Biden Goes Postal: The Vice President’s Conspiracy Theory Is Given Credence By The Media And Democratic Leaders

Below is my column in The Hill on a conspiracy theory being pushed by presumptive Democratic nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden that President Trump is going to order a halt to the November election.  This Sunday, one of the frontrunners for the Vice President slot, Stacey Abrams, was pressed by CNN’s Jake Tapper on Biden’s view that Trump will use the Post Office to delay the election.  Tapper did an excellent job in pursuing a direct answer and Abrams insisted it is “not a conspiracy theory” and repeated the nebulous connection to the postal service.  It is a conspiracy theory and, as I stated yesterday, passing around the tin foil hats is hardly a recommendation for vice president.  Most striking is that, after bizarrely insisting that this was a credible theory on CNN, NBC’s Chuck Todd did not even ask her about it in a low-impact interview. Many of us have been critical of the failure of some Trump supporters to call out the President over such indefensible statements as his disinfectant comments (and later clearly untrue denial).  The same is true for Democrats who ignore bizarre or untrue statements like this one from their leaders.

Here is the column:

If there are two words that have become a virtual mantra in the media during the last three years under President Trump, they would be “conspiracy theory.” The conspiracy theory label is a wonderful device to attack political opponents. It not only suggests something is objectively untrue but that the person responsible for it is unhinged and unreliable. When Republican members of Congress suggested two months ago that the coronavirus might have come from a research lab in Wuhan, for instance, it was widely denounced as a conspiracy theory, even though some intelligence officials believe the theory is credible.

Unsurprisingly, it is a term almost exclusively reserved in the media for Trump and his supporters. That was evident this week when the ultimate conspiracy theory was voiced by presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who warned that he was certain Trump plans to delay the election this fall. It is a conspiracy theory that is utterly without factual or constitutional support, yet his warning was deemed a “prediction” in a recent article by Politico. It has been peddled by various Democratic figures and commentators for months and is all the rage on the internet, even though it should be sold as a set that includes a tin foil hat and an electromagnetic ghost detector.

Biden left little doubt of such a plan by Trump. He said, “Mark my words, I think he is going to try to kick back the election somehow, and come up with some rationale why it cannot be held.” It is just the type of thing that a crazed guy in a tightly buttoned raincoat whispers to you on the subway. But Biden was not finished. If you attended a recent online fundraiser, it probably felt like you could not change your seat as Biden grew uncomfortably close and went on to explain that it was the Postal Service which revealed the conspiracy theory to him.

Biden alleged that the administration is pressuring the Postal Service to make changes in its operations as a condition for coronavirus relief. As Biden explained, “Imagine threatening not to fund the post office. Other than trying to let the word out that he is going to do all he can to make it very hard for people to vote, that is the only way he thinks he can possibly win.” The other way would be that his opponent flees to the desert to live in a bunker and protect his mail and “precious bodily fluids.”

Let us address the mail connection. For years, Trump has been a critic of the Postal Service as being an institution that repeatedly required bailouts due to running huge deficits. He wants the Postal Service to agree to raise fees for mass shippers like Amazon before it can ask for another federal subsidy. That would have no impact on voting, including mail voting, in the election. Any change in its operations would not impact such things as regular mail this year.

Now for a constitutional reality check. Elections are managed by the states and not the federal government under Article Two. The date of the presidential election is set by federal law and not subject to an executive order. Even war or martial law does not suspend the date of the presidential election. Since 1845, Congress has mandated that the presidential election be held the Tuesday after the first Monday in November every four years. In order to change that date, Trump would have to have both chambers of Congress vote to do so.

Finally, any delay in the election would also collide with the 20th Amendment, which extinguishes the power of the prior president at noon on January 20. Even if Trump persuaded Congress to delay the election past that date, his term still constitutionally ends on that date unless he is reelected. In other words, if Trump tried to stay in office past noon on January 20 if he loses, he would have to join Biden on the subway and whisper to people that he is still the president. Of course, this conspiracy theory is tame compared to other conspiracy theories from some critics.

Yale University professor Bandy Lee said Trump plans for more than an effective coup and instead plans for a massacre. I have criticized her for calling for such nonexistent and nonsensical actions as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “putting a medical hold” on Trump. Such views are published without the type of scrutiny they normally would warrant. Now Lee is warning that Trump is using subconscious techniques to send “armed troops in the streets,” a technique she explains is used with “child soldiers.”

Lee details how Trump has been testing people for “loyalty to the laws of his mind over the laws of nature, or even impulse for survival” and “the more he abuses them, the greater their devotion grows.” Why is Trump preparing this army of millions of amoral zombies? Because she warned, “We would be mistaken to believe he will leave, or even let a losing election happen in the first place.” He is not just preparing them for his notorious brag about committing a murder on Fifth Avenue but for a “whole massacre.”

Her bizarre views were featured in a recent interview with Salon without a hint of skepticism let alone scrutiny. A professor who matter of factly described a president refusing to give up office and preparing for a massacre was perfectly sound to publish online. The media also reported that Lee previously briefed Democratic lawmakers on the need to remove Trump as being mentally ill and has insisted that if Trump were not president, his “out of touch responses to reality warranted hospitalization or transfer to a nursing home.”

Yet somehow Lee and others apparently do not believe hospitalization is needed for a presidential candidate who thinks there is a conspiracy to control the Postal Service in order to block the next election. In their minds, that is not an “out of touch response to reality.” It is simply a “prediction.” None of this will help if you encounter Biden and he is still hot on his Postal Service conspiracy theory. In that event, it is simply better to avoid eye contact, nod in agreement, and say that you use Federal Express.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

111 thoughts on “Biden Goes Postal: The Vice President’s Conspiracy Theory Is Given Credence By The Media And Democratic Leaders”

  1. Hardly put the two situations in the same box. So let’s try a new approach. One is a seasoned politician with an Anti Constitutional axed to grind. The other one is off the block and getting stuff done regardless of the socialist revolution against him and for that matter we Citizens.

    I’ll stick with the outsider. the rest have yet to come up with anything useful.

  2. An Alinsky Freudian slip by Uncle Joe? Got my registered absentee ballot in the mail last week here in this red state since the civil war.
    The groper accuser from the 90s is to unseat Joe so Fredo Sr. Comrade Cuomo can fly in with his NYC cape on or Cankles the inevitable pantsuit princess will make a three time loser run.
    The only way Joe is the nominee for the CPUSA is if he accepts Michelle Obama so the Fundamental Transformation into Zimbabwe will have a third term.

  3. Desperate people will do desperate things and by Oct. 2020 Trump will be desperate.

  4. Biden Super PAC Joins Forces With David Brock Group to Form $175 Million Anti-Trump Coalition

    New partnership could heighten tensions between Brock, Dem officials

    2020 Election

    The super PAC supporting former vice president Joe Biden has joined forces with liberal operative David Brock’s opposition research group to form a $175 million network opposing President Donald Trump.

    Pro-Biden super PAC Unite the Country and Brock’s American Bridge PAC announced Monday they will collaborate on research, polling, and ad buys against President Trump. The groups are teaming up in hopes of surpassing the Priorities USA super PAC, which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, as the largest outside group backing Biden’s candidacy.

    The coalition’s resources, however, could extend far beyond the $175 million benchmark the groups have publicly stated as their goal. The pro-Biden PAC’s founders also started a massive dark money group that will spend tens of millions during the 2020 cycle. The new partnership may also heighten an existing rivalry between Priorities and Brock’s network of groups and could ultimately divert money away from official party organs such as the cash-strapped Democratic National Committee.

    Officials from Unite the Country and American Bridge said they formed the coalition to avoid competing against one another for fundraising and to ensure there is no redundancy between the PACs. The partnership will be led by former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick.

    Future Majority, a dark money organization that plans to spend $60 million in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, went unmentioned in the groups’ announcement despite its close proximity to the coalition. Future Majority lists Matthew Tompkins, a D.C. fundraiser, as its governor in D.C. business records. Tompkins also established Unite the Country. Brock has already poured millions into the same states as Future Majority and will spend $50 million on similar efforts leading up to the November elections.

    Unite the Country and American Bridge did not respond to requests for comment on their partnership and the role Future Majority may play in their upcoming campaign.

    Priorities USA, meanwhile, has so far raised $27 million this cycle and plans to spend at least $150 million. It raised $192 million throughout the 2016 election cycle. The pro-Biden PAC and Brock’s American Bridge PAC have combined to take in $35 million, according to their most recent reports to the Federal Election Commission.

    1. Continuation from above Free Beacon article

      “George Soros’s Democracy PAC has given to both Priorities USA ($3 million) and American Bridge ($2 million) this year. Other deep-pocketed donors like Bernard Schwartz, chairman of the New York-based private investment firm BLS Investments, have also given to Priorities ($100,000), American Bridge ($450,000), and Unite the Country ($300,000).

      The New York Times reported that allies of Brock’s group and Priorities are pushing party officials to have Biden’s campaign “signal” which of the groups it prefers. The rivalry may force donors to pick which network to fund moving forward.

      Tension between Brock-supported groups and party officials has mounted for years. Operatives and organizers expressed hostility toward Brock following the 2016 election and urged him to stop attempting to help the Democratic Party.

      A senior official for Clinton’s campaign called Brock’s constellation of PACs and organizations “useless” and said his tens of millions spent on the election might as well have been thrown “down a well.”

      A former Obama administration official was more forceful in criticizing Brock, calling him “f—ing weird” and likening him to the character Mugatu from the movie Zoolander. “I don’t know what the f— [Brock’s network] did besides raise a ton of money, and I don’t think the after-action report on 2016 says we need more David Brock,” the official said at the time. “Probably the opposite is true.”

      Despite the criticism, Brock wasted no time getting back into the fold after Trump’s election. The operative held a secret gathering in Florida, as Trump was being sworn into office, where he pitched his four-year plan of kicking “Donald Trump’s ass” to more than 100 liberal donors. The plan was detailed in confidential documents obtained on-site by the Washington Free Beacon.

      The Biden campaign and Priorities USA did not respond to requests for comment.

    2. With Biden hiring David Brock, how desperate can he be?

      John Podesta Hates David Brock

      The proof is in the emails

      David Brock has made a career out of defending Bill and Hillary Clinton from attacks but John Podesta, who has been a top Clinton adviser for decades, still can’t stand the guy.

      Brock began his career investigating the Clintons and then transitioned into one of their most die-hard defenders. In private emails released by Wikileaks, it is evident that Brock has failed to win over Podesta.

      Here is some of the proof:

      Brock Begs For In-Person Meeting, Doesn’t Get It


      In April 2008, Brock was in D.C. for a few days and asked whether Podesta wanted to meet up “for coffee or a drink.” Podesta instead suggested that they “try to talk on the phone,” which prompted Brock to beg for some face-time.

      “Don’t you think it would better if we found a time to just sit down and talk?” Brock wrote. “I know we both have busy schedules but if you want to let me know what works for your schedule I’m sure we can figure out a good time.”

      “I’m out of town,” Podesta replied.

      Podesta Shuts Down Party Invite From Brock


      In May 2014, Brock invited Podesta to come to an “After After Party” for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

      Podesta declined the invite.

      “Way past my bedtime,” Podesta wrote.

      Podesta Bails on Brock Book Party, Says He “Only Cooks for Hillary”


      In September 2015, Podesta bailed at the last minute on a book party for Brock that was being hosted at the house of his brother Tony Podesta.

      “Hadn’t heard back and wanted to send you another quick note about the book party this Thursday evening to celebrate the release of David Brock’s new book—Killing the Messenger,” Mary Pat Bonner, a major Democratic fundraiser, wrote to Podesta.

      “I have a conflict,” Podesta wrote curtly.

      Bonner, surprised, wrote, “Really, I thought you were cooking! Now what!”

      “I only cook for Hillary,” Podesta wrote.

      Podesta Needs to Tell Brock to “Chill Out”


      In January 2016, Podesta emailed other top campaign officials, with the subject line “Brock,” asking whether he should tweet at Brock to “chill out” with his attacks on the physical fitness of Bernie Sanders.

      Neera Tanden, another trusted Clinton ally, wondered in an email to Podesta whether Brock is in-fact a “Republican plant.” Podesta tweeted that Brock should “chill out.”

      Podesta Calls Brock an “Unhinged Narcissist”


      Also in January 2016, Podesta called Brock an “unhinged narcissist” after he told Politico that Clinton was beginning to focus her attention on Republican Donald Trump instead of Sanders.

      Tanden questioned Brock for the second time that month, writing that he is “like a menace” and that she continues to believe that he is “the manchurian candidate of the GOP—secretly out to tank her.”

      “Do you really believe that or do you think he’s just an unhinged narcissist?” Podesta asked.

      “I truly believe he’s an unhinged soulless narcissist,” Tanden replied. “Because I’m not actually a conspiracy theorist like David Brock.”

      Podesta Roasts Brock in Email to New York Times


      In February 2015, Nick Confessore of the New York Times emailed Podesta to ask whether Brock was straining relationships with Obama loyalists that the Clinton campaign could hope to work with.

      “Can you offer any wisdom on whether this contretemps between Messina and Brock tells us anything about the future of the other Obama alums who have found places, or are seeking them, in Greater Clintonland?” asked Confessore. “To put the question more directly—is this blow up over Media Matters going to make it harder for the Clinton folks to bring in and use effectively the best of the Obama alums?”

      Podesta’s feelings on Brock were clear in his short “off the record” response.

      “No, mostly about Brock’s eccentricities shall we say,” Podesta wrote.

      “Well put,” Confessore responded.

    3. Washington Examiner:

      “John Podesta thinks David Brock is ‘crazy'”

      Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta really dislikes Democratic operative and strategist David Brock, according to newly released emails that were illegally obtained by Wikileaks.

      Podesta had been sent a link to a Politico article back in Feb. 2015 about Brock resigning from the Priorities USA Action Super PAC. Brock claimed at the time that officials at Priorities were conducting “an orchestrated political hit job” on Brock’s other groups, American Bridge and Media Matters, both pro-Clinton groups.

      After being sent the Politico link, Podesta responded: “As Forrest Gump might say crazy is as crazy does.”

      In Jan. 2016 — nearly a year after that email — Podesta was still hating on Brock. In one email from that time, Podesta said he was “pissed” that Team Clinton allowed Brock to walk back an attack on his own because he didn’t do it and it made the campaign look bad.

      “Yes pissed, “Podesta wrote. “Held by our response team that wanted to let him walk it back on his own So three hours later after he still had not done it, we are characterized as having a belated response.”

      He later added that “Trusting David Brock probably doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

      The Washington Free Beacon’s Brent Scher has previously documented more of Podesta’s ire toward Brock, including canceling on him several times, including once telling Brock he couldn’t attend an “After After Party” for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner because it was “Way past my bedtime.”

      Podesta also once canceled on a book party for Brock being hosted by his brother. When Democratic fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner said she thought Podesta was cooking, he insisted that he “only cook[s] for Hillary.”

      Also in Jan. 2016, Podesta emailed Clinton staffers asking if he should tell Brock to “chill out” when he made reference to Clinton’s then-opponent Bernie Sanders’ physical fitness.

      “We’re fighting on who would make a better President, not on who has a better Physical Fitness Test,” Podesta wrote.

      Later that month, Podesta asked Clinton ally Neera Tanden whether she thought Brock was “an unhinged narcissist.”

      Brock rose to fame in the 1990’s attacking the Clintons at the American Spectator, but then switched sides and became one of their staunchest defenders. Podesta, it seems, doesn’t think highly of his help.

      1. MJ Michael’s,

        What’s the fixation with David Brock? You’re posting these 30 page excerpts like this is the biggest outrage you can possibly imagine.

  5. Yale University hires kooks, handsy Joe Biden is sundowning, and we’re in the middle of an epidemic which no one quite understands and which is inducing a severe contraction in production and employment. The reaction of partisan Democrats is to generate pseudo-controversies which involve studiously poor comprehension of spoken English, flights of fancy, and outright lying.

    1. If you haven’t noticed, no one is in charge during a time of growing crisis. That is not a “pseudo-controversy”. Our “war president” is awol on a self-pity tweet bender.

    2. Absurd, if you cant grasp this pandemic, try venturing outside the rightwing bubble. That should make it less confusing. Dont wait for PJ Media to explain.

  6. Breaking

    Business Insider reports:

    In March, when a former aide to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused the candidate of sexually assaulting her in 1993, two people came forward to say that the woman, Tara Reade, had told them of the incident shortly after it allegedly occurred — her brother, Collin Moulton, and a friend who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.

    Now two more sources have come forward to corroborate certain details about Reade’s claims. One of them — a former neighbor of Reade’s — has told Insider for the first time, on the record, that Reade disclosed details about the alleged assault to her in the mid-1990s.

    “This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it,” Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the mid-’90s, told Insider.

    The other source, Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-’90s, told Insider that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.

    In interviews with Insider, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the politics podcaster Katie Halper — who broke the story of the assault allegations — Reade has said that in the spring or summer of 1993, she was told to meet Biden in a semiprivate corridor to deliver a duffel bag. There, she said, Biden pushed her up against a wall, reached under her skirt, and penetrated her with his fingers. When she resisted his advances, Reade said, Biden expressed annoyance and said, “Aw man, I heard you liked me.” Then, she said, he pointed a finger at her and said, “You’re nothing to me.” After that, she said, he shook her by the shoulders and said, “You’re OK, you’re fine,” before walking away.

    Before the alleged assault, Reade said, she had already complained to her superiors in Biden’s office that the way Biden looked at her and touched her made her uncomfortable. She got no response, she said, and after the alleged assault was abruptly relieved of her duties managing interns. She said she later filed a complaint about her treatment — but not the about the assault allegation — with a Senate human-resources office.

    The Biden camp has denied Reade’s allegations. “Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims,” Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s communications director said in a statement earlier this month. “We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false.”

    Asked to comment specifically on LaCasse’s and Sanchez’s comments, Bedingfield referred Insider to her previous statement. She did not respond to a request to interview Biden about Reade’s accusations.

    Insider sought access to Biden’s senatorial papers, which are housed at the University of Delaware, to search for records that may shed light on Reade’s claims. The university denied the request, saying Biden’s papers “will remain closed to the public until two years after Mr. Biden retires from public life.”

    ‘I remember she was devastated’

    LaCasse told Insider that in 1995 or 1996, Reade told her she had been assaulted by Biden. “I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him,” LaCasse said. “And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.”

    LaCasse said that she remembers Reade getting emotional as she told the story. “She was crying,” she said. “She was upset. And the more she talked about it, the more she started crying. I remember saying that she needed to file a police report.” LaCasse said she does not recall whether Reade supplied any other details, like the location of the alleged assault or anything Biden may have said.

    “I don’t remember all the details,” LaCasse said. “I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.”

    LaCasse is the first person to independently corroborate, in detail and on the record, that Reade had told others about her assault allegations contemporaneously. Reade’s brother Collin Moulton previously told Insider that he recalled his sister saying that Biden “had his hand under her clothes at some point.”

    In a series of interviews with Insider over the past week, LaCasse said she decided to speak up now, at a time when Reade’s story is under intense scrutiny in the media and facing denials from the Biden campaign, because she believed Reade’s account when she first heard it.

    “I have to support her just because that’s what happened,” LaCasse said. “We need to stand up and tell the truth.”

    Lynda LaCasse

    Lynda LaCasse, Tara Reade’s former neighbor, says Reade told her in the mid-’90s that the Democratic presidential nominee sexually assaulted her. Courtesy Lynda LaCasse
    ‘It takes a lot of guts to do what she’s doing’
    LaCasse, 60, is a retired former medical staff coordinator and emergency-room clerk for San Luis Obispo General Hospital. She lived next door to Reade in 1995 and 1996 in an apartment complex near the beach in Morro Bay, California, a seaside community between Santa Barbara and Monterey. She told Insider that she and Reade shared a bond because they were both mothers, and their young daughters swam together in the apartment complex’s indoor pool.

    LaCasse said she would sometimes sit on her front stoop to smoke cigarettes after putting her daughter to bed, and that Reade would occasionally join her. It was during one of these evening conversations, she said, that Reade told her about the alleged assault. “We were talking about violent stories,” LaCasse said, “because I had a violent situation. We just started talking about things and she just told me about the senator that she had worked for and he put his hand up her skirt.”

    LaCasse acknowledged that coming forward to support an allegation against the Democratic presidential nominee “may have repercussions for me.” But she said she has no political ax to grind and intends to vote for Biden.

    “I personally am a Democrat, a very strong Democrat,” she said. “And I’m for Biden, regardless. But still I have to come out and say this.”

    Insider has verified, through publicly available records, that Reade and LaCasse were neighbors at a Morro Bay apartment complex in 1995. A review of LaCasse’s social-media presence shows a long history of anti-Trump sentiments. She has written approvingly of both Biden and his Democratic rival Bernie Sanders on Twitter. In March, she shared a link on Facebook to a story detailing Reade’s allegations, with the message, “This is my good friend Tara Reade, who was assaulted by Joe Biden in 1993.”

    1. Hypocrite Pelosi Endorses Joe Biden For President, Ignores Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Him

      What happened to ‘believe all women?’

      Hypocrite Pelosi on Monday endorsed Democrat Joe Biden for president and remained silent on the sexual assault allegation against him.

      “Today I am proud to endorse Joe Biden for President of the United States because he will be an extraordinary president,” Pelosi said. “He knows how to get the job done.”

      Tara Reade accused her former boss then-Senator Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993.


        This black Anonymous is also Estovir trying to bolster the uncredited paste of his puppet, Spete17.

        1. So you are a racist because you don’t like Blacks and you still have a hardon for Estovir, seeing him everywhere. SMH

          do you always act this way when men reject you?

          John Podesta says yes


      Spete17 ( Estovir) cant tell us where this paste is from. All we have our references to an undated Business Insider article. But who wrote ‘this’??

  7. Trump’s Campaign Strategy:

    ‘Tie Biden To China’


    Donald Trump is warning “China will own the United States” if Joe Biden is elected president.

    But Trump himself has taken on debt from China. In 2012, his real estate partner refinanced one of Trump’s most prized New York buildings for almost $1 billion. The debt included $211 million from the state-owned Bank of China — its first loan of this kind in the U.S. — which matures in the middle of what could be Trump’s second term.

    Steps from Trump Tower in Manhattan, the 43-story 1290 Avenue of the Americas skyscraper spans an entire city block. Trump owns a 30 percent stake in the property valued at more than $1 billion, making it one of the priciest addresses in his portfolio, according to his financial disclosures.

    Trump’s ownership of the building received a smattering of attention before and after his 2016 campaign. But the arrangement with the Bank of China in 2012 has gone largely unnoticed. The questions surrounding Trump’s ties to the Bank of China come as his campaign is claiming that Biden would be a gift to the Communist country and America’s chief economic rival.

    After the first version of this article was published, the Bank of China issued a statement Friday evening stating that it sold its debt on the building weeks after the 2012 loan on the property. Vornado Realty Trust owns 70 percent of the building.

    “On November 7, 2012 several financial institutions including the Bank of China participated in a commercial mortgage loan of $950 million to Vornado Realty Trust,” said Peter Reisman, managing director and chief communications officer of Bank of China U.S.A. 

    Another public document, however, lists Bank of China as a creditor on 1290 Avenue of the Americas even after the bank said it was no longer involved in the property. Filed in 2017 with the New York City Department of Finance Office of the Register, it lists the Bank of China as a secured party having a financial interest in the building’s fixtures.

    The Bank of China could not explain why its name was listed on the 2017 document, describing it as “technical error.” Trepp, a database of securitized mortgages, also listed the Bank of China along with the three other banks, in a description on their site about the financing of the building. The site noted the Bank of China might securitize their portion of the loan, although there were no additional comments.

    Edited from: “Trump Owed Tens Of Millions To Bank Of China”

  8. Biden left little doubt of such a plan by Trump.

    These egomaniacal clowns are not leaders, they’re feeders at the public trough.

  9. “Biden Spreads False Rumor That Trump Will Order Election Halt”

    – Professor Turley

    “A Distraction.”

    – Mespo

    The American Founders intended a restricted-vote republic of good and honorable men. There exists no model for one man, one vote democrazy other than crazy itself. William Casey said, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” Biden is a false candidate, the MSM is a false free press and neither possesses any goodness or honor.

    “These proceedings are closed.”

    – General Douglas MacArthur

    America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  10. Trump Gets Facts Wrong On Postal Service

    USPS, by its own calculation, says revenue from package deliveries far exceeds costs. With Amazon perhaps seeking to bypass USPS, the agency must be careful not to price itself out of the market — and thus face a bigger financial squeeze. Moreover, under the law, USPS is prohibited from losing money in the package-delivery sector.

    The Treasury Department, while acknowledging USPS’s calculations passed muster with the courts, says USPS’s methodology is flawed. We acknowledge government accounting sometimes can be opaque and different from private-sector accounting. But the Postal Service’s business model also is burdened by rules set by Congress and thus cannot easily be compared with private business.

    In the end, Treasury cannot show us USPS is actually losing money on its contract with Amazon, as Trump claims. It can assert only that USPS does not know whether it makes a profit.

    Edited from: “Trump’s Claim The Postal Service Loses Money On Every E-Commerce Package It Delivers”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Wapo is owned by Jeff Bezos and hence they are obviously biased and inclined to “spin” this assertion about the Postal service losing money on amazon.

      But perhaps the taxpayers are subsidizing one of the richest men in America?

      Steppinfetchits for the Wapoo assure us, it aint so!

      1. Not that hard to find Kurtz:

        “In a note to clients on Tuesday, Baird Equity Research said that any large customer, including Amazon, would actually help the post office subsidize its pension costs…..

        In 2006, Congress ruled that the USPS couldn’t set its prices lower than its costs, otherwise it would be able to unfairly charge less than its competitors like UPS and FedEx.

        Every year, an independent agency called the Postal Regulatory Commission makes sure the USPS’ deals make economic sense. And year after year, the commission has approved the deal with Amazon. In its 2017 annual report, the USPS even said its shipping and packages business helped the “financial picture of the Postal Service.”

        Trump is right that Amazon does technically receive a discount. Amazon ships a lot of packages, so chances are it’s utilizing a bulk discount. But that’s not specific to Amazon; it’s available to other businesses, too….”

        1. media mail. it doesnt take a genius to figure this one out. talk to some independent booksellers with book and mortar stores and see what they think about Amazon’s “business” model”

          perhaps you will trust them since like 90% were Democrats

          oh wait; there hardly are any more “brick and mortar” bookstores anymore. a dubious social outcome engineered by the genius of Lord Bezos, whom Seth carries water here for daily. you too now?

          1. Kurtz, some of my very best friends were small bookstore owners who were undone by Amazon, but equally or more seriously by Borders and Barnes and Noble.

            Nothing I have written is a defense of Amazon’s business model though I use them – don’t you? – and they are the future. I have advocated for sales tax on internet purchases which is one of the advantages they have, though if they have a presence in state, they are now charging it.

            Facts are facts however, and the Post Office is not one of Amazon’s victims.

            1. Book, Kurtz is playing ‘The Bezo Card’. Like liberals should be ashamed of the WaPo because Bezos owns it. Like newspapers aren’t desperate for sponsors!

              Kurtz should ask himself why Trump and the Republicans gave Bezos a big tax cut.

      2. Kurtz, I’ve read these same facts at 10 other sites. It’s like Biden says, ‘Trump wants to sabotage the Post Office in a desperate attempt to stop mail-in voting’.

        1. Don’t you have some crystal meth 12 step program to attend or, like Brad Pitt, did you relapse?

  11. OK, here is something to look into. On the Larry King show video, it starts with Reade’s mother calling in to ask a question. But what was the show about in the first place? And why did King remark to one of the guests that this was why she did what she did. Was the show about sexual harassment or sexual harassment in the workplace???

    A 59 second video:

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. Where would one get “tin foil” if one wanted it? Aluminum foil is available, even gold foil, but I’ve not seen tin foil for sale.

    I digress. Trump has repeatedly gone after the post office to raise rates, but solely to try to force it to charge more to just one customer–Amazon–and that demand is solely for political reasons. Bezos owns both Amazon and the Washington Post. So, his complaining about postal rates is politically-motivated.

    Defunding the post office could impact the fall election, because, as Dr. Birx said, social distancing will still need to be in effect. Dr. Fauci has said to expect a bump in cases this fall, so more and more states may go to mail-in voting to avoid the Wisconsin fiasco so well documented by MSM. Democratic voters were NOT deterred, and they got rid of that Republican Supreme Court nominee. So, if due to defunding, mail doesn’t get picked up, processed or delivered in a timely manner, if there are large backlogs, that could impact voting rights. Trump has already admitted that when roadblocks to voting are removed, it hurts Republicans–in other words, taking away barriers, such as standing in long lines when there is a deadly pandemic, so that more citizens can vote–that benefits Democrats. That doesn’t offend Turley, however.

    Turley claims that Trump couldn’t delay the November election, and cites the reasons why, but Trump has simply bypassed the exclusive province of Congress with his pathetic little “executive orders”. He claims nearly total power based on the grounds of emergency: so he stole money from the Pentagon budget to improve schools for military families to build the wall he promised Mexico would pay for because it is an “emergency”. He has limited Muslims from emigrating because it is an “emergency”. Now, to try to force open businesses, which helps Republican governors limit the amount of unemployment people can receive because if there is work available (even if there aren’t any customers in a restaurant, for example), no unemployment. Barr is threatening to go after Democratic Governors who impose stay at home orders, claiming states are imprisoning people, which isn’t true. Turley has no comment about these things.

    Regardless of what the Constitution says about the date when Trump’s reign of terror ends, Trump has threatened to stay on anyway, because, according to him, he was cheated out of 2 years due to the Mueller investigation. Now, who’s crazy?

    Lastly, a push-back against Turley’s pro-Trump rhetoric. Joe Biden never claimed there was any “conspiracy’. That’s Turley’s spin.

    1. Natacha, one recalls that in 2016 Trump wouldn’t say if we would recognize the election results if Clinton won. His refusal to say followed weeks of baseless claims that “Crooked Hillary would steal the election”.

      So ‘yes’, voters should be leery of Trump pulling a stunt to delay or sabotage this election.

  13. I don’t know who Biden makes me think of more, Mr. Magoo or Major Hoople.

    1. ouch!

      Poor Tara Reade, Biden was her hero. and he forced her up against the wall and reached up her skirt and shoved his filthy fingers inside her privates in a hallway. or so she says.

      what was the mantra during the judicial confirmation? i forget— and the Democrat cheerleaders do too

      1. I wanna see “The Apprentice” backstage tapes Trump has blocked so far.

        1. Since I am more interested in motives, all those who reach high levels of power, end up freaks. True story. Time and time again we see this repeated in history.

          What is it about those in high levels of wealth and/or power that makes them into freaks?

          And what I mean by “freaks” is human hunting parties and other “freaky” stuff that us normies cannot fathom.

          The sexual misbehavior is just one aspect of the detachment from the rest of society.

          Is it isolation in a castle? Too removed? Without stress, they fish for something exciting and different.

          Or were they freaky before and that’s what drove them into those positions and birds of a feather flock together?

          In today’s society, we see a lot of sexual misbehavior in CEOs and politicians (both red and blue lodge).

          1. And that’s not to say all, there are some good folks mixed in here and there…the non-freaks.

            1. As a side-note:

              You should see the Duping Delight on all these folks’ faces when they are lying or scamming others.

              Duping Delight is such a tell. You just have to pay close attention to the facial muscles.

              I have seen it on Trump, Clinton, Jodi Arias (all the time), and the list goes on…

      2. Kurtz, that dog won’t hunt.

        It’s like you’re saying that had voters known FDR was cheating on his wife, they would have reelected Hoover.

        No, Kurtz, voters were literally starving due to Depression conditions. Moral concerns would not have factored much.

        1. What dog won’t hunt? Kurtz was referring to the mantra that ALL women must be believed. Ford had zero witnesses willing to corroborate her story. Reade has several. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

        2. Seth, don’t put words in my mouth.
          This allegation is not cheating this is sexual assault

          What Bill Clinton did with Monica, was cheating and consensual. Illicit, but lawful. Not illegal.

          What Bill Clinton did to Juanita Brodderick, was sexual assault. Illegal.

          Don’t confuse illicit with illegal.

          Anyways, it’s not for me to decide what voters base their votes upon, but Im sure you won’t hesitate to tell folks how they should think.

          Anyways, it’s in the news because some people are stepping forward to say that they recall Tara Reade was upset and shared the story contemporaneously. This was not confirmed a month ago when the allegations first surfaced. People can decide on their own how credible and significant the matter is in their own minds.

          1. Kurtz, by November the economic pain of this crisis is going to be clear to everyone. We could possibly be in The Geat Depression II.

            Is it likely Americans will reelect a totally failed president based on vague, 30 year old allegations against his opponent?? It just doesn’t sound that plausible.

            And again, Trump is hardly free of MeToo allegations himself. So any effort to make Reade an issue will only reignite those allegations against Trump. It just doesn’t seem like a productive line of attack.

            1. My thoughts exactly. Basically, Trump loses any sleaze off. On every level.

          2. How come this is just coming out now, instead of prior to the 2 elections in which Biden ran for Vice President? Why can’t the alleged paperwork this alleged victim claims she filed be located? Why didn’t she keep a copy? Why are most of the people she claims she told about this at or near the time dead?

            I think I know. In fact, I know I know. (Sorry, just saw “Double Indemnity”).

            Trumpsters have few to no facts to defend Trump because he has been the absolute worst person ever to occupy the White House. And his occupation was illicit, the product of cheating. Impeached. 48 Senators voted to remove him from office. A chronic, habitual liar. Brags about assaulting women, so the hypocrisy will be thick with irony. Then, there are all of the deaths, the unemployment, the economy and the lying, downplaying, misleading the American people and failing to act for weeks after he was warned, including calling it a “hoax”. 90% of the COVID-19 cases could have been avoided if steps had been taken a mere 2 weeks earlier. Trump is a total disaster. The economy is headed for a depression, and Trump is most of the reason. He has never captured the approval of even 50% of the American people.

            So, the Trump campaign is going to have to dig deeply, and there is no limit to how low they will stoop to falsely accuse Joe Biden. They think they have the perfect argument: you can’t defend Dr. Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh and not be a hypocrite for questioning Tara Reade. Well, we have Kavanaugh’s contemporaneous dirty little ditties and notes. As to Trump, we have his bragging about assaulting women to Billy Bush, and he’s hiding the backstage tapes from “The Apprentice”, which have been described as “dynamite”. We have Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall being paid off. We have E. Jean Carroll’s story about Trump raping her in a department store, AND she kept the clothes she was wearing with stains on them.

            What corroborating evidence do Trumpsters have that Joe Biden’s character is consistent with this accusation? Come on. We’re waiting.

            Expect more of the same. Trump’s campaign is desperate.

  14. Yes, but what are we going to do about the Russians? They have already infiltrated the postal service.

    1. Thanks to Trump, we’re doing nothing about Russian interference in our election SteveJ,

    2. The Democrats are a far bigger concern about America becoming a totalitarian state.

  15. Just got in from Illinois…
    Lock the front door, o boy!
    Oo oo oo looking out that front door!

    Biden and his elephant..
    Riding thru the swamp..
    Praise the Lard and fart real hard…
    Oo oo oo who ho.

    We’ve got no election.
    There’s been no objection…
    Sitting in the side walks and wearing our masks!

    Let’s not blame the Trumpster..
    We can have a Munster..
    All we need is one hump on the floor.

  16. This is a legal blog. Why not discuss the legal process of suing someone under 42 U S.C. Section 1983 for constitutional offense and section 1984 for conspiring with another to do so.
    Maybe Trump should file suit and not just wear a zuet suit.

  17. Professor Turley is correct about the use of the term “conspiracy theory” as an epithet to discredit one’s political opponents without having to engage their arguments. The term, however, until Trump, has been applied, typically and most significantly, to the left whenever the left has been perceived by powerful interests to be closing in to any degree on the presence of an intention among those interests to take any political step to their exclusive benefit at the expense of the general public, even though there clearly have been high-level political conspiracies that have proven that this happens, e.g. Iran-Contra, and even though “conspiracy” is a concept in criminal law which is used copiously by the U.S. Justice Department in its prosecutions. This is a minor but important point of intellectual and political history to make about this post: the presumptuous and patronizing dismissal inherent in the term’s long usage, especially by public intellectuals and the political and media class, has increased the determination of those who have been accused of being conspiracy theorists and thus by a complex process has fostered its cancerous growth to the point where unwarranted conspiracy theories have started to be flung without discrimination at anything and everything, by everyone, and thereby degraded the political discourse. The chickens, in this respect, have come home to roost.

    But Professor Turley, because he basically a decent person (and a law professor), I think is missing a larger point about Trump in his exclusive focus on this current weak conspiracy theory about the Post Office and the lack of legality in any attempt by Trump to postpone or cancel the election. Trump indeed, throughout his tenure, has been quite openly floating a series of trial balloons about possibly postponing or cancelling the election, and has been associating himself, and cultivating tacit if not overt alliances, with armed segments of society, in the military and police, and among plain right-wing thugs, that would not inconceivably attempt to thwart any effort to remove him from office according to all the usual and customary ways of doing so constitutionally. Bill Maher has been particularly good on showing the reasons that we have to suspect that Trump, notwithstanding legality, is looking for a way not to leave office after November, 2020 if he should lose, and those videos should be viewed by everyone concerned about keeping to a non-violent transfer of power. Trump cares nothing for legality, and only sees it as an obstacle to be manipulated if it cannot be bypassed altogether. But he will bypass it if he can, and will take as much as he can get away with, including the presidential election.

    It is a sad reality that we have gotten to this point, and that it is not too early, as Colonel Wilkerson has said, to make contingency plans in the event that Trump indeed loses but refuses to leave or acknowledge the legitimacy of his defeat (if he loses, which he might not), but all societies decay and we would do better to acknowledge that fact instead of to pretend that it is not happening or has not already happened.

Comments are closed.