extremely fractious group, to keep everybody almost happy.

            Some of the people who are not as happy as others, I think much to their surprise, are some of the African American people who believe that now it’s their turn.

            Absolutely right, absolutely right. I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there’s an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it’s our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.

            And Barack was reluctant to do that. It’s not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that. …

            He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn’t wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn’t do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.

            He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. …

            It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.”


            OK, absurd, go back to whatever misinformation chamber you prefer. As a Trump supporter, you couldn’t live without one.

            1. Yesterday, selling copy for the NYT

              Today, shining Obama’s boots.
              They thank you Anon!

              So how did Amy Klockyoubar do in the debates? Did she knock any socks off?
              I hear not ,but i didn’t watch it. I promise I will read your opinion if you take the time to share it.

              I did see that she tried to pander to the illegal invader vote beforehand, however


              I hear my longtime favorite Tulsi Gabbard did well, good for her! Now there’s a pretty lady!

              1. Mr. Kurtz,
                I tuned into what I thought was NBC again to watch the debate, and once again it appeared that Univision or Telemundo was actually covering the debate.😉
                And I normally don’t even get those channels.

                1. ( I expect that we’ll soon be hearing the candidates at these debates to launch into Hindi, Urdu, Mandarin, and Cantonese.
                  There’s a school district in Gov. Inslee’s state that boasted of the more-than-100 languages spoken but its students.
                  He’s really got his work cut out for him).

                  1. Following English, the most spoken languages in the United States are Spanish, Chinese, French, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.

                    1. Way far and away Spanish. And French, I doubt that. Tons of Haitians here but they really speak Creole, just learn French in school, and if they had gone to a lot of school in the first place, they wouldn’t have come here. Quebecois is closer to standard French than Creole, is my impression.

                      Also true to some extent of Chinese. A lot here come from South, Speak Guandong-hua, that’s Cantonese. Or, if they’re from Fujian, an assortment of Min dialects, Hakka, Hokkien, Fuzhounese, as first languages, and would have Mandarin as a close second language learned in school more than the home. A lot did not have a lot of school so their Mandarin would be kind of weak. Go into a Chinese restaurant out in flyover here, and oftentimes you will meet someone from Fujian who can’t understand Mandarin the way it’s spoken by a northern Chinese, let alone when it’s mangled by a laowei.

                      Some of these Indian migrants from Central America are illiterate in Spanish as well as english.

          3. DSS, to me Obama is a pure creation and at least one of his books told me he was not fit for the presidency. He wasn’t and we are paying for his failures now and will be paying dearly in the future. I once read Michelle’s paper that was intentionally hidden until someone released it. I was not impressed except for her anti-Americanism.

            Your summary of the two seems to be on target.

            1. My wager would be that few senior theses are all that edifying. IIRC, she selected a shizzy interdisciplinary major, so hers might have been worse than most. What’s curious about her is that nothing she’s done says she ever had a genuine technae. She might have preferred to be a housewife or to work p/t in some capacity, but the distinction between her tastes and his earnings meant that wasn’t really an option. Critics who’ve rummaged around in available financials have contended that until 2004, when sales of The Audacity of Mope and Screams at My Father took off, the two were sinking ever deeper in debt, with the revolving debt notable. As a member of Congress, he’d have had to fill out financial disclosures, though these are pretty coarse grained.

              Anon / JanF had taken time out from amending his tax returns and stiffing his ailing employees to spew about 750 words recycling some quotations from Think Progress et al, the burden of which he chooses not to acknowledge: that the leftists on the Harvard Law Review were sufficiently numerous and obnoxious that one of their own was spending the bulk of his time trying to placate them rather than the people he actually disagreed with.

              Wm. Dyer, who used to blawg under the handle ‘Beldar” has addressed the matter of Obama’s scholarly writings. Over the years running from 1989 to 2004, they consisted of a single unsigned case note that it took some effort to identify. Dyer found the procedures used to select editors at Harvard to be quite strange in comparison with those used at UT Austin a dozen years earlier.

              Anon also doesn’t wish to call attention to the distinction between the Berenson career trajectory and the Obama trajectory. Berenson’s been a working lawyer for 28 years. Obama was employed as an associate at a 12 lawyer firm for three years, then was granted ‘of counsel’ status, then allowed his license to lapse six years later. Anon fancies its of great moment that Obama navigated office politics among Harvard law students satisfactorily a generation ago as if the rest of us hadn’t spent 8 years observing how he behaved in office. One of these is more consequential than the other.

              1. DSS, Anon chooses outliers. I don’t think he knows any better.

                I am waiting for Anon’s comments on Google’s conspiracy released by James O’Keefe. Right now the left seems very quiet about the video knowing that more will likely be coming. I already asked Peter about this but I don’t know if the talking points from the left have come out yet.

      2. “ugly wife”.

        Yeah, a real skag.

        Kurtz proves again he’s a liar, and from his mysoginistic ramblings, probably a lonely guy.

        1. One cannot help how they look physically, but Michelle CAN afford to hire a personal stylist who knows how to “dress” her with flattering and tasteful clothing choices. And if she already has a professional helping her right now? Fire them, immediately. Oh and Michelle, we know you do lots of push ups and are very proud of your big muscular shoulders and toned arms (that are bigger guns than your wimpy husband’s) but please….put some sleeves on every now and then. Those bare shoulders of yours are not nearly as flattering or attractive as YOU seem to think they are. #God Awful Sense of Style Even With Unlimited Budget.

          1. We live in a world awash in misery and suffering — and this is what troubles you? These are the petty and trivial things on which you choose to focus?

            1. My big beautiful brain can handle processing a “both/and” agenda. I’m a mulit-tasker. I’ve got my finger on the pulse of both the big issues and the petty ones the media chooses to glorify because “Obama.” And you?

            2. btw…if you really care about the “misery and suffering”….what have you done to call out Speaker Pelosi’s (and the Democrats) reprehensible politicizing of humanitarian emergency relief for the border, because “Trump”???

              1. So many lies so little time to refute, the border crisis is a tRump fiasco. His supporters’ ignorance is evident in your posts.

                1. More correctly, the border crisis is a Democrat created fiasco they are shamefully politicizing for the sole purpose of hurting Trump.

        2. i saw this. you can troll me for personal details, but i don’t really matter. I am just a humble person, an ant, a bacterium before the throne of God and the vastness of the universe.

          But what goofs don’t understand, because it seems counter-intuitive to them, is that women love a strong man who doesn’t pander to idiotic modern day ideas about “gender roles” etc. So i have excellent companionship whenever i please.

          But, i only have so much time in my day for companionship, however. given many other fun and productive activities. Yet, when I’m ready for fun and relaxation, you can sure there is always a beautiful and cooperative woman there for me. You needn’t worry, i am very pleased with that area of my life, I am very lucky, blessed with good looks and many other good blessings from my ancestors, and companionship from women is the one thing that has always come easily to me! I’m hoping that my good fortune holds up, as I am an aging, overweight, old white guy with arthritis and thinning hair, but it seems like I am luckier than ever these days. I wish likewise good fortune to you too!

          1. Kurtz as you get older the ratio of women to men rises dramatically so as long as your health holds out I think you will continue to have companionship.

Comments are closed.