In Defense of Dershowitz: Critics Slam Harvard Professor For Ethical Representation and Intellectual Opinions

YouTube Screenshot

Alan Dershowitz is hardly someone in need of the defense of others. However, there is a disturbing level of acrimony and personal attacks directed at the retired Harvard professor after he agreed to speak in defense of President Donald Trump. As I tweeted last night, I have strong disagreements with Dershowitz over his theory that impeachment articles must be based on criminal acts. However, I thought his presentation last night was outstanding. It was powerfully presented and he made some compelling points. While we disagree, it is a presentation that everyone should have watched. The shame is that few people are watching and even fewer are listening. To make matters worse, liberals (who pride themselves on supporting individual rights) are attacking Dershowitz for defending unpopular individuals like O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. That is what criminal defense attorneys do. They represent accused and often highly unpopular individuals. It is the rankest form of attack to suggest that a lawyer defending a client is somehow tainted by the crimes alleged in the case.

I have previously discussed my disagreement with Dershowitz’s theory, including what I believe is a misreading of the trial of Andrew Johnson and defense of Justice Benjamin Curtis. This however is a good-faith academic dispute. Dershowitz put on a marvelous defense of his view last night.

Indeed, as a Madisonian scholar, my only objection was when Hamilton’s picture was used for Madison. The image appears to be Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull from 1792. It was an ironic moment since Dershowitz was objecting that commentators are blurring the views of the Framers. But I digress.

I still believe that he is wrong on a number of points from the meaning of “high misdemeanors” in England to “common law” of impeachment. Where we agree (and I testified earlier to this point) is that basing an impeachment solely on a non-criminal abuse of power is the most difficult and problematic courses for the House. I also agree that such an allegation invites subjective and abusive theories.

However, what concerns me most about the commentary is the ad hominem attacks on Dershowitz. Commentators attack him for taking famous, high-profile cases and portray him as only motivated by the press. They do not make the same objections to liberal professors and commentators who routinely take such cases and make media appearances from Laurence Tribe to Neil Katyal to Noah Feldman. They agree with their opinions so their motivations are not questioned. The fact is that none of their motivations should be questioned. They are all insightful and influential thinkers.

I fail to understand why defenses in cases like OJ Simpson or Von Below is an indictment of Dershowitz as an attorney. He is an unabashed and iconic defense attorney. He has earned respect for his advocacy on behalf of some of the most despised individuals. We have had our strong disagreements. However, I still respect his career and his intellect.

Rather than “ineffective,” Dershowitz’s argument laid out the best possible case for a highly challengeable theory. He showed that there is a defensive basis for theory and last night certainly showed the Dershowitz has not diminished in his skills or intellectual prowess. I would not obviously have made this theory the center of the Trump defense. However, if the President wanted to make such a case, Dershowitz gave him the best possible presentation of its merits. Again, Alan Dershowitz needs no defense, but he deserves a modicum of respect for erudite and elegant argument.

252 thoughts on “In Defense of Dershowitz: Critics Slam Harvard Professor For Ethical Representation and Intellectual Opinions”

  1. “liberals (who pride themselves on supporting individual rights) are attacking Dershowitz for defending unpopular individuals like O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein.” What world do you live in Jonny? And where is your blog piece on the incredibly outstanding job Schiff did? Oh, cannot suck up to the president by publishing that piece–I understand.

    1. And where is your blog piece on the incredibly outstanding job Schiff did?

      The professor leaves the satire to The Babylon Bee.

      1. What incredibly outstanding job would that be? failing to bring charges that meet the Constitutional standard of high crimes or misdemeanors or failing to bring evidence and witnesses or failing to tell the facts instead of lies on the senate floor? If Schiff had been prosecuting this case in a criminal court, the Judge would have declared a mistrial and sent him packing. Is that the outstanding job you’re talking about?

  2. The attacks on Professor Dershowitz merely because he is presenting legal opinions favorable to the President is symptomatic of the intolerant left’s bullying and terrorist tactics. In another recent instance, Harvard dismissed Professor Ronald Sullivan as faculty dean at Harvard Law School merely because he was representing Harvey Weinstein. And in yet another recent case, criminal defense attorney Christopher Darden was forced to withdraw from representing the man accused of murdering rapper Nipsey Hussle, after receiving death threats.

    So, when you have a major educational institution like Harvard shamefully capitulating to the left’s subversion of the Constitution, that institution effectively endorses such bullying and terrorist tactics and the left’s subversion of the Constitution.

  3. Alan Dershowitz needs no defense, but he deserves a modicum of respect for erudite and elegant argument.

    There was a time in Western Civilization when people would respect and consider an “erudite and elegant argument”. Our nation has fallen into an abyss and accelerating rapidly where people in general use modern day hieroglyphics (emoticons), unintelligible speech, awful grammar and dysregulation to convey their “feelings”.

    Turley prides himself on “reason” and “scholarship” but he often fails in these realms by adopting relativism and selective memory of the principles that founded this great nation

    For Jonathan “I was raised Catholic” Turley and lovers of scholastic arguments


    January 29
    Memorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, priest and doctor of the Church

    From a conference by Saint Thomas Aquinas, priest

    The Cross exemplifies every virtue

    Why did the Son of God have to suffer for us? There was a great need, and it can be considered in a twofold way: in the first place, as a remedy for sin, and secondly, as an example of how to act.

    It is a remedy, for, in the face of all the evils which we incur on account of our sins, we have found relief through the passion of Christ. Yet, it is no less an example, for the passion of Christ completely suffices to fashion our lives. Whoever wishes to live perfectly should do nothing but disdain what Christ disdained on the cross and desire what he desired, for the cross exemplifies every virtue.

    If you seek the example of love: Greater love than this no man has, than to lay down his life for his friends. Such a man was Christ on the cross. And if he gave his life for us, then it should not be difficult to bear whatever hardships arise for his sake.

    If you seek patience, you will find no better example than the cross. Great patience occurs in two ways: either when one patiently suffers much, or when one suffers things which one is able to avoid and yet does not avoid. Christ endured much on the cross, and did so patiently, because when he suffered he did not threaten; he was led like a sheep to the slaughter and he did not open his mouth. Therefore Christ’s patience on the cross was great. In patience let us run for the prize set before us, looking upon Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith who, for the joy set before him, bore his cross and despised the shame.

    If you seek an example of humility, look upon the crucified one, for God wished to be judged by Pontius Pilate and to die.

    If you seek an example of obedience, follow him who became obedient to the Father even unto death. For just as by the disobedience of one man, namely, Adam, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man, many were made righteous.

    If you seek an example of despising earthly things, follow him who is the King of kings and the Lord of lords, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Upon the cross he was stripped, mocked, spat upon, struck, crowned with thorns, and given only vinegar and gall to drink.

    Do not be attached, therefore, to clothing and riches, because they divided my garments among themselves. Nor to honours, for he experienced harsh words and scourgings. Nor to greatness of rank, for weaving a crown of thorns they placed it on my head. Nor to anything delightful, for in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.


    ℟. I prayed, and understanding was given to me; I entreated, and the spirit of wisdom came to me.* I esteemed her more than sceptres and thrones; compared with her, I held riches as nothing.
    ℣. Your purpose none may know, unless you grant your gift of wisdom, sending us from heaven your own Holy Spirit.* I esteemed her more than sceptres and thrones; compared with her, I held riches as nothing.

    1. Regarding Above:

      Here Estovir reprises his familiar role as Demolition Man. It falls on him, he believes, to blow-up any meaningful discussion.

      Estovir has no faith that Turley commenters will stick to Fox-approved talking points. Therefore Estovir must post lengthy, totally irrelevant articles to make sure readers venture no further.

      In other words, Estovir is deliberately undermining the comment threads of our host, Professor Jonathan Turley. And incredibly Estovir has the full consent of this blog’s nominal moderator. ..Go figure..!

      1. Estovir is deliberately undermining the comment threads of our host,

        You could always initiate a refund of your subscription dues by clicking on the X at the top corner of your web browser

        Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 10

        Article 3. Whether unbelief is the greatest of sin?

        Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above (I-II:71:6; I-II:73:3). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him.

        Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals. This does not apply to the sins that are opposed to the theological virtues, as we shall stated further on (II-II:20:3; II-II:34:2 ad 2; II-II:39:2 ad 3).

        If you have any questions, ask Mespo since he is a big fan of the Dumb Ox

  4. Dershowitz Put On A Great Defense

    But ‘Who’ Was He Defending?

    I saw Dershowitz’s arguement. It probably sounded great to constitutional scholars. But as a viewer I had no sense Dershowitz was representing Donald Trump. Instead it seemed like a Harvard lecture for law students regarding fine points of the constitution.

    Professor Turley feels the public isn’t engaged enough in hearing Trump’s defense. The problem is: ‘We know Donald Trump’. Trump keeps tweeting sentiments to remind us how cynical he is. His attacks on Impeachment Managers suggest he is exactly the type of president to withhold military aid for petty, personal reasons.

    Therefore Deshowitz’s best efforts come across as a stock lecture straight from the classroom.

    1. classrooms are important. the constitution matters, or it doesnt.

      beyond the constitution there is the matter of deconflicting with Russia or not.

      Remember if you ever are soon to be incinerated in a hail of nuclear missiles that you were all for John Bolton and his ilk.

      1. Kurtz, thanks for reminding me I’m supposed to hate John Bolton. It’s amazing how Trumpers keep sharing that note with liberals. The subtext seems to be “Disregard Bolton”. Liberals are supposed to say, “God no, we wont listen to that monster. I’ll believe Donald Trump instead”.

        1. You don’t get it. Bolton doesn’t care about any qpq he just wants aggressive action to advance American geopolitical interests. Because he is built that way.

          The whole alleged wrong is insignificant even if its entirely factually as you say.

          Turley has the correct understanding that a noncriminal abuse of power COULD BE a valid impeachment. But this is not it. This is a trifle. The press secretary said that right up front and they made him walk it back but he was essentially correct.

          You are faking outrage over this trifle the real purpose is basically to badger unbalance and if possible unseat Trump who is a hated rival. The bitterness over defeat in the election has driven you guys wild and Trump’s offensive tweets and outrageous trolling has enraged you into irrational strategy which will hopefully fail because if it succeeds the harm will not be to Trump who will go on with his billionaire life but the harm will be to an American which is firmly ensconced in Praetorian-ism evermore.

          And the bigger danger in that as I am reminding us today is in the threat of nuclear war with Russia… or some other momentary object of the military-intelligence combine’s schemes.

          Originally descriptive of military rule in ancient Rome, the term now refers more generally to military intervention in politics. Modern praetorianism usually develops where political and social institutions have failed …

    2. Professor Dershowitz’s was not engaged to represent President Trump. Rather, the role was akin to a legal expert called to advocate for his/her legal opinion on the charges, expressed in terms that this particular jury can understand.

    3. “But as a viewer I had no sense Dershowitz was representing Donald Trump.”

      Peter, this is a rare occasion. I agree. Dershowitz has a different political philosophy than Trump and won’t even be voting for him. His choice at least a short while ago was Biden. Dershowitz is defending the Constitution and the law. The Democrats are abusing both and he has been telling them where they are wrong and the path they can travel if they believe the evidence warrants such a path. Is that too honest a viewpoint? Does such honesty make you uncomfortable?

  5. “The shame is that few people are watching and even fewer are listening.”

    That’s called an educated consumer who prioritizes his life’s concerns over spending even a minute watching a sham show cooked up by Schiff et coup plotters. Dershowitz was erudite, witty and persuasive, but it was overkill. Like Emeril Lagasse cooking for the local jail, he was casting legal pearls before Dim swine!

  6. I realized yesterday that Dershowitz was not really trying to get the Senate to acquit Trump, cause that will happen no matter what. Instead they are pushing extreme arguments about how high a bar impeachment should be in order to use the acquittal as an argument that the Senate accepted their position and make it precedent.

  7. He’s Alan “freekin” Dershowitz – professor of law at Harvard (when that meant something), counsel to the rich, famous, powerful and naughty (my favorite case was his defense of Harry Reems) and any criticism of him is like some mindless teenager peeing on Mt. Rushmore. It might make the punk feel good but it affects the monument not at all and dries up in an instant.

    Carry on, old Lion! You’re the Constitution’s roar as long as you have the will to be so.

    1. ” (my favorite case was his defense of Harry Reems)”

      Mespo, do you remember the story of how this great attorney gets called while playing basketball with his kids. He quickly unshaved, unshowered and poorly dressed runs and meets the porn star who is atired in suit and tie. Anyone looking in would think Dersh was the porn star and Reems the attorney.

      1. “Mespo, do you remember the story of how this great attorney gets called while playing basketball with his kids. He quickly unshaved, unshowered and poorly dressed runs and meets the porn star who is atired in suit and tie.
        That’s the part I like. Because of that case, I keep a sport coat and tie behind my office door. Pays to mimic the best!

        1. “Pays to mimic the best!”

          Don’t mimic him too closely. He is emphatic about voting for Biden, or at least he was up to a couple of months ago.

    2. I respect Dershowitz and the way he takes on tough cases is always a professional inspiration.

      I don’t really like the guy but i profoundly respect him as a lawyer. A real lawyer.

        1. by watching him on tv about a hundred times over decades
          i respect him as a lawyer means a lot at least to me
          i dont need to like the guy to respect him

  8. Regardless of what Dershowitz, Turley and others believe the framers had in mind on impeachable offenses, they would certainly have agreed a president should never be impeached because the opposition party does not like his leadership and politics. He should not be impeached because the voters will likely reelect him.

      1. YNOT, OLLY actually did cite the real reasons why he’s being impeached. The articles are merely pretext and the impeachment scam is just another component of the insurance policy that the FBI’s Deep State operators spoke of before Donald Trump was elected president. Here’s Al Green from more than two and half years ago mouthing off his usual leftist drivel, with his call for impeachment:

        1. Thanks James. YNOT is not on this blog for reasonable and rational discussions. When he’s not posting Dear Diary entries, he’s trolling the blog. He’s Natacha, but less verbose.

  9. Jonathan: So you think Alan Dershowitz’s presentation last night was “outstanding” and “made some compelling points”. No one should criticize a criminal defense attorney for taking on an unsavory character as a client–even one like Jeffrey Eptstein, a serial pedophile. But Epstein was not just a “client”. He and Dershowitz were close personal friends and it is alleged Dershowitz took advantage of that friendship to have sexual relations with an underage girl procured for him by Epstein. But to return to Dershowitz’s presentation last night. Back in 1998, during the Clinton impeachment, Dershowitz said a “crime” wasn’t necessary to impeach the president. He said at the time: “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime”. Last night Dershowitz had to address this flip-flop by saying he has done more research and says he now has the opposite conclusion. Criminal defense attorneys are noted for taking contradictory positions. The main thrust of Dershowitz’s argument is that even if John Bolton’s allegations are true a quid pro quo is “not a basis for abuse of power” and “without a crime, there can be no impeachment”. Dershowitz takes the extreme position that the president has unlimited and unquestionable power. Under this theory Trump could tell V. Putin: “You can take over all of Ukraine if you get me dirt on my political opponent”. This clear quid pro quo and abuse of power would not be an impeachable offense if you follow Dershowitz’s theory of the case. This not, as you say, an “erudite and elegant argument” but a poorly assembled defense of an absolute monarch. I thought that is what we rejected in 1776!

    1. “Under this theory Trump could tell V. Putin: “You can take over all of Ukraine if you get me dirt on my political opponent”.

    2. “Under this theory Trump could tell V. Putin: “You can take over all of Ukraine if you get me dirt on my political opponent”.”

      That is pretty close to what Obama told Medvedev on a hot mike.

      Burisma and therefore its directors were being looked into for criminal activity before Trump ever made his comment. The US was interfering in Ukrainian investigations of Burisma before Trump made his comment. Trump followed the law. Obama was playing QPQ for personal gain.

        1. Ynot asks a valid question and there’s a simple answer

          Re-election. He said to Medveyedev he would have more flexibility after re-election.

          Now, I don’t run Obama down for this incident. I can give him the benefit of the doubt and i did at the time. I think he was engaging in some quiet diplomacy that was probably valid, but if you took it the way the Dem leadership takes Trump, you would not.

          1. Kurtz I didn’t scream like these idiots that Obama should be impeached and for that matter I was against the impeachment of Clinton. Things like YNOT pollute society and can’t seem to utilize Dershowitz’s idea of the shoe on the other foot. The left by increasing the size and duties of government injects politics into everything we do. That is bad and causes hostility. That is one of the reasons we should all be for smaller government.

                1. Allan – I think Tony’s prostate is the size of an orange and he has to displace that pain somewhere. 😉

          2. Flexibility with regards to missile defense and your point is? Politics is like the rhythm method, timing is everything. Obama wasn’t selling out America for his own benefit.

          3. Obama did not sell out allies for his own benefit. As for flexibility, politics is like the rhythm method, timing is everything. His reference was in regards to missile defense and clearly within his purview. So cry me a river.

    3. even one like Jeffrey Eptstein, a serial pedophile.

      There is no indication that Epstein was a pedophile at all. His nymphets were in the barely-legal / not-quite-legal category of late adolescent and post-adolescent youths. Law enforcement was able to nail him on something when it was discovered that one of them was 30 months under the age of consent and not 3 months.

    4. “X was not just a client’ oh i have heard people slam me with that too. the details dont matter.,

      but to the critic I say, Dennis are you a lawyer?

      This is the kind of remark that comes from people who don’t practice law.

      The lawyer is often the last and only kind ear and voice for a wicked man. If you say the lawyer can’t be that ear and voice then you are not just denying due process you’re denying the humanity of the bad person. Bad people are people too and to defend them is not really about defending their crimes it’s to defend their personhood. And our system that gives even the most scurrilous offenders, a modicum of due process.

      That’s worth defending and if it means that you don’t run down people like Dershowitz for breaking bread with some nasty clients, than it’s worth it to let him break bread and not run him down too hard after the fact for it.

      And there is zero proof that Dershowitz committed any sex crimes even if he kept the company of the terrible Epstein. This is guilty by implication and it’s bad talk and slander.

  10. Dershowitz previouls announced (on an NPR interview) that he wasnt there to ‘defend ‘ anybody. He laid out his case in recognition of the nefarious processes of the impeachment in play. He simply reminded us about the constitution. He took neither side of the parties.

    The definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors appears to be subjective (and some would argue insufficently defined). At best, DJT may have violated a code of ethics… Enter the standard argument : “It doesnt have to be illegal to be unethical” and it doesnt have to be unethical to be illegal. Are there any hard and fast laws which set out to condemn violators of ethics? We have entire subcultures , right here in America, who breach ‘ethics’ everyday… Is anybody going to jail for it?

  11. I agree with Dershowitz, but it goes to a impeachment in 1805 where three of the Founders spoke in defense of the federal judge being impeached, The Founders said it had to be a high crime or high misdemeanor.

  12. Dr. T – you saw what your liberal, Democrat friends did to you. When you leave the Democrat fold (or if you aren’t a Democrat), the Dems will attempt to smear, malign, and destroy you. Even worse, they will actually do so violently. Ask Rand Paul, Steve Scalise, Justice Kavanaugh, Covington Catholic, ANdy, Ngo, Wiliam Knight, children wearing hats on buses and in school, Ann Coulter, conservatiivesat Binghamton-Berkeley- Mohawk and hundreds of campuses, Jack Bishop, Pam Bondi, Kelly Conway, Ted and Heidi Cruz, conservative event attenders harassed by liberals in almost every state, the elderly in Canada attacked by Always-Fa, policemen and women, ICE agents, Operation Rescue, Ben Shapiro, Ivanka, Baron Trump, YAF members …. The Democrat tendency towards violence has been legitimized by the Democrat leadership. Their vile behavior over the last 3 years has been seen by us all…. you should have seen it sooner.

    1. SBG, I don’t know if Professor Turley yet sees what you describe to its fullest extent.

      I am said to be on the right yet I have always listened and appreciated Alan Dershowitz even when he argued against what I believe. The left can’t seem to do that and I want to know why. What is more important to the left? Their anger or their ideology?

  13. Whistling past the graveyard, switching seats on the Titanic — choose the metaphor. Dershowitz may have made the best with what he has, but to me it was a bit word saladish with the chief message being it’s not really possible for a president to be impeached. Seems he’s saying impeachment is being caught as president for crimes the Justice Dept. say you can’t prosecute a president for. Trump signed a check to pay off a porn star he had sex with 2 months before the ’16 election. Covered up the clear campaign finance violation during his presidency. Just the kind of thing you and Dersh are saying is required for impeachment (whiled playing 3 card monty with the original definition of impeachment). But the Justice Dept. has Trump’s back with a faulty floating definition of whether a president can be indicted while in office. It’s a Catch 22. Another cliche. Seems the best solution would be to ditch the impeachment process, since it’s such a politicized episode of academic mental gymnastics while also ditching the Justice Dept. silent proclamation that a president can’t be indicted in office and put things entirely in the criminal law realm that you and Alan are pushing for.

    1. ” Dershowitz may have made the best with what he has, but to me it was a bit word saladish with the chief message being it’s not really possible for a president to be impeached.”

      Basically Dershowitz is going back to what was in the mind of the founders and why. Do you want a President as exists in our 3 part government or do you want a parlimentary system?

      Do you want American law where a man is innocent until proven guilty or do you wish to choose another system where a man has to prove his innocence?

      Do you want freedom of speech or do you want government to control what you are free to say.

      Elvis, answer these questions and if you agree with American law and the Constitution then you have to change the dialogue in your response.

    2. impeachment is rarely used and very disruptive remedy. it is important to keep on the shelf. but some tools lose their utility if they are too often deployed.

      this one is like squashing a bumblebee of a problem with a sledgehammer.

      in this instance the alleged wrongs are a trifle, even if they are taken in the light most favorable to the advocates.

      this is the bottom line reality that voters will remember.

      1. Agreed, Kurtz. And my thoughts are that impeachment is unrealistic especially with the block on indicting a sitting president. Granted it’s possible to get indictment happy on a president just as it’s possible to get impeachment happy. But the individual parts have to agree as to what a whole would be. Seems the current push is definitely toward venturing into the criminal code.

  14. Alan does and Excellent Job and this is why his critics, The Left and the Media attack him. they are afraid of the truth and anyone that disagrees with them.

    It is unfortunate that we have reached this place where if say something that others disagree with you they attack you, they try to ruin you, they don’t care, ts their way or nothing.

    Keep up the good Work Alan.

  15. Dershowitz has done a 180 since his testimony about “abuse of power” being an impeachable offense. Turley can marvel about his presentation but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. He doesn’t even dismiss his previous views but claims he’s “more right now.” I was amused at his statement that, “even if everything John Bolton says is true, it’s not an impeachable offense.” Would that someone be able to ask him what does qualify?

    1. the Left has denigrated the opinions of Bolton for decades. Thus their sudden preening and 180 degrees on demanding to hear his opinions now is as vacuous as Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, et al charges contra Trump whilst defending Bill Clinton’s perjuries and influencing Lewinsky’s testimonies.

      America is impoverished by the political “leaders” in Washington DC. Forget Coronavirus. Republican and Democrat elites are a pox on America

      Article II

      …has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:

      (1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.

      (2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of a federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee, his knowledge of that employee’s involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee.

      Article III

      On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

      (2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

      (3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a federal civil rights action brought against him.

      (4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

      (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

      (6) On or about January 18 and January 20–21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

      (7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

      1. We don’t want Bolton’s opinions, if we followed his lead we’d be at war with Iran, maybe Russia, and Nova Scotia as well. There is no question he has facts, as does Pompeo, Mulvaney, and staffers in OMB. Those we want.

        1. What facts does Bolton have? The President makes decisions after asking questions of his advisors and poking them. The advisors can formulate an opinion of what the President is thinking but they cannot know what he actually believes. How can anyone descern which was the important decision for Trump? Trump looks and says that for years he has complained of money going to places like Ukraine and that should stop. He is on video saying those things years ago. Now Trump has a decision. Should he hold the money which might have a secondary benefit to him or should he just continue the mistakes of other Presidents? I think these arguments being made are crazy. When Trump passed multiple executive orders they improved the economy for the entire nation and now you want to penalize him for providing a good economy because that will incentivize people to vote for him in 2020. It’s time to start thinking past your ideology.

          1. I personally don’t think Trump believes in much besides making himself richer but “facts” include what he said and did which Bolton witnessed much of. BTW, executive orders aren’t “passed.” He just spits them out and waits to find out if they’re unconstitutional.

            1. There is little one can do with a person with preconceived notions that are so firmly fixed as I believe yours are. From all accounts it seems the Trump family has lost a lot. They voluntarily stopped international business which had become a major revenue for them. So far the most contested actions of Trump have been found to be legal and none criminal.

              Without in depth thinking you come to conclusions based on what you want not what logic and the law tell you. Here is an example of that type of thinking:

     (quite funny and sad at the same time)

              Enigma, I wish you to start thinking more clearly. You have a lot to say but your biases overwhelm the important stuff.

              1. Google this because you won’t accept anything I say. How much did Ivanka make last year while working in the White House? Jared? We’ll never know what Donald is making because 1. He hasn’t released his financials. 2. He lies about information he does release (see current legal action State of New York vs Trump Organization). Without dwelling on Russia, he made hundreds of millions in questionable real estate transactions over the years. You (or him) telling us how much he lost is at best questionable.

                1. Ivanka totally abandoned an attractive and successful clothing line that was available in department stores all over the country and only got tarnished as a brand when her dad ran for office and the mass media began to do their thing. You can be sure she lost money on this in the short run.

                  Also, north of a billion, does it really matter that much? He already had the big win on money. Now he’s trying for the big win as POTUS. It’s a different sort of competition and you seem to think he is stuck in his older persona and has not fully inhabited the new one. This is unrealistic. The man has gone from one primary endeavor to another. He has mostly left behind old businesses from his quotidian attentions, some that failed and some that did not. This seems obvious to me.

                  1. It’s true her brand took a big hit when people started becoming more familiar with her father (and her). What’s the difference between his older personna and his present one. He lies even more because of increased questions and opportunities. Still believe (if you ever did) he doesn’t know Lev Parnas?

                    1. i dont think he knows lev parnas very well, prolly met him and forgot him

                      Trump is great man, he is way above a lot of these details. Trump is a lot like FDR. The man’s enlarged my mind!

                      I’ll stop myself before I start to sound like Dennis Hopper in this clip


                      He can be terrible, he can be mean, he can be right! I wish i had words.

                    2. According to Trump, he didn’t know him at all, maybe he took a picture with him because he takes pictures with everyone. Parnas has produced several pictures, an audio tape of them conversing has surfaced with Trump specifically asking Parnas what would happen to Ukraine if US withdrew support. That’s only a snippet from a 90+ minute private dinner (with others). Glad you acknowledge Trump know him at least a little bit (something Trump hasn’t admitted). Baby steps!

                2. Enigma, what people earn and what their wealth is are too different stories. What we do know is that a huge source of Trump wealth was given up by the family so there wouldn’t be any Biden like problems.

                  1. What they earn is a whole different subject from how they earned it which does matter. Hunter Biden’s $50 K a month (?) is a pittance compared to how the Trump children are using their family connections.

                    1. enigma – Pam Bondi was kind enough to show us that Hunter was getting 83k a month for essentially a no show job at which he had no experience and in a country he did not speak the language. That comes to 1m a year which is more than the board members of major corporations get, Go to YouTube and watch the Pam Bondi segment. It is about 32 minutes.

                    2. I watched part of the segment. Bondi apparently sold herself cheap, agreeing to drop the investigation against Trump University while she was the Florida AG for a mere $25K. That amount is nothing compared to what Ivanka has made thru her family connections. She knew Christopher Steele long before the dossier which somehow never came up in conversation. You can see so clearly what Hunter Biden does but any of the Trumps… nothing.

                    3. Living in Florida, I’ve heard enough from Bondi to last a lifetime. That would be time in my life I wouldn’t get back, none of it pertinent to whether Trump abused his power or obstructed Congress. If Trump wanted to conduct a real investigation, he has the Justice Dept,, the CIA, and the FBI. Instear he went with Rudy, Lev, and Igor. There’s a reason for that.

                    4. The Trump family and children earned their money in private industry. Hunter’s income came from his father’s involvement in government. You live in Florida. Isn’t that where suddenly Maverick Schools opened up (and failed) with a Biden at the head based on influence peddling.

                    5. Lewis Amselem offered some years ago that the press pretended the Whitewater scandal was too complex to explain to their readers. He said his Foreign Service colleagues understood it immediately, because they’d seen it in posting after posting: the function of the First Lady is to launder the bribes. Sundown Joe leaves his wife out of the graft in favor of relying on his black sheep son and his brother.

        2. You don’t want war, but you want to rehabilitate Bolton.

          You can’t have both.

          Democrat propagandists are still not dealing with the reality that one of the “Deep State” beefs with Trump is his retrenchement from foreign military adventures. They pretend that he did not run on such a policy when in fact he did. They pretend he has not tried. They pretend he has only done bad things which actually worked out well like pushing our NATO allies to pay more for their own defense. They castigate him for deconflicting with Russia and pretend he is only so motivated because he is an alleged “Russian asset” when all the investigation has fallen flat about that.

          You pretend that the intelligence community bosses who presided over an expansion of our involvement in Syria under Hillary have not been openly advocating sabotage against Trump (Brennan, and others) and now….. now suddenly you want to “just hear the facts” from the most paid for whore of the “military industrial complex” if there ever was one, John Bolton. pathetic! shameless.

          If you succeed in unhorsing Trump then basically you will have knuckled under to the military and intelligence schemers permanently and Praetorianism which seemed to have been the trend will become permanent and irreversible.

          THAT is why prominent liberals and progressive like Glenn Greenwald or Tulsi have decried some of this anti-Trump mischief. THAT should be a concern for any person who desires civilian government for our county.

          “Praetorianism means excessive or abusive political influence of the Armed Forces in a country.

          Daniel R. Headrick, professor of History and Social Sciences at Roosevelt University, describes praetorianism as a type of militarism oriented to the interior life of a nation, often related to minor countries, that does not aspire to fight or win international wars, but instead to maintain its influence in the domestic political system, controlling decisions that could affect the interests of the military as a corporation, or supporting some particular political faction or party.”

          1. Nowhere have I attempted to rehabilitate Bolton, for everything he believes in that I don’t, we know what he believes in. More than Pompeo, Mulvaney, Barr, and especially Trump; I think he’s telling the truth an he has other testimony to back him up. Where are the people willing to speak under oath in favor of Trump?

            1. the defects in the impeachment process are still there. namely that the House as a whole failed to issue subpoenas rather than just a committee which made the subpoeanas defective. and the whoe thing was a big rush supposedly which is why they couldn’t go to the courts to compel discovery. but then she sat on it a month. why was that? timing……… now suddenly a warmonger supposedly will testify, in favor of the Deep State coup, surprise surprise. I suspect they knew full well Bolton would be coming to the fore.

              What precisely do you disapprove of with respect to Bolton in the past, other than the fact that he has been a Republican party guy? I have made my position clear

              here let’s hear what Pat Buchanan had to say about Bolton


              at this point you are either in favor of a Deep State coup or not.

              1. Out of the “33 days” when Pelosi was withholding the Impeachment filing, how many was the Senate actually in session as opposed to being on holiday, maybe 6? Had she not, the trial would have already been over with after an acquittal with no witnesses, maybe just a simple vote with no hearings. We still may have no witnesses, no matter what anyone might testify to, Republicans may still vote to ignore Trump’s actions. But they do so at their own peril.Mitch may become Minority Leader once again.

            2. “Where are the people willing to speak under oath in favor of Trump?”

              Alan Dershowitz a man with a left leaning ideology who voted for Clinton and will vote for Biden stood up for Trump by standing up for the law and the Constitution. Look at how he was treated by his former friends.

              1. Look hard and see if that is an answer to the question I asked. What fact witnesses are speaking on the record for Trump? Give credit to Sonderland for trying except he had to keep amending his testimony when he kept getting caught lying.

                1. Sondland’s contribution to the exercise in futility was ‘There was no QPQ. Do what is right.’ There was no other firsthand testimony. Presuming is meaningless.

            3. I can guarantee that if Trump used DOJ, the FBI, and/or CIA—— as suggested by Enigma—— the headlines would scream “TRUMP USES FBI ( etc.) TO INVESTIGATE BIDEN”.

              1. Yea, sort of like Barr traveling the world to track down Biden dirt. The schulteacher is always on here speculating they are just days away from indicting Hunter.

                1. The truth is known. The only reason to leave the country is to obtain more proof and see how wide the corruption is.

                  With regard to Hunter: Ukraine prosecutors were investigating Burisma (Hunter was a board member ) when Shokin was fired and Burisma’s lawyers were trying to get US and the Ukrainians to stop investigating the corruption. Joe knew a lot about this and investigations were reopened by Ukraine prosecutors before Trump’s discussion with Zelensky. Other countries such as Latvia were looking at suspicious payments to Hunter several years ago.

                  I’m waiting for Hunter to testify.

                2. Tony – I am patient. If Hunter is guilty, karma will come his way. Lindsey seems to think he has 51 votes to call him as a witness.

              2. I can guarantee that if Trump used DOJ, the FBI, and/or CIA—— as suggested by Enigma—— the headlines would scream “TRUMP USES FBI ( etc.) TO INVESTIGATE BIDEN”.

                The way it is supposed to work is that the DOJ and FBI do not reveal who they are investigating until and unless they have a case and are filing charges in a court of law.

                It is understandable that you are confused about this because the FBI under Comey kept announcing that they have been investigating Hillary and Barr keeps announcing his investigation against various figures that are believed to be anti-trumpers. Those breaches of ethical and professional conduct by the FBI and DOJ should give you a tiny clue who the deep state is trying to help.

          2. the reality that one of the “Deep State” beefs with Trump is his retrenchement from foreign military adventures.

            That is not the reality I see. It looks like military adventurism has increased under Trump

            The number of US troops abroad was at a 70 year low when Trump took office. It is now 12% higher and the military budget has grown enormously.

            1. The number of U.S. troops aboad at the end of the Obama Administration was 198,000.
              The current number is 194,000.
              That doesn’t look like “an increase of 12%” to most people.

    2. enigma: a valid question and a simple answer.

      something a lot worse than this.

      I agree with Turley’s interpretation that impeachment CAN be used for a non-criminal abuse of power, however, I don’t see this trifle as a sufficient wrong, whether it was violation of some petty crime or not.

      I didn’t think it was a QPQ but even if it was, it was a trivial one and no harm to either Ukraine or US interests.

      There is a principle in law of “there is no negligence in the air” from famous case Palsgraff. There must be harm done and not just a bad thing that was of no consequence.

      1. What harm could come to Ukraine if Russia believes the US just doesn’t give a damn? Hmmm. The answer isn’t, “I can’t think of a thing.” As far as US interests, you have to buy into the idea this is a zero sum gain and anything Russia gains is a US loss. Not sure that I do but the State Dept. used to think so.

        1. Dude, Obama only gave non-lethal aid. That was the better choice. Obama did not go to war over Crimea. That was a good choice. The lethal aid that Trump delivered was perhaps not a good choice. But its temporary delay is inconsequential.

          Trump’s main mistake is not dealing harshly with the attempted coup. The thing is, he probably couldn’t.

          A lot of this goes back to the troubled relationship that the CIA had with JFK. I thought Democrats had taken a lesson over that. Well my how times have changed.

          1. The missles Trump sold can’t be used against Russia under the terms of the sale. What’s the difference between that and not having them at all? There may be another reason Trump can’t act against Russia. He’s in their pocket. Until the question can be answered as to how much he owes them. How can you know for sure?

            1. I dont know and neither do you. But for a guy who’s had more than one business file BK, you can be sure he doesn’t worry too much about his creditors.

              As for the missiles, they can use them against the rebels in Donbass, which are not officially Russians. but they say they are backed by them and probably are

              I mean do we really want to be involved in a civil war in the country that’s contiguous to Russia and was part of Russia’s Empire for a thousand years or so? Seems like a bad idea to me. We almost had a scare over Russians sending big missiles to Cuba. Let’s think before we go sending a lot of little ones to their doorstep, too. That’s my simple minded humble idea. Seems like that was a sketchy choice but you guys are busting his bllz because it wasnt fast enough!

                1. this is not realistic. Enigma, read this


                  i restate that lethal aid for Ukraine is a step too far and in my opinion which is mildly critical of Trump and the Congress which authorized this aid, Obama was perhaps wiser and restrained on this count. you guys won’t admit that in any iteration of the point, because it cuts against your bosses in the war establishment who are giving you orders now. and you are executing your rhetorical role in the coup attempt like so many bootlickers of the CIA FBI and DOD capos who have been directing the coup.

                  i’m just spelling it out clearly and you’re evading it.

                  If I were you, I would not think encouraging the US military and intelligence community to usurp control in politics would be a good idea. For my part, I don’t like it, but in the long run I am sure it won’t hurt my own personal interests very much. Unless we all get our goose cooked by Russian nukes of course. Other than that I probably won’t be harmed by this even in the long run. Guys like me can live just fine under Praetorianism.

                  Always ask yourself where your long term interests lie. Sometimes the person you like the least is serving your own interests the best. And if you think that is Bolton than you are not thinking clearly. I’ve laid it all out, you can think about it. I will be ok either way.

                  For me this is kind of like Illegal immigration. For my part, it’s never harmed me directly. I have probably benefited from it. but, I have sympathy for unskilled and unlicensed workers who find themselves competing with scab labor. They are harmed, not me. But you guys think nativists are all just haters. False, but hey, think whatever you want.

                  1. you are executing your rhetorical role in the coup attempt like so many bootlickers of the CIA FBI and DOD capos who have been directing the coup.
                    What coup attempt are you talking about???

                    Are you calling the deep state swamp”s attempt to get Trump reelected a coup attempt?

                    If I were you, I would not think encouraging the US military and intelligence community to usurp control in politics would be a good idea.

                    HA HA HA that shop sailed decades ago.

                    The US military and intelligence community is making sure Trump gets reelected. If they did not want trump in the oval office he would be long long gone. They know where all of trump’s skeletons are buried and he has a lot of them.

                    You are delusional if you think you have a say in whether trump gets reelected. Its a done deal as long as he doesn’t have a heart attack or stroke he will win in 2020

  16. When I read that the left is doing this or that I’m amused because the right is much more accomplished especially when it comes to smear and intimidation.

    As to Alan, his “practice”, isn’t like the average attorney’s, he not only chooses his clients he seeks them out. As a result, the usual statement that a lawyer doesn’t reflect his client’s actions or views doesn’t apply to him.

    1. Justice Holmes perhaps you are not aware of the annual smear and defamation campaigns brought against everyone from Trent Lott to the backyard kluckers and unknown flag-waivers and poor homophobes for decades, by the SPLC, which levered a handful of lawsuits a year into a massive endowment over half a billion dollars at last glance.

      Oh and we found out the engineer of that Morris Dees was in fact harassing women and people of color in the SPLC workforce for years, and neither the fake board nor his front man Cohen did anything about it.

      SPLC has lost defamation suit in big verdict in the past couple years and narrowly escaped a couple more that were filed and dismissed. There will be more coming for their reckless and intentional libels.

      1. perhaps you are not aware of the annual smear and defamation campaigns brought … for decades, by the SPLC,

        Geez! so everyone who is lefty leaning gets smeared because of something SPLC did. Never mind that 99% of them have no clue what the SPLC is currently up to.

        Here is a clue -> big money corrupts. When Acorn started getting millions of dollars from Bank of America and Citibank they stopped working for the poor and starting working to benefit Bank of America and Citibank. You have to be really stupid not to see how big money corrupts.

        1. no not left, rather, SPLC smears everyone from backyard cross lighting kluckers entertaining five or six friends, who are all collectively predicted to be the next Hitlers, to evil flag waivers, public school prayers, homophobes and nativists, to the black nationalists, to the black muslims, the black hebrews, to the supposed islamophobes, and thence all the way to the middle guy like Trent Lott.

          Needless to say they’re obsessed with Trump and have been picking on his advisor on immigration Stephen whatsisname, Miller maybe. Who is especially getting their ire because he talked to the wrong goys, i forget who, you can’t make sense of their krap anymore, its pathetic.

          They’re losing their donation stream since they kicked the old boss Mo to the curb, got their begging bowl out for crumbs from the anti Trump forces. Prolly looking for old Soros for some new money now too.

  17. This is what the Left does. Anyone who disagrees must be destroyed. It’s a phenomenon which cannot endure. Like you testified, the weapons they use against those who disagree with them will boomerang. Who will be left standing?

      1. Read my answer to bythebook. John Bolton will be just fine. But rumor has it that ABC, CBS and NBC blocked coverage of Pam Bondy yesterday and if it pleases you to hold on to my comment for a weapon go ahead. I’ve apologized and moved on.

        1. I’d be careful listening to rumors. BTW, Fox delegated much of the trial to a little corner without sound while they bashed Democrats.
          I never had any intention of using your comment as a weapon. Just a little chuckle at the hypocrisy.

          1. I hope your heart is part of who you are as well as your education. We are the human race. Distinction of color is only used by some to demean or control. Many (not all) Democrats deceive by using race, gender and economic status to convince others they are victims and should detest those pesky Republicans (of whom many are black) because they believe a person can achieve their dreams without becoming a true victim controlled by demagoguery.

            1. “Distinction of color is only used by some to demean or control. ”

              Right Phyllis. Knowingly or unknowingly that is what Enigma seems to do. He has become so reliant on it he projects that distorted image onto society and its skin color differences. He has lived a charmed life with scholarships (basketball I think) a good job and likely a good home and family. I would think that he would want more of that for more people but he seems to dwell on centuries past.

      2. Enigma, while you are formulating your opinion remember that many voted for Trump because they didn’t want war mongering. Trump likes to listen to all sides of the argument even the extreme ones while he makes an opinion. I didn’t think Bolton would remain very long at the White House because I felt his temperment and policy differed from Trump’s. That is why Boton is now gone. Trump didn’t want to talk about going to war and regime change. You should be applauding that and relieved that we have a President who is not anxious for our troops to be in endless wars.

      3. I have always deplored John Bolton and the aggressive war mongers of both parties and I always will.

        I denounced him when he took his post and my reservations were proven correct.

        Democrat leadership of today is supremely hypocritical on this account, they were just last week whining about a possible war with Iran– which was actually deterred and made less likely, not more, by the Trump assassination of Sulemani– a calculated and mesured reprisal against Iran’s mischief— avoiding a general war the likes of which Bolton desires—and yet, this week they are elevating the most ardent advocate of war with Iran John Bolton. Despicable!

        Foreign Affairs the Jeff Bezos owned faux journal has gushing praise today for Bolton. Shameful!

        1. You can both dislike Bolton (as I do) and find him a credible witness as to conversations he heard and actions he witnessed. Others have testified already he directed his subordinates to “go see the lawyers” when they were being dragged into illegal activities. He has first hand knowledge and happens to be a war monger.

          1. Enigma, are you ignoring the context of this as a political battle that is related to geopolitical strategy and interests? This is not just a question of some small and possibly selfish delay in aid. Where people stand on the larger geopolitical question of deconflicting with Russia or not absolutely does matter.

            Now I hope you can see that even if you pretend that it doesn’t matter.


            “What gives the anti-anti-Trump left its emotional impetus is a simmering resentment against the center-left, especially the way the Russia and Ukraine scandals have made Democrats lionize elements of the security Establishment. “My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump,” writes Matt Taibbi.

            Ted Rall, who has been given space on The Wall Street Journal op-ed page to publish periodic anti-anti-Trump columns, uses one of his recent pieces to quote Doug Henwood, a fellow leftist. “It seems like a lot of Dems think that everything was pretty much OK until Trump took office, and if we can just get back to the status quo ante, everything will be all right,” Henwood says, “Add to that the fact that impeachment is making liberals celebrate spies, prosecutors, and heavily medaled soldiers — people no one on the left should have any warm feelings towards — and you get a serious feeling of derangement.”

            This is less an argument than an expression of mood. The scandals have reordered the contestants in the political drama in a way anti-anti-Trump leftsists simply can’t stomach. The spectacle of Democrats lionizing intelligence officials and other cogs in the security state creates an irrepressible gag reflex.”

            THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING CONSISTENT.. the rest of the article is not that great but that above observation was reasonably well stated.

            1. I’ll grant you there is an “anti-anti-Trump” group or the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Trump has done more to create a fondness for the intelligence agencies than anyone would have thought possible. The FBI is almost loved now by people who have traditionally resented them. None of that makes Trump any less dangerous than I believe. We were this close to being at war with Iran in the last few weeks. If he hadn’t initially lied about 34 injured soldiers, we might be in one now so he could save face. Trump hasn’t faced a serious crisis yet in his three years. God knows if there is one how he and Hannity will resolve it?

              1. you maybe believe your own BS that Hannity is all that important

                oh he’s had a few. For example. Trump has had a serious crisis back when our NATO ally Turkey said they were going to invade Syria and Trump did the only thing he could do which was pull the American guys back out of harm’s way

                you all wouldn’t stop criticizing him over that either

                the trade war with China is a deliberate crisis but a necessary one. and one that the paid off politicians of the past 3 decades wouldn’t even dare! it took a billionaire POTUS to buck the trend of the American corporate financial bigwigs and run that risk.

                i could go on and on but to admit any of it you might have to allow something good about Trump and you can’t do that. the man agitates you beyond reason perhaps.

                1. Hannity is but one of Trump’s advisors, there’s the trio running Veteran’s affairs, Lev Parnas giving him assessments about Ukraine’s vulnerability if the US withdraws aid, Rudy Guiliani, everyone except people with actual epertise.
                  How exactly has the China Trade War benefitted anyone? Certainly not farmers, even the present Phase I deal is highly in China’s favor and doesn’t deal with the intellectual property issues firmly. Prices are higher and the subsidies aren’t enough to make up the difference. His recent deal/concession was only so he can lie about how great it was before the election. The Mexico/Canada deal is little but a rewrite of NAFTA and Pelosi is bragging Democrats cleaned Trump’s clock. He’s not a good deal maker, only he says so, he’s a tool.

                  1. I am in the Rust Belt. Steel workers are very busy now. I know steel workers. Union guys who like Trump. I’m not making this up. American industry is definitely benefiting.

                    Maybe the geeks on Wall Street who specialize in complicated financial chicanery don’t like it, but the industrialists and their workers who make things here, do.

                    Phase I is imperfect but that’s all part of the “Art of the Deal.” Buy the book!

                    1. farmer are getting a bail-out. and you will notice that pigs were exempted from the conflict by the chinese since they eat so many of them.

                      moreover, news for you perhaps, but farms are rarely just family outfits anymore. they are mostly corporate agribusiness now here. i am not worried about the family farms, in this context, few as remain, because they have economic problems that no administration will solve.

                  2. why does this Hannity guy trigger you all so much? I don’t like him much so I don’t listen. You could give that a try if he bothers you!

                    1. I generally can’t watch for longer than 5 minutes before he says something so misleading I turn away. That doesn’t keep him from having Trump’s ear. Trump is accused of taking the advice of whoever speaks to him last. Unfortunately, that’s often someone with no expertise like Hannity.

          2. Enigma, aside from the problem of being an advisor to the President by publishing his book before the election one has to wonder whether or not what Bolton says was to increase the amount of money the publisher was willing to guarantee. I heard it was millions ( just like the portions released, we don’t know if that is exactly so). Would he have been offered so much if it were after the election and would his saying certain things after the election been tempered? Who knows. Certainly you do not.

            Bolton also wants to push his policies and a lot of what some might call the military industrial complex might want to do that as well so we have to accept what Bolton writes with a grain of salt especially since he released it for review before the election knowing how corrupt some members are in government that are willing to break the law and release THEIR VERSION of what was written.

            1. I’m sure Bolton’s book will highlight their policy differences which isn’t really the issues. He was in the meetings and allegedly is a copious note taker. He has important first hand information relevant to the proceedings. His policy differences, as long as he tells the truth, don’t matter. Bolton has a reputation for many things but not as being a liar. Can Trump say the same?

              1. They do matter because he is a deep state tool working for the bellicose schemers who want endless wars in the middle east and perpetual pressure on Russia. They never liked Trump in the first place

                The chief proof of Trump’s poor judgment was hiring that guy in the first place. He thought wrongly perhaps that he could pacify the warmongers by bringing their attack dog under his wing. He thought wrong.

                You think wrongly too. You think I am making it up perhaps when i say this President has been harassed from the start by powerful players inside FBI CIA and the DoD and the issue has always very much been policy. Not personal.

                Count the FBI CIA and DoD schemers up and it becomes pretty clear that this is no feverish paranoid hypothesis.. Bolton ices the hypothesis into proven theory.

                Like I said, when they come with their bill to pay, you may not like the results.

                Maybe one day you will be spied on with a FISA warrant. Maybe something worse yet to come. Of course we’re all already still under their mass surveillance NSA dragnet. Which Democrat socalled civil liberterians never did much to stop. You guys secretly love it, dontcha?

                1. He’s been under investigation from the beginning of his term becaus his campaign had 28 interactions with Russians and they play an important but unknown role in his finances. He’s been accused in the harrassmant/rape of over 20 women. He failed to pay contrctors, lawyers, and municipalities his campaign left owing tens of thousands of dollars. He lies daily. He trshes the intelligence agencies. How could such a man avoid investigation?

                  1. his campaign had 28 interactions with Russians

                    This sounds like a weasel formulation because it is.

                    He’s been accused in the harrassmant/rape of over 20 women.

                    Like E. Jean Carroll. “Think of the fantasies”.

                    1. 33 members of the campaign had at least 272 interactions with Russians…

                      none of the litany of crimes you can list came out before the election. Does that not tell you anything?

              2. enigma – as we both know, notes can be cya. I think it was Undersecretary Kent who made a note to the file about his concerns about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

                1. If I were (heaven forbid) in the Trump administration, all my notes would be cya because I’d be surrounded by crooks. Off the top of my head I believe we have 23 indictments already?

              3. Here is the thing Democrats. If this country slides into a left wing fascist regime then it is still a fascist regime. Kind of like the PRC China. That is a fascist regime, basically, far more than any supposed communism. I would be OK under that sort of regime here or probably there too given my good luck in life. Most folks are not as lucky as me however.

                Can you say the same thing for yourselves? By cooperating with this Deep State coup and elevating the warmonger Bolton, you invite the test. If this stunt succeeds, be prepared for your own Democrat “President” to one day be removed by a phony impeachment too. By a bunch of loser Congresman who have their shots called by the likes of former CIA capo John Brennan or that FBI honcho Comey. Another one you hated one day and loved the next.

                Or maybe a guy like former acting director of FBI McCabe who makes good on pulling a 25th amendment removal on an even older and more confused old guy like Biden. See how you like it when it happens. You read it here first.

                    1. enigma – his twin brother is a witness in the impeachment investigation? Asking for a friend. 😉

                  1. This would be relevant how?
                    You obviously don’t follow the right wing echo chambers. Vindman’s brother is currently the center of that universe.

                  2. lol you don’t have any clue what a fascist regime if you think that’s what we got now

                    he’s not even close to a dictator or all these geeks would be pushing up daisies

                    1. “Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.”

                      I’m pretty sure I have it right, has any other President started a sentence by saying, “I and I alone.” Has he, by executive order conducted a secret immigration policy, banned Muslims, caged children and separated them from their families (some permanently). Did he refuse to submit himself to any form of checks and balances. All of that.

                    2. enigma – the President is the lone Executive. He controls immigration policy, just ask the Supreme Court, the confirmed that again yesterday. He banned people until their visa polices were straightened out, the cages and kids started under Obama and separating them from their families is a difficult problem because smugglers are buying kids as cover (beards) so they separate them, test them, etc.

                      I think it was Obama who use I more than 180 times in a single speech. Trump tends to use the word we. He colors inside the lines.

                    3. Regarding separation of kids from their families, they separate them with no ability to track them. It seems they didn’t even consider the possibility of reuniting those families. And while the Presudent is the Ecutive, he still has to follow the Constitution. His answer to testing whether something is Constitutional or not is to do it in secret and let it be litigated once he gets caught.

                    4. enigma – you know that Trump is not down there culling the herds, right? As we have seen, the President can order things but idiots like Vindmann think they know better.

                    5. enigma – if you listened to the impeachment hearings, several of the witnesses seemed butt-hurt that they were not in charge of policy.

                    6. The ones I heard had no problem with not being in charge. They resented the rogue operation outside of policy headed up by Rudy and the Three Amigos. (Sounds like the name of a bad band).

                    7. enigma – I agree with you on the name Rudy and the Three Amigos. Actually, it may be a little racist. 😉 However, a couple of the witnesses were not happy that Trump’s policy did not meet the policy they had decided on. It was pretty shocking. I think there was only one afternoon session I did not watch.

                    8. Enigma:

                      “I’m pretty sure I have it right, has any other President started a sentence by saying, “I and I alone.” Has he, by executive order conducted a secret immigration policy, banned Muslims, caged children and separated them from their families (some permanently). Did he refuse to submit himself to any form of checks and balances. All of that.”

                      Sounds like you’re inadvertently describing Obama.


              4. Each person has their own beliefs about what happened with regard to personal interactions. Bolton was an advisor. We all at one time or another rely on advisors for advice. We ask questions and may say things to provoke responses but non of that tells us what the individual is actually thinking or doing. In the end Bolton’s statements should not exist in an election year since he was an advisor to the President. Also in the end it doesn’t matter what he says for it is in the President’s domain to control foreign policy.

                I don’t know and probably will never know how much money and anger came into the exact words Bolton committed to paper. By his release of the book at the time he did has to be accepted as a way for Bolton to be paid more. Otherwise the book more properly could have been released after the election.

                1. Allan still thinks trump committed the crime and is still trying to find an apologetic excuse for the crime.

                  here is a clue:
                  trump committed no crime
                  There was no attempt to get Ukraine to do anything in exchange for aid.

                  You can stop apologizing for something that did not happen.

                  1. “trump committed no crime
                    There was no attempt to get Ukraine to do anything in exchange for aid.”

                    Anon, you are finally saying something that sounds reasonable.

                    1. you are finally saying something that sounds reasonable
                      When have i said anything different?

                      You OTOH appear to think he did try to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and did withhold aid to arm-twist them to comply.
                      You have argued that it is trump’s right to do that because he alone sets foreign policy and he has a right to seek to root out corruption.

                    2. Trump was doing his job the way he was supposed to do it. If one takes the worst scenario that isn’t even true Trump still did nothing wrong.

                      Anon, I know the concept is difficult for you to understand. It is not totally your fault that you are a product of a poor education

            1. The whole nation understands how the acquittal was obtained by the hear no evil Senate. He will no doubt keep committing impeachable offenses including creating the friends and family plan in the Justice Dept. The question is, will you or any of the Republican Senators care? The Party thta considered itself the rule of law Party has ceded that right.

    1. Phyllis, you were personally and unrelentingly attacked by the very right wing Mespo here only about a week ago over a disagreement on policy and facts, and you should know that is SOP for most of the regular right wingers here. Post an argument they should be able to counter dispassionately and instead you get the same personal attacks over and over. What you object to is not the left, it is hateful and weak minded individuals lacking self awareness and restraint. Your trying to politicize bad behavior is in line with that same thinking.

        1. I did not and have not condemned those on the right. I limited my comments to some of the more regular posters here. I have many friends who are on the right who I respect as moral humans – and my mother was one – who I also think are often wrong. Those who still admire or defend Trump puzzle me to say the least. He is an obviously amoral, self centered liar and sociopath.

        2. Paul, I should mentioned that I don’t hold you in that group of posters here I was criticizing, while I almost never agree with you, you seem to be good spirited and without the anger and hatefulness of Mespo, TIA, Allan, and many others. Kurtz is nuts but also willing to engage without animus most of the time, except with Natasha.

          1. Kurtz is nuts but also willing to engage without animus most of the time, except with Natasha.

            The pretense here – that Natacha is anything but what she appears to be – is amusing.

          2. without the anger and hatefulness of Mespo, TIA, Allan

            Mespo chuckles at you and your shticks and your games. I’m sure it makes you angry and you just hate it.

          3. why thank you I welcome your regular opposing viewpoints. you are in good company, many people think i am nuts. But my doctor says only a little bit!

            re Natch. i demur to what you say. she disgusts me. Evidently, she can’t come on here and say a single thing about Trump except that he’s a puxxy grabbing whatever

            if there was ever a contributor who saturated their comments with more ad hominem arguments and irrelevant insults of the POTUS than her, well, Im not sure who that would be.

          4. I am mostly surrounded by Democrat party people in the Rust Belt. The Republican party is supremely disorganized and at the local level in the areas directly between Chicago and Detroit. I have in many elections voted for my friends and cronies in the Democrat party and given campaign contributions too. These were all effective and just public servants however and the Republicans had nothing better to offer. The United States owes much of its success to Democrats going back to old Massa Tom Jeff on down to the Supreme Warlord FDR and down to the folks of today who are doing diligent work in their government and private sector jobs.

            When in the past two decades or so, the Republicans could not field national candidates except for those who kept the company of the likes of John Bolton, I did not vote for them. I just left it blank. I voted for Trump and not McCain and not Romney for example. these were boring do-nothings as far as I was concerned.

            I did not vote for him but I could give you a list of things I found acceptable about Obama and his tenure was a lot less obnoxious than I expected it to be. I will say his foreign policy deteriorated under Hillary, a despicable witch and collaborator with John Bolton I’m sure.

            Over the years i have found myself with more and more “progressive” friends, and fewer and fewer the likes of whom are Hillary boosters. I used to have some who were her ardent sycophants, but we parted company over other things.

            My Republican friends are not silk-stocking poohbahs., they’re the kind of modest folks and workers who like Trump. Just as I do.

            When every person goes into the sacrosanct privacy of the voting booth, they have to make their best choices. We all wish for the best.

            1. Kurtz, seeing what the Democratic Party has done for quite awhile I no longer vote for some of the people I might otherwise vote for on a local level. Today’s Democratic Party is too destructive and crazy. It needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. Trump is doing some rebuilding of the Republican Party as well.

              Deprive Democrats of any votes to force them to change. That is not hard on a national level, but it has to be done locally as well to get them to push the party in the right direction.

              1. thats hard out here in the Rust belt where the Republicans often don’t even field a candidate for dogcatcher

                somebody needs to light a fire under Republican local party capos and tell them to act like real political party organizations and not just an old ladies luncheon groups.

                the local republicans are often precisely that. it’s not a good sign. Trump is the last hope for a real transformation into a vitalized organization, one that has truly come to represent the interests of working Americans nationwide, AND locally, or else most of this country will prolly descend into one party Democrat states within a decade. the big cities on the coasts and the ones even out here in flyover are almost all already there.

              2. i had a friend once who in an unnamed state and location easily won a local election for a dogcatcher style seat. after his name was vetted by the usual suspects and certain dubious social
                associations came to light, it was the local Republicans who tripped over themselves “disavowing” him and licking the boots of the nearest Democrats they could find, seeking craven apologies for supporting a competent candidate for a tiny, quiescent and insignificant local elected office.

                Trump is serious. The question is are the other Republicans serious. Trump can’t do it alone.

                1. None the less Kurtz we have to put the crazies away. That can be done in two ways. 1) Reducing the numbers of their votes 2) Increasing the number of votes for anyone else even if that person is distasteful.

                  The end product is to reduce the power the crazies have.

      1. Perhaps it’s this impeachment. Perhaps I should have said extreme left wing ideology instead of grouping the left. I have very good friends that don’t vote the way I do. My Democratic friends are stable individuals who avoid group thinking. I try to normally do the same but failed here. I’ll be happy to see this thing end. I hope our Constitution and Country are have not been irreparably damaged in the meantime.

        1. left and all that stuff does not matter here Phyllis. What mattes is do people want to push and antagonize the hell out of Russia and further imperil global thermonuclear war or not?

          See the military planners and intelligence geeks think we can run our American mischief all the way up to the Dnieper and then some and reap no ill consequences. They’re nuts! And their poster boy is John Bolton now embraced by neocons and Pelosi’s team alike!

            1. I fear nuclear war. If there is something worth fearing, it’s that. The fact is Russia can make it happen in a half hour’s time and we all probably die within a year or two from starvation even if we don’t get roasted at the first pass.

              Maybe you could watch some of the clips from Daniel Ellsberg I have been posting for months now.


                  1. See, Congress thinks, with good reason, that they can win a nuclear war. The Pentagon thinks that too. They have been thinking that for like 3 or 4 decades. It’s craziness that persist right under our noses.

                    There should be an end to this impeachment farce, a decisive punishment of the Deep State plotters, and then Trump should convene a big nuclear arms reduction treaty with Putin ASAP

                    one treaty has expired and another one will next year. this is not good!

                    Russia and China and the other responsible nuclear armed nations should be treated with the respect the powerful weapons we all share necessarily command, and we should enter into reasonable treaties for arms reduction and verification. This is an existential risk for civilization and should be treated with utmost seriousness.

                    Only fools pretend these things can’t be used.

                  2. I believe in Peace through strength. It is the only way our Country has not been invaded. Being friends to those who hate us has never worked in the almost 7 decades I’ve been here. I grew up when drills of hiding under school desks were routine. The Bay of Pigs was the turning point. We are not in a Cold War with Russia and Russia does not want war with us. We are under more of a domestic threat than anything else. We are headed to becoming the next Venezuela. Let’s focus.

                    1. Russia does not hate us whatsoever. They are rivals mostly because the US schemers have been trying since Yeltsin to make them into an economic colony and another node of international liberal globalism. Which does not suit them at all.

                      We are however well into another cold war. With China principally but Russia is there alongside them now too.

                      You focus


                    2. Mr Kurtz, our Country currently has a system of checks and balances which are driven mostly by two parties. Currently members of both parties are at the height of polarization on almost all issues including the destruction of our Constitution. This is the way our Country works. We disagree and allow the electorate to decide what majority will prevail every two and four years. It creates a balance. That balance is in jeopardy. It means nothing who our enemy is or are at the moment. If we give up our freedom for some promised security, we die.

                1. Curtis Le May? Oh I know, the guy they based the general in Dr Strangelove on, but let’s turn to wiki.

                  A very brave war leader for one. Robert McNamara said:

                  ” He was the finest combat commander of any service I came across in war. But he was extraordinarily belligerent, many thought brutal.”

                  and a brutal one. let’s expand on that

                  “LeMay commanded subsequent B-29 Superfortress combat operations against Japan, including massive incendiary attacks on 67 Japanese cities and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This included the firebombing of Tokyo — known in official documents as the “Operation Meetinghouse” air raid on the night of March 9–10, 1945 — which proved to be the single most destructive bombing raid of the war.[12] For this first attack, LeMay ordered the defensive guns removed from 325 B-29s, loaded each plane with Model M-47 incendiary clusters, magnesium bombs, white phosphorus bombs, and napalm, and ordered the bombers to fly in streams at 5,000 to 9,000 feet (1,500 to 2,700 m) over Tokyo.[7][8][13] …. In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings, and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city. Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target.[15]”

                  a man with 100,000 or more collateral damage of civilian life is not a good source for insight about thermonuclear war!

                  I tell you who is a better source. Daniel Ellsberg. Why? Because he squealed on the Pentagon and embarassed Nixon? No.

                  Let’s turn to the heavily noted wiki again

                  “Ellsberg entered Harvard College on a scholarship, graduating summa cum laude with an A.B. in economics in 1952. He studied at the University of Cambridge for a year on a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, then returned to Harvard for graduate school. In 1954, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and earned a commission.[3] He served as a platoon leader and company commander in the 2nd Marine Division, and was discharged in 1957 as a first lieutenant.[3] Ellsberg returned to Harvard as a Junior Fellow in the Society of Fellows for two years.[3]

                  RAND Corporation and PhD
                  Ellsberg began working as a strategic analyst at the RAND Corporation for the summer of 1958 and then permanently in 1959.[4] He concentrated on nuclear strategy[3] and the command and control of nuclear weapons.

                  Ellsberg completed a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard in 1962.[3] His dissertation on decision theory was based on a set of thought experiments that showed that decisions under conditions of uncertainty or ambiguity generally may not be consistent with well defined subjective probabilities. Now known as the Ellsberg paradox,[5] this formed the basis of a large literature that has developed since the 1980s, including approaches such as Choquet expected utility and info-gap decision theory.

                  Ellsberg worked in the Pentagon from August 1964[6] under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as special assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs John McNaughton….”

                  in short he was actually an expert and analyst of nuclear weapons command and control.

                  now you go watch the last year’s interviews of Daniel Ellsberg for some evergreen information from an expert about what can happen and what really would happen in a big nuclear exchange — im sick of posting them already.

                  Guys like this, Democrat leadership only listens to when he says stuff they like.

      2. What you object to is not the left…. lacking….. restraint.

        Good one! Excellent humor by one of the George Soros paid trolls who uses multiple aliases on here.

        Mespo’s attacks against Phyllis were a low point on this forum but he can be impetuous at times just like the rest of us. I recently apologized when I offended Cindy. Mespo, you are up to bat.

        The Left have been using Saul Alinsky principle for decades but more demonstrably against all things Trump e.g. Nomination of Justice Kavanaugh. His “rule 13” is used by the trolls on here without fail

        How Democrats Are Using Saul Alinsky’s Smear Tactics Against Brett Kavanaugh

        Chicago radical leftist Saul Alinsky’s 13 rules for destroying conservatives are effective. The first step to challenging them is actually recognizing them

        RULE 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

        Happy Feast Day of St Thomas Aquinas.

        1. And then we have estovir, who thinks pretending posters here he disagrees with are paid trolls – what if they are, beat them in an argument – or are gay, including salacious mockery. Note the irony coming from one who insists on posting his personal religious beliefs daily, and that from the religion most commonly in the news for it’s leaders child sex abuse.

          1. The dismal failures of the Catholic leadership to protect the youth are not indictments of the religion per se. You may not be getting a fair count of horror stories of that sort from the mass media which has consistently castigated the Catholic Church for most of our nation’s history. They used to call it “Popery” in the old days before most of us were born for example. Different day, different criticisms, same target.

            I could go on about the failures of other religions to protect their youth as well but it is pointless since our mass media is and always has been relentlessly secular, and when it pleases them they will trot out stories about rabbis who’ve spread herpes or the supposed crimes of Mormons and Amish etc etc and you name it., Pretty much the only religion in America the press fears is Scientology. If you can call that a religion at all.

            Politics in America is fundamentally secular and all the organized religions get that and cooperate with it fully. So they are all pretty much besides the point of our political conversations where US domestic policies are concerned. That’s my 2 cents

      3. Right and left wing are almost useless characterizations of people and politicians. It’s clear for example that John Kerry pursued a less belligerent path than Hillary towards our rivals in the middle east. A path which I approved of and have repeated that over the years. Does that mean he is to the left or right of Hillary? He is neither, he was just less of a war hawk.

        Hillary and Bolton are birds of a feather. They are favored operatives of the aggressive plotters of global dominion.

        Trump ran on deconflicting with Russia and staying out of interminable wars in the Middle east. Harassed incessantly by the Deep State, he has barely been able to move the needle on those policies.

        And see how they thank him for giving their front man Bolton a chance.

        Trump’s most foolish choice!
        I’ll give you another left right contrast that’s meaningless. Health care. The communist People’s Republic of China has more of a free market system in health care than Canada does. And the supposedly to the right moderate Democrats of America want to implement a national health care system that’s more aggressively socialist than what works reasonably well on a small scale in Costa Rica. One where you can’t even buy private health insurance if you have the money for it! What a crazy scheme that would be.

        Figure that one out!

        this right left thing has lost all meaning in the context of today’s issues.

        1. I’ll give you another left right contrast that’s meaningless. Health care. The communist People’s Republic of China has more of a free market system in health care than Canada does.
          The PRC seem to be much smarter about it. The way i understand it works is that the PRC taxes all goods at 20% (like a VAT ) but companies can deduct benefits given to employees from that tax. So in effect the state is paying for it out of the tax on production. But it doesn’t apply to imported goods – no deductions for imported goods.

          US employers are paying something like 30% of wages for various benefits and payroll tax that pays for SS and medicare. That alone makes US workers less competitive to Chinese workers. Even if Chinese pay levels rise to the same level of US pay (and it is rapidly) the Chinese system will still have a huge competitive advantage.

          1. I dont have economic analysis on this but it sounds right.

            They have an income tax. In theory. but no estate nor gift tax.

            No gift tax: that matters! If you understand how much they exchange money as gifts, (hongbao), instead of explicitly remunerative payments, you can imagine that income tax system is not possibly as rigorous as ours nor it will ever be! but the VAT catches retail revenues much more efficiently.

            also Chinese accounting is a totally different ball of wax. In an average Chinese small business, they are doing similar things to what we would consider “accounting,” just NOT on paper. This system works great for tax reporting of course, but it is not intentionally evasive– it’s just how they do business!

            I am also told by some of my guanxi who do business with larger enterprises, that at the larger scale, the accounting is often imprecise as well. Putting it nicely.

            All of this has nothing to do with left or right. I just observe that it’s a cultural system of business that has been working well for them for thousands of years. Now our great Western contributions to business are many, if I may add, such as double entry book keeping. But their international trade networks were already ancient when the Italian monk thought that one up. (luca Pacioli, 1494)

            did you know they invented paper money? yes the Greeks invented precious metal coin (Lydia) but they invented paper money. think about that.

            the communist interference with commerce in china is a wee blip on their historical screen. the nutty schemes of mao like backyard forges were a joke are soon forgotten and his famine inducing oppression of the peasants was awful but now is done. this is all a matter of supreme practicality and their attachment to ideological fads is very little, taken over the centuries measure of time.

            look at the practical implications of policies. that is important to do. ideological posturing is often a smokescreen to obscure predictable effects that some people simply don’t care about at all. like, as we have seen, discouraging peace and diplomacy with the Russian adversary.

            here the Democratic anti Trump posturing has a certain puritannical zeal to it, purity test after purity test, with insane fervor, while the overall effect that the impeachment schemes may have on the institution of civilian leadership by the President is not being considered at all.

            1. Hasn’t worked well for the ‘for thousands of years’. As recently as 1980, the place was impossibly poor.

              1. evidently it has since it’s supported the largest population on the planet. commerce ultimately serves human existence.

                also the economy was enormous throughout many times in history when the rest of the world was relatively poor by contrast. Empire, Silk Road, blah blah blah. I suspect you have heard the term “Great Divergence “before which was coined by Huntington. you can teach me the nuances and error of my ways im sure.

                finally i observe that networks of overseas Chinese which were not impaired by Mao’s late-life-lunacy were doing just fine. Those networks have been active making money in places like Vietnam for centuries.

                about the only people who have as successful of a tribal business culture over long history are the Jews. This is a compliment to both peoples, so hopefully I wont be called an anteyesemite or a racist for that one, though I’ve been called both before.

                1. Again, per the Maddison Project, the standard of living in Portugal and France in the mid-17th century was well above that in China and by the mid-18th century they’d been surpassed by a bevy of European countries (among them…Poland).

                  The territory of China (leaving aside Turkestan, Tibet, Mongolia, and Manchuria) has a land area of just north of 1.8 million sq miles. That of Europe west of old Soviet Russia is quite close to that in area. If you’re impressed with population, compare subcontinent to subcontinent.

Leave a Reply