Biden Should Reject The Harris-Yates Model of Justice

440px-Kamala_Harris_Official_Attorney_General_Photosally_q-_yatesBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on what stood out in the Democratic National Convention in terms of the future for the Justice Department under a possible Biden Administration. I have been highly critical of President Donald Trump’s treatment of the Justice Department and his disregarding of the principles of separation of the White House from ongoing investigations. Critics however often seem to embrace the seem disregard for core, defining principles of legal process. Highlighting the message of Sally Yates and Kamala Harris on justice issues is discomforting for those of us who want to see the Justice Department’s independence and objectivity respected and reinforced.

Here is the column:

National conventions have long served as what magicians call the turn. As explained in the movie “The Prestige,” every magic trick has three stages. First comes the pledge, when the magician “shows you something ordinary.” Then comes the turn, when he “makes it do something extraordinary” like vanish. Finally, he has “to bring it back in the hardest part” known as the prestige.

In American politics, candidates make the pledge to voters on the extremes of their parties during primaries. Then comes the turn, when the more extreme nominee disappears at the convention. The turn was not as tough for Joe Biden, who was fairly moderate as a senator, as it was for Kamala Harris, who was ranked by GovTrack as the most liberal senator to the left of even Bernie Sanders.

Nonetheless, in perhaps the neatest trick of all, the Washington Post’s David Byler recently described Harris as a “small ‘c’ conservative.” The concern for some of us is that the prestige, when earlier objects might reappear after the election, particularly regarding the Justice Department and the legal system. There is reason to worry about what might be revealed, post-election.

One of the Democratic convention speakers was former deputy attorney general Sally Yates, widely viewed as the leading candidate for attorney general in a Biden administration. She was presented as the personification of a new Justice Department’s commitment to the rule of law. Yates declared: “I was fired for refusing to defend President Trump’s shameful and unlawful Muslim travel ban.” The problem is, she wasn’t. She was fired for telling an entire department not to defend a travel ban that ultimately was upheld as lawful.

I was highly critical of the travel ban, particularly in the failure to exempt lawful residents. However, I also said Trump’s underlying authority likely would be found constitutional. Despite revisions tweaking its scope and affected countries, opponents insisted it remained unlawful and discriminatory. They continued to litigate on those same grounds all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost two years ago.

The Supreme Court ruled in Donald Trump versus Hawaii that the president had the authority to suspend entry of noncitizens into the country based on nationality and had a “sufficient national security justification” for his order. It also held that, despite most of the banned countries being Muslim-majority, the ban “does not support an inference of religious hostility.”

That is why Yates deserved to be fired. Yates issued her order shortly after learning of the travel ban and despite being told by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel it was a lawful order. She never actually said it was unlawful, only that she was not sure and was not convinced it was “wise or just.” Rather than working to address clear errors in the original ban, she issued her categorical order as she prepared to leave the department in a matter of days. Yates maintained afterward that she believed the ban might still be discriminatory, even with revisions. Four years later, Trump is still banning travel from many of these same countries under the same underlying authority.

Yates was due to retire from Justice within days when she engineered her own firing. It made her an instant heroine and allowed her to denounce Trump at this week’s convention for “trampl[ing] the rule of law, trying to weaponize our Justice Department.” But that’s precisely what she did when she ordered an entire department not to assist the recently elected president – a move which, at the time, even Trump critics described as troubling. She could have resigned but chose to “go rogue,” months before (as Yates recently declared) then-FBI director James Comey went rogue in the Michael Flynn matter. (Comey actually may have learned a lesson from Yates: A good firing can be better than completing a term in office.)

The person who likely would have the greatest influence in recommending the next attorney general is Harris. The Biden campaign lauds Harris as a former prosecutor and California attorney general. However, Harris has a disturbing view of the separation of law and politics. While Trump has been legitimately criticized for demanding prosecutions and improperly commenting on pending cases, Harris has long been accused of the same disregard for legal process.

She campaigned on a pledge to prosecute Trump upon taking office, inspiring “lock him up!” chants at rallies. She publicly called Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson a “murderer” after he was cleared of that charge by state and federal investigators, including a lengthy investigation by the Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder. This followed the recantation of eyewitness accounts and the disproving of claims that Michael Brown was shot with his hands up.

Harris has a history of such sentencings before verdicts. In Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, she declared him guilty of rape without hearing from witnesses — then called for his impeachment after his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. She also campaigned on a promise to vote to remove Trump from office, roughly seven months before his impeachment by the House, and nine months before she sat in judgment in the Senate trial, after swearing to be an unbiased juror.

Harris has shown a willingness to “weaponize” legal issues, including reversing her positions when polls shifted. During the campaign, Harris was confronted with clips where she once laughed about the controversy over her jailing of parents for the truancy of their schoolchildren and mocking calls to “build more schools, less jails!” She was equally strong on jailing nonviolent offenders. With those positions now anathema to Democrats, Harris has assumed diametrically opposite positions with indignant passion.

This month, however, came the magic turn for the Biden campaign. Asked if he could foresee his administration prosecuting Trump, Biden correctly said, “The Justice Department is not the president’s private law firm. The attorney general is not the president’s private lawyer. I will not interfere with the Justice Department’s judgment.” That is the correct answer and, to his credit, Biden has tended to emphasize legal process over politics.

The concern, however, is whether his administration’s Justice Department would be shaped by Harris or led by Yates. The thing about magic and politics is that both require the audience’s cooperation. With Yates’ self-promoting sleight of hand, few in the media wanted to cry out that she palmed the facts. As one character in “The Prestige” explained, “You’re looking for the secret. But you won’t find it because, of course, you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.”

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

301 thoughts on “Biden Should Reject The Harris-Yates Model of Justice”

  1. When will the FBI begin investigating which democrat(s) requested, of Xi Jinping, their global communist leader, that he release “The China Flu, 2020?”

  2. DEMOCRATS WANT TO USE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL VOTE-BY-MAIL TO CHEAT

    An eyewitness told The Kyle Olson Show that as many as 20,000 unverified absentee ballots in Detroit were fed through machines and counted during the August 4 primary. In a segment released exclusively to Breitbart News before airing on Saturday, Michigan Republican Party-appointed poll challenger Bob Cushman said it was chaotic while absentee ballots were being counted in downtown on primary night in Detroit, a city known for voting heavily Democrat: Cushman said he is concerned about election integrity and signed up to be an observer. He noted that a car with Ohio license plates was driven into the large facility. Cushman said he did not know what the purpose was, but he suspected “that car was somebody that was delivering ballots. It just seemed a little odd.” In an affidavit, Cushman recounted several counting tables “had opened ballots with no poll book” to check to see if the individual was authorized to cast that ballot. That is significant, he said, because the poll book is used to ensure “that name is someone that’s a qualified, real voter.” In another instance, he “noticed pages being inserted into several poll books.” According to Cushman, some workers left early as the day dragged into the night. Polls closed at 8:00 p.m., but Cushman observed at 12:37 a.m. that “the threat was made that the $100 bonus that had been promised earlier (over the public address system) would not be paid.” Cushman said in his affidavit that an order was made around 2:00 a.m. to open the remaining ballots “for immediate tabulation without additional processing or notation.” “This is just my estimate,” he told The Kyle Olson Show, “but I would guess there were 10,000 to 20,000 after 2:00 a.m. — could have been more.” Cushman thought election officials should go back to analyze what ballots were counted after the procedures were suspected and throw those votes out. All of this is potentially consequential given the narrow 10,704-vote victory Donald Trump won in 2016 and the expected close margin anticipated in 2020. “It’s very hard to change the result of an election after the fact,” Cushman stated. He said in instances, such as what happened in Detroit with numbers not squaring, Michigan law prevents a recount. Cushman also said he does “not have faith” that the errors during the primary election will be rectified by the November election. “But perhaps if we put enough light on this subject, that there be enough heat to get it done correctly,” he said. He encouraged volunteers to serve as poll watchers for the presidential election to increase integrity in the process.

  3. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) readily admit that they are communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

    Go ahead, “Jim Crow Joe!”
    ____________________

    Biden Again Quotes Chinese Dictator Chairman Mao In Campaign Appearance

    Former Vice President Joe Biden quoted former Chinese dictator Mao Zedong for at least the second time in a campaign appearance Sunday.

    The moment came in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, where Biden referenced one of Mao’s sayings regarding women’s rights. Mao’s declaration of gender equality came as part of his “great leap forward,” an effort to modernize a then-rural China that resulted in the deaths of more than 45 million people.

    “As that old expression goes, ‘women hold up half the sky,’ and in order to be able to succeed, you’ve got to be dealt in across the board,” Biden told Roberts.

    Biden has referenced this quote from Mao at least one other time on the 2020 campaign trail during a digital campaign event July 14, saying it in reference to economic relief for women amid coronavirus.

    “We’ve got to get real economic relief into women’s hands now,” Biden said, later adding that “women hold up half the sky,” according to Fox News.

    One of Biden’s senior advisors, Anita Dunn, has said Mao is one of her “favorite political philosophers,” telling a group of graduating high schoolers in 2009 that he and Mother Theresa are “the two people that I turn to most” when seeking to break out of a political mold.

    – Anders Hagstrom

    1. Michael Cohen is a convicted felon, isn’t that correct?

      Michael Cohen is a proven liar; if not only, because he falsely claimed innocence immediately prior to his conviction and sentencing.

      1. Yes, Cohen was convicted of lying to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations to protect Trump and of fraud and campaign finance violations in the hush money scheme to keep Trump’s affair with Stormy Daniels from becoming public.

        “he falsely claimed innocence”

        No, actually, Cohen pleaded guilty.

        No doubt you’re equally concerned about Trump’s campaign finance violations in the hush money scheme and about Trump lying to Mueller under penalty of perjury, as was recently noted in the bipartisan SSCI report.

        Tump is corrupt, and he surrounded himself with other corrupt people.

        1. Committed:

          “Tump is corrupt, and he surrounded himself with other corrupt people.”
          ***************************
          Well you regularly latch on to Bookie, Fishy and Seth. Should we consider you guilty of intellectual dishonesty based on the company you keep. Guilt by association a specialty for you?

          1. Mespo,

            Again: Trump is himself corrupt. That’s not a claim about “guilt by association.” You project your own “intellectual dishonesty” onto others.

            1. “Trump is himself corrupt.”

              AGAIN if you make claims of moral failure of another – then you are obligated to prove your claim and the burden is on you.

              How is it that Trump is corrupt – Facts, evidence, something compelling. Not mere assertions.

        2. “Yes, Cohen was convicted of lying to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow”
          Correct.

          “negotiations to protect Trump and of fraud and campaign finance violations in the hush money scheme to keep Trump’s affair with Stormy Daniels from becoming public.”
          False.

          The Trump’s dropped efforts to proceed on Trump Tower Moscow in Feb, 2016. Cohen continued on his own and got nowhere.

          You constantly claim that Putin favored Trump – then why wasn’t Trump Tower Moscow approved ?

          Daniels agreed to an NDA for money. She was not obligagted to.
          NDA’s are perfectly legal. I sign several a year.

          “No doubt you’re equally concerned about Trump’s campaign finance violations”
          I am not concerned about anyone’s “campaign finance violations” – most campaign finance laws are unconstitutional.

          I enjoy noting the violations of Democrats – because they beleive these laws are some positive good and yet can not follow them.

          “in the hush money scheme”
          It is called an NDA, and it is legal.

          “and about Trump lying to Mueller under penalty of perjury, as was recently noted in the bipartisan SSCI report.”
          Then you should be able to cite the specific LIE that Trump told under penatly of perjury.

          You still do not grasp that you are an untrustworthy reporter.
          I do not – and I suspect few others take anything you say as True just because you say it.

          “Tump is corrupt, and he surrounded himself with other corrupt people.”
          Provide Facts, not ad hominem.

          Biden has made his family wealthy off his government service – that is pretty self evident.

          The Trump family came to government service wealthy, and their wealth has declined.
          If they are corrupt – they are pretty bad at it.

    2. Geeze anonymous, why won’t these grifters, liars, and convicts just leave our poor president alone? Those 7 who worked on his campaign are just trying to take advantage of his generous spirit.

  4. Jonathan: Gee, it’s only the end of August and you are already trying to predict what a Justice Department would look like under a Biden administration when a Kamala Harris or a Sally Yates called the shots at the DOJ. I think Donald Trump would not like you placing bets before the race has not yet been run. But maybe you see the handwriting on the wall.

    It’s curious you support Biden’s statement that: “The attorney general is not the president’s private attorney”. But your good friend AG Barr, who you constantly praise for being “independent”, has acted all along as Trump’s enforcer in chief–placing Trump’s personal or political interests ahead of the fair and impartial administration of justice. To show how far Barr will go to place Trump’s interests above those of the DOJ all you have to do is read “Hoax, Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth” by CNN reporter, Brian Stelter. In the book Stelter relates an incident in October of last year when Barr had a private meeting with Rupert Murdock, the head of Fox News. According to Stelter Trump had been upset with Fox hosts who didn’t follow the official line and he was particularly miffed with Napolitano’s increasing criticism of Trump’s policies and “implored Barr to send Rupert a message in person…about ‘muzzling the judge'”. Apparently Murdock got the message because in the following days Napolitano lost his daily news slot and then was removed from coverage of the impeachment hearings. Now why did Barr take off valuable time from his responsibilities at the DOJ to run errands for Trump that had nothing to do with the DOJ? Trump could have sent his chief of staff to convey the message to Murdock. but Trump thought Barr’s intervention would carry more weight. As indeed it did. This case perfectly illustrates the point Sally Yates made at the Democratic National Convention: “…from the moment President Trump took office, he’s used his position to benefit himself rather than the country. He’s trampled the rule of law, trying to weaponize our Justice Department to attack his enemies and protect his friends”. The Barr/Murdock meeting illustrates perfectly just how far Barr is willing to go to run personal errands for his boss.

  5. This dude has got some serious criminal baggage. Maybe the cops were acting out of knowledge of his criminal past and took proper action in shooting him in the back multiple times. And what’s with his history of domestic abuse and sexual assault?
    Eeeesssh! What a mess

    Blaque Knives Mutter

    https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000736&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details

    Kenosha County Case Number 2020CF000736 State of Wisconsin vs. Jacob S. Blake
    Case summary

    Filing date
    07-06-2020
    Case type
    Criminal
    Case status
    Filed Only – Arrest warrant issued
    07-07-2020 Blake, Jacob S.
    Defendant date of birth
    04-30-1991
    Address
    2805 40th Street, # D, Kenosha, WI 53140
    Branch ID
    3
    DA case number
    2020KN002047
    Charges

    Responsible official
    Schroeder, Bruce E.
    Prosecuting agency
    District Attorney
    Prosecuting agency attorney
    Graveley, Michael David
    Defendant owes the court: $0.00
    Count no. Statute Description Severity Disposition
    1 943.14(2) Criminal Trespass to Dwelling Misd. A
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
    2 940.225(3)(a) 3rd Degree Sexual Assault Felony G
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
    3 947.01(1) Disorderly Conduct Misd. B
    Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse

  6. Jason Blake Criminal History in Kenosha, Wisconsin Police Shooting

    Online Court Records Show an Open Warrant in a Domestic Case

    According to Wisconsin Circuit Court Access online records, a Jacob S. Blake, same age and with an address in the same block where the shooting occurred, had a warrant issued for him on July 7 on pending accusations of misdemeanor criminal trespass to a dwelling with domestic abuse as a modifier; felony third-degree sexual assault with domestic abuse as a modifier; and misdemeanor disorderly conduct with domestic abuse as a modifier. A support action was dismissed, and the only other case that comes up is for not having a driver’s license.

    A 2015 story in Racine Eye described how “Racine police say K9 Dozer had to help officers take a man into custody when the man refused to go quietly into custody after he pulled a gun at a local bar.” The man was described as Jacob Blake, 24, of Racine, which makes him the same age as the man shot by police on August 23. The Racine Eye story said he was charged with “one felony count of resisting arrest causing a soft tissue injury to a police officer and one misdemeanor count each of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a firearm while intoxicated, endangering safety-use of a dangerous weapon, and disorderly conduct.” Those charges don’t show up on the circuit court website though.

    That story further alleged, “Blake and two women were at the Brass Monkey tavern, 1436 Junction Avenue, Saturday when Blake got into an argument with another patron and pulled a black handgun. Blake pointed the gun at the other man, and the magazine fell to the floor. The bartender told Blake to leave, and he did but then pointed the gun through the window at patrons inside the bar before walking south on Junction Avenue.”

    Police stopped Blake in a “high risk traffic stop” but he “exited the SUV and started walking toward officers and ignored commands to get down on the ground,” the story said. That’s when officers forced him to the ground and used a K9 when he kept resisting, the story added.

    CNN

    1. RE: Above

      Police: K9 Dozer Helps Subdue Man Who Pulled Gun at Bar

      by Racine County Eye
      September 22nd, 2015

      Racine police say K9 Dozer had to help officers take a man into custody when the man refused to go quietly into custody after he pulled a gun at a local bar.

      Jacob Blake, 24, of Racine, was charged Monday in Racine County Circuit Court with one felony count of

      resisting arrest causing a soft tissue injury to a police officer and one misdemeanor count each of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a firearm while intoxicated, endangering safety-use of a dangerous weapon, and disorderly conduct. If convicted, he will face up to 8-1/2 years in prison and/or up to $50,000 in fines.

      According to the criminal complaint, Blake and two women were at the Brass Monkey tavern, 1436 Junction Avenue, Saturday when Blake got into an argument with another patron and pulled a black handgun. Blake pointed the gun at the other man, and the magazine fell to the floor. The bartender told Blake to leave, and he did but then pointed the gun through the window at patrons inside the bar before walking south on Junction Avenue.

      Police say they encountered a woman walking on Junction who was in the bar with Blake, but she said she didn’t know what happened and that her friends left without her in a silver SUV. A few moments later, officers were advised that a silver SUV was traveling north on Junction with a male subject driving who matched the description of Blake, and they initiated a traffic stop in the 1200 block of Racine Avenue.

      Believing the driver was armed, police conducted a high risk traffic stop, the complaint reads, and ordered Blake to put his hands out the window of the vehicle. Instead, Blake exited the SUV and started walking toward officers and ignored commands to get down on the ground. Officers forced Blake to the ground and ordered him to put his hands behind his back. When Blake refused to comply, K9 Dozer was deployed to force the defendant into compliance.

      While police were at the hospital with Blake so he could be treated for the wound he obtained from K9 Dozer, officers say he refused to answer questions, but he did submit to a legal blood draw to determine his level of intoxication. At the time he was taken into custody, Blake was searched and police say he had a holster on his hip but no gun. A subsequent search of the SUV turned up a black handgun on the floor behind the drivers seat. A box of ammunition was also found, and two loaded magazines were discovered in Blake’s coat.

      The defendant’s blood alcohol level came back at .144, according to the criminal complaint.

      https://racinecountyeye.com/police-k9-dozer-helps-subdue-man-who-pulled-gun-at-bar/

    2. Comment above, this is not Svelaz. The local troll is having an episode. FYI.

  7. “ Harris has shown a willingness to “weaponize” legal issues, including reversing her positions when polls shifted. ”

    Jesus Turley, you recognize “weaponizing legal issues” easily, but ignore actual “weaponizing of legal issues under Barr? You don’t even cite anything to link to the allegations you lob against Harris. Seriously man. There’s a point where you’re just being a political hack. You’re already there man. Geez. So much for “intellectual” credibility.

    1. The Beast approaches.

      All roads lead to Obama.

      Kafka’s paranoia firmly sets in.

      And you are in full panic mode.

    2. svealz insults turley like the rest of the Democrat party insult crew

      see where Pelosi called Republicans “Enemies of the state?” yes, today. that’s how she sees us.

      They doesnt represent “The state” anymore than we do. But she wants that Civil war talk, doesnt she??

      You on board for the Seveelz?

      1. Mr. Kurtz, Turley is bringing the criticism on to himself. He’s being intellectually dishonest and has at times been caught making false claims. Nobody including you have been able to refute those accusations. The only “rebuttals” to the “insults” you say are being lobbed at Turley are pointless arguments about entirely different issues completely avoiding the points being made.

        It’s either some purported “communist” leaning or sone stupid attempt at using an out of context quote to “rebut” the original point being made.

        Turley claims Sally Yates was fired because she directed an entire department to not defend trump’s travel ban. Turley willfully omits the fact that the original travel ban was so hastily and poorly written that Yates correctly decided it wasn’t defensible. That same travel ban was deemed unconstitutional by the courts the FIRST time. Turley casually states the law was eventually deemed lawful without mentioning that it went thru several revisions before it could pass legal scrutiny. Yates was fired because she KNEW and was correct the first time that the travel ban was not legally sound. Turley never mentions that important distinction on his criticism which makes it clearly an attempt at intellectual dishonesty.

        1. +1

          Sloppy thinking by lawyers – JT or Kurtz – is always suspect as intentional, or how’d they get into and out of school?

          1. “Sloppy thinking by lawyers – is always suspect as intentional, or how’d they get into and out of school?”

            So all the errors that Horowitz found in the FISA application are presumptively intentional and therefore Bias ?

        2. “He’s being intellectually dishonest and has at times been caught making false claims.”
          How so ? evidence ? Todate Turley’s failure has been giving the left far to much benefit of the doubt.
          That is slowly changing.

          The left, democrats, the media, you have ground away at your own credibility – few beleive you.
          Your problem

          “Nobody including you have been able to refute those accusations. The only “rebuttals” to the “insults” you say are being lobbed at Turley are pointless arguments about entirely different issues completely avoiding the points being made.”

          No one is obligated to “refute” accusations. The burden of proof is always on the accusers.

          “Turley claims Sally Yates was fired because she directed an entire department to not defend trump’s travel ban.”
          That is correct.

          “Turley willfully omits the fact that the original travel ban was so hastily and poorly written that Yates correctly decided it wasn’t defensible.”
          False, irrelevant and not her job.

          All that matters is whether it is lawful and constitutional – and SCOTUS decided it was – the determinations in the decision would have applied to the original EO.

          Regardless even if Yates felt the EO was unlawful and/or unconstitutional – she was obligated to advise the president PRIOR to its execution – afterwards the AG is obligated to defend it or resign.

          There is no #resistance within any administration – republican or democrat.

          If you are a member of the administration – regardless of which administration, and you can not in good conscience do as you are directed – you must resign. AG of the US is not a right, it is a privilege. Protest as a private citizen.

          ” That same travel ban was deemed unconstitutional by the courts the FIRST time.”
          Nope. The original Trump Travel Ban was based on the Obama EO of the same purpose (deliberately). Neither Lynch, nor Yates, nor the media went bananas over that.

          SCOTUS upheld Trump’s original Travel ban when it went before him first time – I beleive except for minor issues regarding Grand parents.

          “Turley casually states the law was eventually deemed lawful without mentioning that it went thru several revisions before it could pass legal scrutiny.”
          False.

          Another suggestion – remove the adjectives from your remarks – Saying that Turley ‘casually” did something – is mind reading, not factual and irrelevant to the argument – why or how or your characterization of Turley’s statement is irrelevant.

          Turley is right or wrong – independent of your adjectives.

          You will also find your own writing easier to understand – for yourself and everyone else.

          “Yates was fired because she KNEW and was correct the first time that the travel ban was not legally sound.”
          Still false, Still not her call.

          You still do not seem to grasp that to the extent someone within the executive is even entitled to a voice that is BEFORE the EO is issued. After – they can do as directed – or quit.

          “Turley never mentions that important distinction on his criticism which makes it clearly an attempt at intellectual dishonesty.”
          Turley need not mention a distinction that is
          Wrong,
          Not a distinction
          Irrelevant.
          and even if true alters nothing.

          1. John say. “ “Turley claims Sally Yates was fired because she directed an entire department to not defend trump’s travel ban.”
            That is correct.

            “Turley willfully omits the fact that the original travel ban was so hastily and poorly written that Yates correctly decided it wasn’t defensible.”
            False, irrelevant and not her job.”

            Wrong. I posted direct quotes from Turley’s own column on the subject when the first ban was enacted and blocked by the courts. Turley’s never touched the substance of the first ban which he described as sloppy and obvious it was not created by lawyers. Turley himself couldn’t defend it because he too recognized it was not legally defensible. The first ban was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Which led the White House to revise it slightly and this one Turley believed had a slightly better chance but was still deemed unconstitutional.

            Turley either absentmindedly or deliberately leaves out the fact that it was the first ban that Yates refused to defend. Because like Turley recognized it was not legally defensible. Yates job involves deciding when she can or cannot defend such an EO. What made it stand out is the fact that these EO’s are usually vetted by lawyers and tested against constitutional scrutiny before being put out. The first one was so hasty and sloppy that Yates legally couldn’t justify defending it. Turley knows this and he being a lawyer should have made the distinction, he chose not to in a poor attempt at portraying Yates as some “rogue” AG. THATS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

            Keep in mind that Turley himself never defends the first EO travel ban he never touches it after saying it was such a sloppy job. Instead he focuses on the later two revisions which were done competent lawyers. That’s where his criticism begins.

            1. Honestly Svelaz – you and the rest of the collusion dellusion fan boys are just not worth it.

              Your claims require microparsing sentences ignoring 90% of the evidence, and the reports you claim support you and reading a handful of sentences that mean something narrow as meaning something broad.

              I have in various posts pointed out each of these errors.

              Your trying to come arround for another go, changes nothing.

              YOU and the rest of the collusion dellusion crowd, have lied. Nor is this the only lie that you have told.

              Whether it is Sandman, or Grinell or any one else you have slandered.

              You have lost any pretense of integrity.

              You can tell that you are engaged in misrepresentation when you have to spice up your remarks with mindreading \

              Like “Turley Willfully” – as if you have any clue about the motives or intentions of others.

              You constantly fixate on hearsay thrice removed – i.e. what you said turley said the court said or Trump said or Yates said.

              I do not care one witt about what you think was wrong with the original EO.

              The fact is that the there is no substanative difference between the original and the revised Travel ban.
              It is not like YOU agree with the last revision and not the first, or that anything you were unhappy with regarding the first was corrected by revision.

              The courts addressed minor issues – people already issued a green card or those with a green card who were outside the US at the time of the EO. Normally these would have been handled by excercises of executive discretion – but the left must make everything into a holy war.

              Ultimately SCOTUS upheld the EO – unanimously.
              Yates was wrong.
              You were wrong.

              None one gives a $h!t about your claim that the unrevised EO had issues – they were not consequential. ‘

              Yates was not taking an unprincipled faux stand in principle over the trivial differences between the original and final.

              Her own Office of Legal Counsel found the original EO lawful and constitutional.
              And Yates herself did not argue it was unlawful or unconstitutional – but that it was unjust and unamerican.

              Those are arguments that MIGHT appeal to me – had she resigned in protest.

              But as AG you are required to defend the orders of the executive.
              If you can not do so – you must resign.

              Those on the left seem under the delusion that you can take a stand in principle – and risk nothing.

              Unsurprising – you have no integrity.
              and you can not keep your own stupid stories straight.

          2. John say,

            “ SCOTUS upheld Trump’s original Travel ban when it went before him first time – I beleive except for minor issues regarding Grand parents.”

            ??? Went before him? Grand parents? SCOTUS didn’t uphold the original one because it went thru two revisions. So the original one couldn’t have been decided

            1. There was a unanimous pur curuim SCTORUS oppinion in June of 2017 not long after the Travel ban was issued.
              That decision reversed the lower court TRO’s and allowed nearly all the provisions of the initial order to be enforced until Trump Vs. Hawaii reached SCOTUS more than a year later.

              This was MORE significant than the decision a year later.

              The Per Curuim decision essentially said that the EO was so obviously constitutional that outside of a few narrow areas involving close relatives, there was nothing for lower courts to decide.

              And AGAIN that was a very EARLY win for Trump – less than 6 months into his presidency.

              It was more than 1 full year before the final decision on the Travel Ban.

    3. Your obvious biases are showing.

      Comey and McCabe Both lied under oath or to investigators – or both. Hororwitz refered both to DOJ for prosecution.
      Barr dropped both cases.

      There is far more substance to the charges against Comey and McCabe, than against Flynn, Papadoulis, Van Zandt, and Stone – yet of those only the Flynn cases has been Dropped.

      Stone may be a more flamboyant character. He may be more offensive. He is a political operative and lies publicly for a living – like a long list of democratic political operatives. But that is quite different from being a criminal.

      There is no more actual basis for prosecuting Stone or any of the rest of these than of prosecuting Flynn.

      XFR died Jan 4 2017, XFH died a few weeks after. EVERYTHING that occured after that was illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of Civil Rights.

      Clinesmith lying to the FISA court occured AFTER the appointment of Mueller – so that is on Mueller and his team – they are as responsible as Clinesmith. Among other things THEY brought him into the investigation. THEY brought page and Strzok, THEY brought all these corrupt FBI agents, and Mueller brought in all these corrupt lawyers.

      Van Grack lied to multiple courts regarding Flynn. Van Grack failed to provided Brady material.
      These are things that should be prosecuted.

      If Barr was anything like Yates, Comey, Lynch, Holder half the Obama administration and team Mueller would be serving time already.

      Barr and Durham are straight shooters. You either know that or you are clueless.

  8. What kind of perspective does one obtain from a barren woman who would sleep with a male superior to gain favor and position, ingest marijuana and prosecute others for ingesting marijuana, then laugh about it, and claim to be a “natural born citizen” after being born of two parents who were not citizens?

    What is the mindset of a barren woman who gained a senate seat by running in an election with two democrats and no republicans on the ballot?

    What is the mindset of a barren woman without children?

    What is the mindset of a barren woman who has dubiously acquired a fictitious family?

    If a barren woman has no feeling or compassion for blood family, what kind of feeling or compassion does she have for law and governance?

    Human beings are ultimately capable of but a singular significant act; to perpetuate.

    If a woman leaves nothing, a woman is nothing.

    Kamala Harris may be “all hat and no cattle;” an empty suit.

    Kamala Harris may be nothing.

    1. Yates should be in a guillotine or prison.

      High criminals deserve high penalties.

  9. When Trump wins, and he most certainly will win, Americans will be able to do what we all needs to be done: Civil War 2.0
    That way I can paint everyone’s nails at my nail salon to make everyone pretty again

    Make Americans Nails Great Again

    1. COMMENT ABOVE:

      This is NOT Commenter Warner who no longer uses that name. This is the in-house troll who’s been stalking this blog for months.

      1. If you were actually an astute insider, you would know that wasn’t Seth. Also, it’s obvious this is Paint Chips, because you felt compelled to respond to that post. You never learn, do you?

        1. What do you mean it’s not me, OLLY!!!?? You’re just a right wing nut job Trumpster who forever lives in a right wing bubble.
          Of course it’s me! And why do you use the sock puppet to post anonymous under the right wing name OLLY?
          who are you anyways? What is your real name? Address? income? huh!? By the way, how hung are you? asking for a nail salon customer who is very much interested in sailors

  10. Are Harris And Yates As Sinister As Q-Anon?

    Multiple supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which got its start on far-right message boards, are running campaigns for Congress in 2020.

    The conspiracy theory, which revolves around an anonymous account known as “Q,” started on far-right message board site 4chan, later moving to fellow far-right message board site 8chan, which has since relaunched as 8kun. (Beyond the QAnon conspiracy theory, 8chan/8kun has been linked to multiple instances of white supremacist terrorism, including the 2019 massacre in El Paso, Texas.)

    The “Q” account’s claim — and the conspiracy theory’s premise — is that President Donald Trump was working with then-special counsel Robert Mueller to take down the president’s perceived enemies, the “deep state,” and pedophiles. Multiple adherents to the conspiracy theory have been tied to acts of violence, including multiple murders and attempted kidnappings, and an FBI field office released a memo in May 2019 that listed QAnon as a potential domestic terrorism threat.

    Currently, among these candidates who have endorsed or given credence to the conspiracy theory or promoted QAnon content:

    Twenty candidates — 19 Republicans and one independent — have already secured a spot on the ballot in November’s general election by competing in primary elections or by fulfilling other requirements needed to get on the ballot.

    Of those 20 candidates, five are from California, three are from Georgia, two each are from Illinois and Arizona, and there is one each from Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Ohio, and Texas.

    One candidate, in New York, is running as a Republican write-in in November’s general election.

    One candidate, in Louisiana, is running in the state’s nonpartisan blanket primary in November.

    In total, 72 of the candidates are Republicans, two are Democrats, one is a Libertarian, and two are independents.

    Edited from: “Here Are The Q-Anon Supporters Running For Congress In 2020”

    Media Matters. First published in January, updated 8/21/20

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      I scarcely doubt that Trump supporters on this blog will howl with outrage when they see this story is from “Media Matters”. But I chose this piece because those first few paragraphs provide a thorough summary of the organization and how many candidates have given credence to its conspiracy theories.

  11. “ The problem is, she wasn’t. She was fired for telling an entire department not to defend a travel ban that ultimately was upheld as lawful.”

    Turley again goes on to mischaracterize someone’s position with a literal sleight of hand.

    Turley leaves out the fact that when Yates was telling the department not to defend the travel ban. It it was the first iteration of the ban which was so poorly written and overly vague that it was deemed unlawful at first. Turley deliberately ignores the fact that the law was changed several times until it was deemed lawful. Yates was correct the first time and she was fired because she was right. Turley is not being honest with this depiction of events and he’s being very loose with the facts. This is why Turley’s credibility continues to crumble every time he engages in these types of criticisms. Yates was fired because she was right, when the first iteration of the ban was put forth.

    1. Wrong svelaz she was fired because she was insubordinate. Properly so

      hey, let the Dems, if they win, pick self righteous posers and uncooperative helpers like Yates. I welcome their lack of success should they have the chance.
      The last thing we should want is for them to hire someone effective.

      1. Mr. Kurtz, wrong. She was fired because she was actually doing her job. The first travel ban put forth by trump was not legally defensible. Yates had a duty to let the administration know that and chose correctly not to engage in its defense.

        After being fired she was proven to be correct the first time. The courts found the first travel ban to be unconstitutional. Turley leaves out this inconvenient fact in his criticism. It wasn’t until several revisions of the ban when it was finally deemed lawful. Yates was “uncooperative” because she knew the first travel ban was not legally defensible. You have not refuted that point. If you disagree show me it isn’t true.

        1. “Mr. Kurtz, wrong. She was fired because she was actually doing her job. The first travel ban put forth by trump was not legally defensible. Yates had a duty to let the administration know that and chose correctly not to engage in its defense.”

          How many times does this stupid claim have to be addressed.

          NO! One thousand times NO!.

          1). Scotus upheld the original EO except for minor issues with close relatives.
          2). To the extent that Yates was entitled to any voice at all – that was ONLY prior to the EO being issued.
          Once issued her job was to defend it. If she was unable to do that – then she must quit.
          3). the FIRST EO by Trump was a mirror of an Obama EO. The claims against the original EO and the claims against subsequence EO’s were exactly the same – that there was some right for non-US persons to travel to the US – SCOTUS rejected that. That Trump’s prior campaign remarks made the EO invalid – also rejected by SCOTUS.

          Yates’s does not have the right to fail to defend an EO – even if she thinks it is unconstitutional

          “After being fired she was proven to be correct the first time. The courts found the first travel ban to be unconstitutional.”
          SCOTUS upheld the original EO but exempted grandparents. You are incorrect.

          “Turley leaves out this inconvenient fact in his criticism.”
          FALSE – your “facts” are not facts – they are legal oppinions and they are wrong.

          “It wasn’t until several revisions of the ban when it was finally deemed lawful.”
          FALSE

          “Yates was “uncooperative””
          Correct

          “because she knew the first travel ban was not legally defensible.”
          False and irrelevant.

          “You have not refuted that point. If you disagree show me it isn’t true.”
          That has been “refuted”, bit more important it is STILL irrelevant.

          If Trump’s original EO was a constitutional disaster – Yates was STILL obligated to defend it or RESIGN.

          Neither government, nor any other position of employment gives you the RIGHT to countermand your boss.

          Yates had an absolute right to speak her mind about Trump’s EO – as a private citizen. As AG she was obligated to defend it.

      2. Mr. Kurtz. These are Turley’s own words on the FIRST travel ban which Yates correctly sees as legally indefensible.

        “ The new order removes the edges from the rather casual drafting of the first order. As I previously noted, good lawyering rarely changes the outcome of litigation but bad lawyering can. The first order reflects remarkably bad lawyering — if indeed it was drafted primarily by lawyers. ”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2017/03/06/trump-signs-new-immigration-executive-order/

        Here he admits the law was badly written and this is exactly why Yates refused to defend it and why she was fired. Turley conveniently leaves out this glaring fact in his criticism.

        1. PRIOR to Yates ordering the DOJ to not enforce the EO the DOJ Office of Legal Council found the EO to be lawful on its Face – Yates actually noted that in her email to DOJ attorney’s directing them not to enforce the order.

          1. John say, .

            “ PRIOR to Yates ordering the DOJ to not enforce the EO the DOJ Office of Legal Council found the EO to be lawful on its Face – Yates actually noted that in her email to DOJ attorney’s directing them not to enforce the order.”

            Problem is the DOJ Office of legal counsel only gave out a boilerplate sign off on the EO. It didn’t state that it was legal or not.

            “ The OLC memo, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from POLITICO, follows the boilerplate format for signing off on executive orders. It does not include any discussion of legal issues that the office considered when reviewing the draft.

            https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/justice-department-trump-travel-ban-234561

            It was just a standard memo that didn’t analyze anything on the substance of the EO and it’s legality. Yates pointed this out during her testimony in congress.

            1. So you expect all of us to beleive that DOJ OLC determined the law was constitutional and legal but did not really mean that – because you say so ?

              Svelaz – you have no integrity.

            2. Of course the memo is boilerplate.

              No the OLC is not obligated to discuss whatever legal issues YOU demand in a memo.

              You fail to grasp – the PRESUMPTION is that Executive Orders are constitutional.
              No argument is necescary to concur.

              The OLC did not need to say or prove anything for the EO to be constitutional.

              It needed to make a compelling argument to conclude that it was NOT constitutional.

            3. Yes we know that You, Yates and the left like to fixate on unimportant details – except when they get int eh way of your own grand plans, then you sweep them aside.

              I would note that even Yates did not argue the EO was unconstitutional.
              She argued AT THE TIME it was unamerican.

              That is her view – one many people share.
              But it is not a constitutional or legal challenge.

              I personally support open borders – contingent on eliminating all the laws that make open borders unsustainable.

              I think that anything that is not open borders is “unamerican”.

              But my view is not shared by most americans – not even on the left.

              The fact is the EO was both legal and constitutional.

              OLC stated that early on. SCOTUS stated that was likely the case 6 months later.
              And 18 months later they affirmed the EO was constitutional.

              Was it “american” – that depends on your Point of View – and that gets decided at the ballot box, not supreme court.

    2. Svelaz, your already poor reading comprehension skills are further clouded by your intense bigotry, and bouncing knees.

      JT thoroughly covered this in the article.

      1. COMMENT ABOVE:

        Once again we see a Trumper questioning the “reading comprehension skills” of a liberal.

        Almost every day a Trumper on these threads is using this “reading comprehension skills” cliche. How is it that so many Trumpers lean on this cliche?? I’d be very interested in seeing a forensic analysis tracing the roots of this hackneyed phrase.

        1. You would never have to hear another “trumper” talk about Reading comprehension, if you would just read – in most cases that is really all you need do – read all the words and do not pretend some are not there.
          The degree of comprehension required is typically SMALL.

      2. Rhodes, Turley didn’t bother to mention that there were three travel bans before the Supreme Court finally ruled on its legality. All three were deemed unconstitutional by every single court until the Supreme Court decided on the last one after numerous revisions.

        Your poor research skills are your biggest problem here.

        Sally Yates was fired because she was good at her job. She wasn’t a loyal sycophant that Trump prefers. Turley, being a big time law professor should know that the first travel ban was not legally sound.

        Turley never discusses the first travel ban which he conveniently leaves out. He discusses the second and third travel ban at length because the very controversial and unconstitutional provisions of the first were removed. Sally Yates, objection to defending the FIRST travel ban was correct. Turley only talks about the travel bans that were changed AFTER the flaws in the first. Yates was fired before the changes were made. This is why Turley is being intellectually dishonest in saying Yates was fired because of the travel ban.

        1. “Rhodes, Turley didn’t bother to mention that there were three travel bans before the Supreme Court finally ruled on its legality”

          Incorrect and STILL irrelevant.

          “All three were deemed unconstitutional by every single court until the Supreme Court”
          In otherwords lots of lower courts – Just like Yates were WRONG.

          But lets look at this idiotic claim of yours further – Obama has set a record for the largest number of 9-0 losses on EO’s and other executive actions before the Supreme court.

          Yet Holder, Lynch, Yates, and the Solicitor General of the US defended each and every one of these 9-0 losers.

          Where is it that you get the idea that the AG of the US – or anyone in the executive is allowed to order the rest of DOJ to refuse to defend a presidential action based on a beleif that it is unconstitutional ?

          Holder, Lynch, Yates and others defended VIGOROUSLY Obama EO;s that were found incredibly unconstitutional.

          They were OBLIGATED TO.

          “Your poor research skills are your biggest problem here.”
          This has nothing to do with research – though your cabal keeps this idiotic rant up with mostly bogus claims.

          “Sally Yates was fired because”
          She was insubordinate.

          “she was good at her job.”
          Her job was to defend the EO or quit.

          “She wasn’t a loyal sycophant that Trump prefers.”
          Everyone in every administration is obligated to be loyal to the president or quit.
          There is not an inbetween choice.

          If you actually beleive the presidents actions are illegal or unconstitutional you can quit and protest as a private citizen.

          This is not merely true of the president it is true every place you ever work.
          You do not have the right to countermand the directions of your boss.

          “Turley, being a big time law professor should know that the first travel ban was not legally sound.”
          Still false and still irrelevant.

          “Turley never discusses the first travel ban which he conveniently leaves out.”
          False and irrelevant.

          “He discusses the second and third travel ban at length because the very controversial and unconstitutional provisions of the first were removed.”
          No, in the case of Yates he barely discusses the EO at all – he does not need to, the specifics of the EO are unimportant.
          Even the constitutionality – which you are wrong about – is unimportant.

          “Sally Yates, objection to defending the FIRST travel ban was correct.”
          Wrong and still irrelevant.

          “Turley only talks about the travel bans that were changed AFTER the flaws in the first.”
          Wrong and irrelevant.

          Yates was fired before the changes were made.”
          Correct. She was correctly fired for insubordination.

          “This is why Turley is being intellectually dishonest in saying Yates was fired because of the travel ban.”
          You have this very bizarre view that YOUR (or Yates) legal oppinion is relevant. It is not.
          While you are wrong about the constitutionality of the EO.
          It would not matter if you were right.

          You keep trying to make this idiotic argument that Yates or anyone else’s view of the constitutionality of the EO is relevant.

          Numerous Obama EO’s were actually unconstitutional – shot down by SCOTUS 9-0
          and yet the DOJ, and solicitor general defended them.

          They are obligated to – it is their job. If they can not – they must resign – it is that simple.

          This bizzarre claim you are making is thoroughly bogus.
          There is no authority of the AG to defy the direction of the president or to order anyone else to.

        2. “Correction: Yates was not obligated to defend the poorly written original travel ban. Which Turley himself didn’t defend either.”

          Turley is not obligated to defend anything – he is not a member of the Trump administration.

          Nor is whether Turley defends or attacks the EO the standard for Yates conduct.
          In fact even if SCOTUS overturned the EO 9-0 vindicating Yate’s claims – she would STILL be insubordinate and rightly lose her job.

          Yates was AG – it was her job to defend the EO. Not as you claim to criticise it.
          She is free to criticise – even to got to court against it – from outside the executive branch.

          I would further note in her own letter directing DOJ staff to not enforce the EO Yates noted that the DOJ OLC found it facially valid – i.e. legal and constitutional.

          Yates did NOT claim it was unconstitutional. She did NOT claim it was illegal. she claimed it was hurtful and unfair.

          Those are positions she gets to take as a private citizen – not as US AG.

          Yates’s conduct was unethical.

          No one – not even I expect her to defend the EO against her consceince – whatever that might actually be.

          When you are asked to violate you conscience by your employer – you are morally obligated to quit.
          If you remain and sabotage what you oppose you are unethical.

    3. Svelaz writes:

      “Turley is not being honest with this depiction of events and he’s being very loose with the facts. This is why Turley’s credibility continues to crumble every time he engages in these types of criticisms. Yates was fired because she was right, when the first iteration of the ban was put forth.”

      JT is not an honest columnist, Unfortunate, but obvious.

    4. The first itteration that was so poorly written was plagerized from Obama.

      Regardless the quality of the writing does not alter whether it is constitutional.

      It is not Yates job to ex post facto criticize the writing.

      The EO was upheld because it was constitutional – the “poor writing” did not change that.
      Yates claim was that it was not constitutional – that was wrong – inarguably.

      Further, it is NOT her role as AG to refuse to defend an EO.
      She can privately ask the president to rewrite it, but publicly she must defend it or quit.

      You do not get to fight the executive from inside the executive. That is unethical – and it got her fired – justifiably.

      1. John Say, “ The first itteration that was so poorly written was plagerized from Obama.”

        You’re gonna need a citation for that claim.

        Turley himself never defended the first iteration which Turley admits was very poorly written and legally indefensible. Yates correctly did what her job dictates and defending that poorly written executive order. She’s obligated to defend unlawful executive orders and the first clearly was. Turley recognizes that because he only defends the second and third revisions of the EO. He never touches the first order for the same reason Yates didn’t chose to defend it.

        1. Correction: Yates was not obligated to defend the poorly written original travel ban. Which Turley himself didn’t defend either.

          1. Correction: I used the wrong Sock Puppet and meant to solicit business for my gay nail salon business in West Hollywood.
            It’s so confusing using so many fake sock puppet accounts!!!!

        2. Wikipedia will do, regardless it was reported heavily at the time.

          Even the list of countries came from Obama.

        3. “Turley himself never defended the first iteration which Turley admits was very poorly written and legally indefensible.”
          Not that it is relevant – but do you have a citation for that ?

          It is not relevant – because even if it was an unconstituional pile of horsepucky.
          Yates was obligated as AG to defend it or resign.

  12. “ I have been highly critical of President Donald Trump’s treatment of the Justice Department and his disregarding of the principles of separation of the White House from ongoing investigations.“

    That’s hilarious! Turley has spent more time DEFENDING the DOJ under AG Barr with convoluted and twisted rationales. Sometimes he gets it right, but most of the time JT just provides fodder for his base, a la trump.

    If Biden decides to do exactly what trump is doing, but opposite of what has been transpiring Turley will find himself in the unenviable position of having to explain his turnabout in opinion with the usual convoluted and twisted rationales he’s been putting out.

    1. “with convoluted and twisted rationales”

      Which are your inadvertent specialty.

    2. “If Biden decides to do exactly what trump is doing, but opposite of what has been transpiring Turley will find himself in the unenviable position of having to explain his turnabout in opinion with the usual convoluted and twisted rationales he’s been putting out.”

      Whatever does this even mean.

      Should Biden be elected, I would expect that he would continue the legitimate investigations that are ongoing.

      Trump allowed Illegitimate investigations to start.

      Given that there would be a huge conflict of interest with the whitehouse and any of the ongoing DOJ investigations, I would expect that on day one Biden’s AG would appoint a Special counsell – and populate it with angry republicans.

  13. The thing about magic and politics is that both require the audience’s cooperation. With Yates’ self-promoting sleight of hand, few in the media wanted to cry out that she palmed the facts. As one character in “The Prestige” explained, “You’re looking for the secret. But you won’t find it because, of course, you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.”

    This is so true and a sad reflection on the current state of our electorate. As tempting as it is to blame the politicians, their magic act wouldn’t work if the audience wasn’t so gullible. People want the magic politician’s pledge and they don’t seem particularly interested in anything else. I’m going to give you free this and free that. I’m going to end systemic racism and we’ll have zero carbon emissions by next week. The People, by and large, used to be skeptical of how this magic was going to be pulled off. Of course we had a media that would expose the trickery, which forced the politicians to hide their methods of illusion. Today, the media is sitting with the audience watching the magician reach down through a hole in the hat and pull a rabbit from the cage below. Bravo, bravo! And yes, these idiots will have at least one vote each in the general election.

  14. Here he goes again. Maybe you forgot, Jon, the xenophobic anti-Muslim rhetoric your hero spouted during the 2016 campaign: that he was going to ban all Muslims from coming to the US BECAUSE they are Muslims, even those who have the lawful right to come here. And regardless of what lame arguments his lawyers made to Courts about emergency presidential authority on the grounds of national security, everyone knows the real reason is xenophobia. All the courts said was that a president has authority to ban travel based on national security, but that wasn’t really the issue. It was a pretense. The courts did not find there was any national emergency, so Sally Yates was right. You are wrong.

    Meanwhile, this is all just a distraction to the recorded comments that Judge Maryanne Trump Barry had to say about her younger brother, things which everyone who really knows your hero also says about him. These conversations confirm that the source of the story about Jon’s hero paying someone to take the SAT test for him is his older sister, Maryanne. Dr. Mary Trump noted, in her book, that the media didn’t notice how the only blood relatives of Trump who spoke about him are those who are financially dependent upon him, and that none of his siblings, his nephews or his niece never praised him.

    1. ” … that he was going to ban all Muslims from coming to the US BECAUSE they are Muslims, even those who have the lawful right to come here.”
      *********************************************
      He never said that but I’d have no problem if he did since none have a “lawful right” to do so unless we say they do..

      1. Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802

        United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof

    2. Personally I have many Muslim friends and regard the religion with more respect than many of my fellow Christians do. perhaps because, being rather “old fashioned” myself, i find some of the feudalistic attributes of Islam, timeless wisdom.

      And yet, they do not assimilate well. We have plenty enough Muslims in America and do not need more. The US is a sovereign nation and has every right to limit its admissions for national security. The details of exercising that, such as that green card holders obviously get to come back in, subject to review of their compliances, is merely detail.

      Americans who beat the table screaming “Racisss!” and “bigot!” are subversives who are unconcerned about our collective national security. And, usually, utopian fools who believe that “all religions are inherently equal” or some other idiotic enlightenment bromide. Which by the way, no serious Muslim ever believes, for their own part.

      That’s why I sometimes respect them more than other people do. They often take their religion seriously, and in my crazy reading of humankind, is usually a sign of character. And yet in a nation founded on the heresy of “indifferentism,” —part of our national heritage almost, dubious though it may be– a pillar of freemasonry, if you understand the history of that movement, which is fabric of American culture– well, people with strong religious beliefs, however admirable that may be, often do not, “Fit in.” The issue at times is not a matter of personal character, rather, it is a matter of collective compatibility.

      Ironic to have this view as a native born American, I know. I tire of secularism and do not wish to defend it, so, Im trying to take a nuanced position based on the notion that we have a certain collective cultural identity that we should try and retain. If we lose it, this will not necessarily become a better place, even if some of our peculiar cultural attributes may not be the wisest in the first place. see Samuel Huntington

    3. This doesn’t even add up to a hill of beans, Natacha.

      You’re grasping at straws, and your nominee can’t even remember what a straw is used for.

      But his son Hunter knows that straws have a dual purpose. One for sucking up liquids, and the other for sucking up yeyo.

      Speaking of old Uncle Joe and Hunter:

      https://twitter.com/i/status/1296473319479410694

  15. In other news today:

    “Giancarlo Granda says his sexual relationship with the Falwells began when he was 20. He says he had sex with Becki Falwell while Jerry Falwell Jr, head of Liberty University and a staunch supporter of President Trump, looked on.”
    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-falwell-relationship/
    If they weren’t so judgmental about others’ sex lives, I wouldn’t care. Great photo at the bottom with the Fallwells, Mike Pence and “Mother” Pence.

    Adam Klasfeld (of Courthouse News):
    “This docket just opened in New York County Supreme Court: The People of the State of New York, by @NewYorkStateAG v. The Trump Organization, Inc. et al”

    The “et al” are: “DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Seven Springs, LLC, Eric Trump, Charles Martabano, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and Sheri Dillon”
    Interesting that Eric Trump and Sheri Dillon (Trump’s longtime tax attorney) are listed but Don Jr. isn’t.

    1. Commit and Natacha try a tag team deflection.

      To no avail, girls. Harris was the final nail in Dementia Joe’s political coffin.

    2. Guess now we know what “racy” photos led Fallwell to endorse Trump. Quoting a different Reuers article from a year ago:
      “Months before evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Jr.’s game-changing presidential endorsement of Donald Trump in 2016, Falwell asked Trump fixer Michael Cohen for a personal favor, Cohen said in a recorded conversation reviewed by Reuters. Falwell, president of Liberty University, one of the world’s largest Christian universities, said someone had come into possession of what Cohen described as racy “personal” photographs — the sort that would typically be kept “between husband and wife,” Cohen said in the taped conversation. According to a source familiar with Cohen’s thinking, the person who possessed the photos destroyed them after Cohen intervened on the Falwells’ behalf. … “I actually have one of the photos,” [Cohen] said, without going into specifics. “It’s terrible.” ”
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-falwell-exclusive/exclusive-trump-fixer-cohen-says-he-helped-falwell-handle-racy-photos-idUSKCN1SD2JG

      I wonder whether Cohen will be discussing this in his book that’s due out on Sept. 8.

      And another book due out soon will apparently quote Melania Trump disparaging Donald and his adult kids:
      “Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, the former friend of Melania Trump who helped produce the 2017 Presidential Inauguration, taped the First Lady making disparaging remarks about the president and his adult children according to two sources. Wolkoff plans on sharing the First Lady’s comments about her family in her forthcoming book ‘Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with The First Lady’ which will be published by Simon & Schuster’s Gallery Books on September 1.” (Yashar Ali)

      And an update from Adam Klasfeld re: the new case against the Trump Org. et al:
      “In a statement, @NewYorkStateAG says that Trump Org, Eric Trump and others have stalled and stonewalled their subpoenas for months. The AG’s probe looks into whether Trump inflated his assets on financial statements to secure loans and obtain economic and tax benefits.”
      https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1297953564204175360 — the tweet has the NY AG’s statement

      1. In other news:

        “Prosecutors Drop Mueller Charges Against Russian Firm Weeks Before Trial

        “It is no longer in the best interests of justice or the country’s national security to continue this prosecution,” federal prosecutors in Washington told the trial judge presiding over the case against Concord Management and Consulting, accused of sowing discord in the 2016 presidential election.”

        https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/03/16/prosecutors-move-to-dismiss-mueller-charges-against-russian-firm/

        Funny how this was never covered in the MSM.

        Yet more evidence that the Mueller investigation was nothing more than a Snipe hunt, and further evidence that the US intel services are totally corrupt.

        1. The MSM lies 24/7. Here’s another example

          https://www.outkick.com/florida-and-new-york-examining-a-media-coronavirus-narrative-failure/

          Florida and New York are two of the four most populous states in the country. Since March both states have received among the most media attention in the country for their responses to the coronavirus. The mainstream media has almost universally praised New York governor Andrew Cuomo for his leadership while almost universally denigrating the leadership of Florida governor Ron DeSantis.

          New York has been held up as a model for all states to follow — lauded as a success story by almost all mainstream media — while Florida has been ridiculed as representing all that is wrong with the nation’s response to the coronavirus.

          Yet when you look at the data, it’s quite clear the media has gotten this completely wrong.

          Florida is much closer to the model of a how a state should respond to the coronavirus and New York is a model of how to do everything wrong. Don’t believe me? Let’s go look at the data.

          Today Florida reported 2,957 new coronavirus cases, a total positivity rating among cases at 5.52% — up slightly from yesterday’s 4.87% rate, which was a two month low — and just 51 new deaths, the lowest number of new deaths in the state in over a month.

          Based on all this data it appears Florida’s “outbreak” is effectively over.

          This should be the number one story in the entire news cycle since the fear porn spread by the news media about Florida has effectively been incessant since March. Florida — and their governor, Ron DeSantis — has been the favorite coronavirus boogeyman of the entire country. Meanwhile New York governor Andrew Cuomo has been the media’s golden child, the leader who could do no wrong.

          Which is why looking at the data, rather than allowing the media to tell you what to think, is important.

          Because if you look at the data, spoiler alert, what you see is that Florida governor Ron DeSantis has done a far better job than New York governor Andrew Cuomo at handling the coronavirus.

          Consider this most basic stat: deaths per a million residents:

          Florida 481
          New York 1684

          Florida has roughly 25% of the overall deaths of New York despite having an older population than New York. Meaning not just has Florida done nearly 4x as good of a job protecting its residents lives as New York, it’s done that despite having a more vulnerable age population.

          If New York had the same rate of death of Florida the state of New York would have around 9,000 deaths instead of 32,000 deaths, meaning 23,000 people who are currently dead in New York would still be alive.

          Far from doing a good job, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York may well have done the worst job in the entire world. Indeed, the only competitor with him is New Jersey governor Phil Murphy.

          Look at the death rates per million in New York and New Jersey compared to the worst death rates in the entire rest of the world:

          1. New Jersey 1807
          2. New York 1694
          3. Belgium 861
          4. Peru 831
          5. Spain 617
          6. England 610
          7. Italy 586
          8. Sweden 575
          9. Chile 564
          10. United States 544

          So New York and New Jersey were three times as bad as the average in the United States. (Indeed, they are the primary reasons why the United States death rate is so high.)

          This is staggering information. New York and New Jersey didn’t just do awful at protecting their residents, they were twice as bad as any other country in the entire world.

          And they were positively awful compared to the other states in the country.

          Here are the four largest largest states in the United States ranked by death per million residents:

          1. New York 1694
          2. Florida 481
          3. Texas 401
          4. California 307

          Put plainly, New York is an unmitigated disaster compared to the rest of the world and the rest of the United States.

          What’s more, this doesn’t even tell the entire story.

          Look at the current unemployment rates in the four largest states as well:

          Texas is 8%
          Florida is 11.1%
          California is 13.3%
          New York is 15.9%

          So New York had the most deaths from the coronavirus in the nation and has the second worst unemployment rate in the entire nation, by far the worst of our four biggest states. (Massachusetts has the worst unemployment rate in the nation at 16.1%).

          You can argue the two primary goals of every governor should be to keep his citizens alive and put his adult citizens to work. If that’s the standard than Andrew Cuomo is the worst governor of any of our lives. He’s killed his citizens at the highest rates in the world while allowing their unemployment rate to be nearly the highest in the entire country.

          And for this Andrew Cuomo is a media star and his performance as a leader is widely praised?

          It’s mind boggling dishonesty.

          Based on his record of protecting life and keeping his state residents employed Andrew Cuomo has been the worst governor of our lives. Yet he’s writing a book, due out in October, lauding his own handling of the coronavirus. As if that weren’t enough Cuomo, right now, has one of the highest approval rates of any governor in the country and he’s the odds on favorite to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2024.

          If you doubt the power of the mainstream media to spread fundamental untruths, there is no better example in the 21st century than the lionization of New York governor Andrew Cuomo and his leadership during the coronavirus. Cuomo’s New York, far from being an example for the rest of the country, produced the single worst performance in the entire world when you combine deaths and unemployment rates.

          Instead of releasing what is likely to be a best-selling book and embarking on a round of media interviews where he will be nearly universally praised, Congress should be opening an inquiry into the death rate in New York state and investigating Cuomo’s decision to send thousands of sick patients back into nursing homes. Based on the data that is readily available for all to see, Cuomo should be investigated for manslaughter, not praised as a hero.

          Florida and New York tell a story for sure, but it’s the exact opposite one the mainstream media is peddling you. If data mattered, Ron DeSantis would be one of our nation’s heroes and Andrew Cuomo would be a national pariah. Instead, it’s the exact opposite.

          Facts matter, we should use them.

        2. They dropped the charges because the Judge told them he was not letting even the charges into the courtroom without actual evidence.

          They dropped the charges because in a court the russians were entitled to legal respresentation and DISCOVERY, and the judge told Mueller they were getting it.

          They dropped the charges because the Judge threatened Mueller with sanctions for saying in public what he had not provided as evidence in court and was therefore poisoning the jury pool.

      2. How did Falwell’s endorsement “change the game” ?

        Trump was going to win red states no matter what. In point of fact he did poorly in most red states because evangellicals did not trust him.
        But a republican doing poorly still wins in Alabama.
        For jones to beat Moore – Moore had to be caught kiddie diddling.

        Falwell was ZERO help in swing states. No one in Michigan or Wisconsin give a damn about Jerry Falwell.

      3. “The AG’s probe looks into whether Trump inflated his assets on financial statements to secure loans and obtain economic and tax benefits.”

        This entire claim is NONSENSE.

        There is no tax benefit to inflated asset values.

        Taxes are on income – and property taxes are HIGHER on inflated asset values.

        No one offering insurance or writing a loan doees so based on your own claims about your own asset values.

        One of the many hats I wear is that I own a “due Dilligence” Company. Banks higher us to look at buildings that are seeking refinancing.
        Which typically happens every 5-7 years.

        When that occurs, I am sent out to do a PCA – basically to verify that the building is what the owner claims it is. That if it is supposed to br 43 floors with 200 uints that it actually is. that it is properly maintained, and to provide estimates of the expected future mainanence and repaid costs for the duration of the loan. In addition an energy audit is typically done, and an appraisal by a certified independent apraiser, and an Environmental study to determine if there are environmental problems – asbestos, underground storage etc.

        One of the buildings I did last year at this time was Essex House – the JW Marriot on Central park. They had rooms that run over 22K/night.

        Regardless, the point is that banks do not loan people hundreds of millions and billions of dollars just on the paperwork the owner fills out.

        For a 50M building probably about 40K is spent on “due dilligence” that is verifying that whatever is being refinanced is what it is.

        DD is done by insurance companies for high value buildings, it is done for purchases and refinances for buildings from a couple of hundred K to billions of dollars. I have done PCA’s on pot grow houses, Hyat regency hotels, Store and Go storge parks, nursing homes, stores, warehouses, …

        Though it is a different market – exactly the same happens for home sails – Banks ask for an appraisal, and usually a building inspector.
        Do you think if a Bank asks for all that when you sell a 50K home that they just ask you what your 100 story skyscraper is worth ?

        The fact that the AG brought this case just proves she is an idiot.

        I would further note – lets just say Trump pulled the wool over someone.

        If he over insured his building – he must pay higher insurance premiums, and he will not collect unless the building burns down – has that happened ?

        If he over estimates the value of the building for a mortgage – he must repay the mortgage on the higher value.
        Again the bank will only care if the building burns down.

        So how is it that Trump even gains an advanatge from over estimating the value of his property ?

    3. this is old news already. Miami newspaper broke story like a year ago. Fallwell is just admitting it now. there was a lawsuit with this guy. of course he spilled the beans.

      that Becky is apparently what’s called a “hotwife” and wanted to swing, even though, predictably, it’s come to light and made a fool out of her husband. of course they say this sort of thing goes on more and more these days as women have much more “empowered sexuality” and so forth. hey, Theseus, send Hippolyta home, please? All the women want to let their hair down too

      I heard recently there is a video-single called WAP ya know what that stands for. Here’s Becky, she had a WAP. Look that up, WAP. gets a lot of guys in trouble. Jerry should have told her, no way. Or maybe she didn’t wait for permission. Well, seems like, he got “Sucked into it” too, one way or another.

      Old Roger stone’s wife was a swinger too, but at least they never tried to hide it, and pretend to be angels. Personally, I don’t begrude people for wanting to explore a certain degree of lawful, adult consenting sex behaviors. And some women have yuuuuuuge libidos. Do you think King Solomon was able to keep all his wives busy? LOL But when you’re a preacher, man, it’s a really bad idea. So how it happen? I really don’t want to know. Its a fair hypothesis she got the hots for the pool boy and old Jerry let him have an “at bat” and sat back and got some kinky kicks from it. Thinking they wouldnt get caught. but of course, they did. Jerry did the smart thing and spilled the beans about it. Late but now everybody can move on to the next thing.

    4. Somebody here big Falwell fans ?

      If Falwell Jr. has been revealed as a hypocrite that is fine by me.

    5. NewYorkStateAG and if the case is successfully prosecuted, then I will care.

      Regardless, do you honestly beelive that an army of lawyers and accountants would sign off on a fraudulent tax return ?

      The IRS has a small army of people whose sole job is to review people like Trump’s taxes.

      People like Trump pay 50% of the taxes in the US – of course the IRS looks carefully at them.

      But beleive what you want/

  16. Every day I’m amazed at the prevaricating of the Democratic Party and the mealymouthed main stream press, I’m reminded of the Epimenides Paradox “All Cretans are Liars”, or more colloquial “I am lying”. No matter what or whenever they speak, you cannot be assured of the truth or a lie. These past three plus years has demonstrated the lengths they will go to camouflage the real truth to the American public. The Republican Party had a great opportunity to forward the truth during the first two years of the Trump administration, but was denied by the lack of leadership within the House of Representatives by Speaker Ryan and his supporting cast members. Now America faces one of the worse disasters in it’s short history, the election of a Socialist, or might I say a Communist party. The reason I say these harsh words is what I’m seeing in numerous cities across America, the Democratic Parties silence and or the advancement of activities reminiscent of the Bolshevik Revolution of Russia. I pray for this great Nation based on the principal’s of our founding documents, “The Declaration of Independence”and the “Constitution”.

Comments are closed.