The Truman Show Election: How The Public Is Left In The Dark Pending The Election

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the array of issues that now appear to be on hold pending the outcome of the election. This weekend former Vice President Joe Biden went so far as to say that voters do not “deserve” to know his position on packing the Court, reaffirming that voters must wait until after they elect him for an answer.  It has a familiar ring for those who watched the movie The Truman Show. 

Here is the column:

Joe Biden was asked again this week whether he would pack the Supreme Court if elected president. Rather than answer, Biden flashed a signature smile of the character from the “Truman Show” and offered his version of the classic line from the 1998 movie, “Good morning, and in case I do not see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight.”

From court packing to the Russia investigation to the Michael Flynn case, Washington is back to Seahaven Island where “you cannot get any further away before you start coming back.” In the movie, Truman Burbank was the only person in the dark. In this remake, the viewers are the voters in the dark, and only the main characters know the truth.

Though he once denounced court packing, as did the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Biden has refused to answer whether he would support the plan raised by Democrats, including his running mate Senator Kamala Harris. This week, Biden testily responded to reporters, “You will know my opinion on court packing when the election is over.”

That is a truly alarming position for a candidate to take. Court packing is widely viewed as threatening to destroy a foundational institution in our constitutional system. Yet Biden refuses to say whether he would take a hatchet to the Supreme Court of the last two centuries. But the future of the judicial branch is just one issue left on layaway.

As news emerged that United States Attorney John Durham uncovered some serious and possibly criminal conduct in the Russia investigation, Democrats demanded that he not release his report before the election. Indeed, the federal rules tell prosecutors to avoid timing “investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting an election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” However, major cases often do affect elections, and they are not sealed in amber until the votes are counted.

The investigation by Durham is focused on conduct in the election four years ago. His subjects of scrutiny are not candidates on this ballot but rather federal officials involved in the investigation of potential collusion between Russia and the Donald Trump campaign in 2016. This proved to be unfounded. Ultimately, there was no evidence of collusion, let alone anyone who committed crimes related to collusion. Indeed, disclosed evidence shows the FBI was told early on that the allegations were not only dubious but possibly disinformation from Russia.

In recent weeks, we learned that the primary source used by Christopher Steele in his now infamous dossier was believed to be an agent of Russia. Recent declassified material also showed that in 2016, then CIA director John Brennan had briefed President Obama on an alleged plan by Hillary Clinton to tie then candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The handwritten notes from Brennen would seem extremely serious on their face. Indeed, the allegation was sufficiently serious to brief the president.

It reflected intelligence reports given to the FBI and then director James Comey. When asked last week about the report, Comey simply said it did not “ring a bell.” What rings his bell is precisely what the investigation by Durham could reveal. All of this recent evidence happens to tie in to other earlier facts, from the Clinton campaign lying about funding the dossier to Steele misrepresenting his sources and his conclusions.

There are arguments for delaying the release of the report by Durham this close to the election. But there is a lack of assurances that we would ever know the findings after the election. If Democrats control both chambers of Congress, it is unlikely they will have hearings on the report. Democrats on the intelligence committees have said they want the investigations into 2016 to end so we can all “look ahead rather than back.” If Biden becomes the next president, the Justice Department could shut down or curtail the investigation, or even classify its final report as privileged.

Democrats are not the only Washington officials leaving the future open. In the case of Michael Flynn, Judge Emmet Sullivan appears to be waiting out on the election before issuing a final ruling. Sullivan was supposed to sentence the former national security adviser two years ago. Instead, he held a hearing where he made disturbing statements about the case and then threatened to jail Flynn, ignoring the Justice Department probation recommendation. An appellate panel decided this summer that enough was enough, and it ordered Sullivan to dismiss the charge.

But the full appeals court decided Sullivan should be given a chance to do the right thing and issue a final ruling before any review. He has refused to sentence Flynn, despite the Justice Department finding that Flynn should not have been charged. When Sullivan got the case back from the appeals court, he knew he would very likely be reversed if he did not dismiss the charge. Yet he again refused to rule and lambasted the administration, and said that he “still has questions” about the case.

If Sullivan waits a few more months, the Justice Department might reverse its position on Flynn if Biden wins the election. That creates a disturbing image in a case already marred by allegations of bias. When prosecutors try to manipulate a case by selecting the judge, it is denounced as judge shopping. If Sullivan delays until after the election, it will appear to be a type of president shopping, delaying a sentencing almost three years to wait for a president more amenable to jailing Flynn.

Voters will have answers to these questions, as Biden stated, “when the election is over” and no sooner. Then it will be a new day. In the “Truman Show,” the master architect of the artificial world of the flim rejected the concept of truth and declared, “We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented. It is as simple as that.” With a few weeks to the election, it is indeed as simple as that for the voters.

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

279 thoughts on “The Truman Show Election: How The Public Is Left In The Dark Pending The Election”

  1. “It defies all journalistic standards for editorial boards to not demand answers about why Biden ferried his troubled son Hunter on Air Force Two to China when Hunter was seeking lucrative business deals from entities controlled by the Communist Chinese government. More broadly, why isn’t Biden forced to answer for the entire family profiteering ring that even the decidedly non-conservative Politico dubbed “Biden, Inc.?” And if money isn’t to blame, why isn’t Biden asked why he has been so soft on China for so long?”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/biden-has-been-wrong-or-worse-for-his-entire-sorry-career

  2. Biden has been wrong, or worse, for his entire, sorry career

    Whatever Trump’s flaws, “That still doesn’t absolve the media of its obligation to examine the equally powerful evidence that Joe Biden is a liar, a serial plagiarist, a foreign-policy numbskull, a political coward, & a useful idiot for the radical Left”

    —————————-

    “As for cowardice, it is beyond all reason that Biden doesn’t face repeated questions and harsh criticisms from every media outlet about his refusal to say whether he would sign a bill to pack the Supreme Court. It is one of the election’s most important issues, with momentous ramifications for the court’s independence and the nation’s future.

    It is mind-boggling to see Biden change his position four different times on whether he, as president, can “implement nationwide mask mandates,” and maddening to see him skate on why he opposed Trump’s virus-restricting partial-ban on travel from China.

    It defies all journalistic standards for editorial boards to not demand answers about why Biden ferried his troubled son Hunter on Air Force Two to China when Hunter was seeking lucrative business deals from entities controlled by the Communist Chinese government. More broadly, why isn’t Biden forced to answer for the entire family profiteering ring that even the decidedly non-conservative Politico dubbed “Biden, Inc.?” And if money isn’t to blame, why isn’t Biden asked why he has been so soft on China for so long?

    Why isn’t it demanded that Biden renounce the Communist-terrorist-inspired Black Lives Matter organization (not the slogan) the way Trump is expected to denounce white supremacists — especially when his party’s whole convention passed without a concerted effort to distance itself from anarchic street violence?

    The media hasn’t pressed Biden on his call to eliminate the individual “right to work” enjoyed by 166 million people. It hasn’t asked him to explain exactly how his campaign can say the prohibitively expensive “Green New Deal” is a “crucial framework” for policy while he says he himself isn’t for the Green New Deal. (That seems like an unsquareable circle.)….”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/biden-has-been-wrong-or-worse-for-his-entire-sorry-career

    1. FROM COMMIT’S ARTICLE:

      As they waited, Heidi’s health deteriorated. When she returned to the hospital on the third day, after another night without a natural miscarriage, the doctor told her the situation was dire. She could lose her uterus in a matter of hours if she wasn’t able to have an abortion, and if she became septic from the uterine infection, she could die.

      The doctor appealed to the hospital’s board for an exception to their anti-abortion policy and was denied. “I still vividly remember he left a message on the answering machine saying, ‘They refused to give me permission, not based on good medical practice, simply based on politics. I recommend you immediately find another physician who can do this procedure quickly,’” Peters recalls.

      The Peters were able to get into another hospital right away because they were friends with its chief administrator. Heidi was rushed into an emergency abortion that saved her uterus and possibly her life. The whole experience was “painful and traumatic,” Heidi shared in a statement. “If it weren’t for urgent and critical medical care, I could have lost my life.”
      …………………………………………………

      The article describes a situation that totally justifies late term abortions. These procedures often concern mothers who really wanted the baby. Criminalizing abortion will simply lead to horrific scenarios in which a woman’s life is mindlessly jeopardized.

    2. It made Elle because it was one of the few justifiable late-term abortions. Very unusual and likely would always be legal.

  3. One reason that China has so many fewer COVID-19 deaths than the U.S., despite its population being so much larger:

    The Associated Press: “ASIA TODAY: Chinese health authorities will test all 9 million people in the eastern city of Qingdao for the coronavirus this week after nine cases linked to a hospital were found, the government announces. http://apne.ws/3a6cFhe

    I’m not a Biden fan, but Trump is unfit, and I hope he’s resoundingly defeated.

    1. “’m not a Biden fan, but Trump is unfit, and I hope he’s resoundingly defeated.”
      ************************
      Anybody who believes the CCP is unfit for just about anything intellectual.

      1. Bob, the Chinese government is like Trump: both make a mixture of true statements and false statements. Whether or not I believe something from either one depends on the specifics of the statement.

        I recall seeing a video from a foreigner working in China shortly after the coronavirus was first identified, and the extremes that everyone had to go through: temperature taken every time someone got on a bus or a taxi, temperature taken every time someone entered a building, QR codes that people had to scan with their phones whenever they entered and exited buildings, …, all tied to a national ID on the person’s cellphone, so that contact tracing could occur if the person started to exhibit symptoms. I’m not saying that that would be allowed in the US, but it convinced me of the extremes that the Chinese governments — national and local — would go through with hundreds of millions of people to tamp down spread there.

        I know for a fact that Trump lied about the availability of tests for the general public. I know for a fact that Trump did not deal with the virus effectively in the U.S. (e.g., he trumpets having cut off travel from China, when tens of thousands of people came to the U.S. from China after he implemented restrictions, when he turned the international airports into hot zones by not planning effectively for dealing with the mass of people packed together there, when he wasn’t paying attention to spread from Europe until too late).

        You’re free not to believe the AP report if you don’t want to.

    2. “One reason that China has so many fewer COVID-19 deaths than the U.S.”

      So, you actually believe CCP propaganda?!

      As to actual alleged deaths caused by Covid19 in the US:

      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

      “Comorbidities

      “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”

      Speaking of propaganda. Strange how you won’t ever see that fact reported on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC.

      “I’m not a Biden fan”

      But you’re definitely a Xi Jinping fan.

      And you’re also a bigoted racist, who uses black Americans to push a bogus political narrative that pretends to care about “Black Lives”.

        1. The biggest troll on the blog who has multiple pretend friends, multiple icons, multiple names and almost lives entirely on the blog is calling someone else a troll. Maybe you will have a few of your pretend friends post a pat on the back for you.

            1. I definitely own you, and will continue to completely own you.

              You display my ownership of you every time you reply to one of my posts with a feeble attempt at an ad hominem attack, because you’ve got nothing else.

              That is what all trolls like you, do.

            2. Anon. at 1:49 — you’re right, and his response underscores it, but don’t take Rhodes’ bait. Ignore him like Committ did. Don’t feed.

  4. DESPERATE FOR DURHAM

    Turley’s column reveals the heightened anxiety of Republicans as John Durham’s investigation becomes increasingly iffy. At one point Republicans presumed that Durham would ride to their rescue with an October surprise to save Trump’s presidency. But the likelihood of that happening is now remote.

    It’s absurd to think that anyone would overlook Trump’s mental state merely because John Durham found some shred of proof that the Mueller Probe really was hoax (which it wasn’t). But Turley seems to think such a finding would change the dynamics of this election.

    Like voters would say, “Trump mishandled the pandemic but now I’m teed-off to hear that Michael Flynn got a raw deal”.

    Seriously, no one outside the right-wing bubble cares about Michael Flynn. No one will think Trump is saner because Durham uncovered some discrepancy in FBI documents. Americans have had 4 years of Trump’s insanity. We’re exhausted by Trump! Nothing John Durham finds is going to affect the vote.

        1. Are you saying that isn’t Biden in the videos?!

          Man, you are the biggest purveyor of weak ass sauce I’ve ever seen.

  5. 50 some people shot in chicago over the weekend.

    here’s a map of shootings. guess what. yeah, you guessed it. black neighborhoods

    https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2020-10-12_12-24-39.png?itok=TsKDHcYx

    strange irony isnt it? that black voters are the most loyal group for Democrats and they produce Dem administrations in all these big cities and then what do they do for them.

    not much– they definitely don’t keep law and order

    of course that may relate to the whole peaceful riots thing, i guess? tell the cops they can’t defend themselves, then dont expect them to stick their necks out for you

  6. Today is a very important day honoring the brilliance, bravery and courageousness of an Italian man, with the support of Spanish Monarchs, who gave us what we have today in the Western World. I am surprised none of the resident Italians on here have given Cristobal Colon his due.

    Happy Christopher Columbus Day

    Bishop Robert Barron produced an excellent film on Saint Bartolome de las Casas, defender of the Indies. Worth watching. It puts the discovery of the Indies in historical context.

    1. Noe of us would even be alive without Christopher. Our ancestors were jam packed into Europe or other places for that matter and didn’t have the room to grow. It’s because of the Conquest of the New World, warts and all, that we even live.

      The world population would not even be half what it is if this Continent was just buffalo running around munching grass etc.

      Of course they want to cut the world population in half now anyways, so you can see that respect for CC is on its way out

      https://twitter.com/Millennial_c0n/status/1284564649078394880?s=20

      BLM attacked his statue in Chicago and assaulted numerous police in their criminal enterprise

      to reward them, the craven Mayor Lightfoot took it down under cover of darkness

      1. Kurtz, the pattern of settlement in North America followed the pattern established when the first farmers of Europe spread from Anatolia into Europe. Farming produces more food which produces more people and the expanding population dwarfs the existing hunter-gatherer peoples. Eating roots and berries and an occasional buffalo a people can never grow into a large population. In North America it was just numbers.

        In Mexico it was different. The Spaniards brought a superior organization and culture. Their weapons were marginally superior but Cortez was almost wiped out by the Tlascans in an early encounter. When both sides realized that they could join against the Aztecs, they did. Conquest and subjugation was not unknown to the great Indian cultures of Meso-America and South America. They did it to each other all the time. Cortez and later Pizzaro took advantage of the existing social structures and managed to conquer with only a handful of men.

        Reading Bernal Diaz, the soldier who was with Cortez, I can’t regret what they did. The practice of human sacrifice they encountered was abhorrent and they ended it.

        Columbus was a great man and the world is better for him.

  7. Once again we see JTs bias. Trump refuses to release his taxes, and keeps his health care plan a secret. Joe has been very clear about his taxes and polices. But JT always somehow criticizes the Ds only while the Rs donthrbsame thing x10.

    1. Once again we see JTs bias.

      Yeah, silly JT, hosting a legal blog that is fixated on the constitution. Perhaps he should create an alternate universe legal feelings blog that would cater to Democrats, since they aren’t interested in the rule of law or the constitution.

  8. Perhaps President Trump should declare a National Security Election Emergency and require all votes for federal offices be cast with paper ballots and voter ID.

    The Democrats have been trying to convince us that Russians and Chinese and others are trying to meddle in our elections. Let’s be convinced.

    What better way for foreign powers to meddle than for us to leave ourselves open to electronic hacking and assumed personalities. It should be stopped immediately. We don’t want Putin or some mullah to choose our next president.

    As an afterthought, the decree should also ban dead people from voting. For some reason everyone becomes a Democrat when he dies.

      1. “…OR TO THE PEOPLE.”

        10th Amendment

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  9. Compare and contrast with Trump, who readily released his short list of Supreme Court picks long ago. He has been quite open about his plans.

    Everyone on Earth knows what Trump thinks about any issue, and any time of day.

    We actually do know Biden’s plans. I heard him say with my own ears that if he answered the question before the election, that’s what all the headlines would read. If he was not going to pack the court, he would just say so.

    Imagine, for a moment, if it were Republicans planning to expand the court so they could stuff it with ideologues who would rule from the bench. The media, and activists, would be out rioting.

    1. So when Trump bragged about grabbing women by the p*ssy, he was telling the truth, right?

      Since you think that “If he was not going to pack the court, he would just say so,” then you probably also think that if Trump were honest on his tax returns, he’d just release them.

      1. It seems that Anonymous has this awful urge to inject the word “p*ssy” into many of his comments. Perhaps Anonymous feels deprived. In any event whatever sex education anonymous had didn’t do much good.

          1. Anonymous, you wish to dictate the sexual lives of others along with a whole host of other controls over the individual. You are a nuisance. What Biden did was not consensual and doing what he did to a Secret Service Agent’s wife is stupid.That demonstrated how Biden handles power. In addition to being corrupt he is intent on molesting anyone he pleases to molest.

            Trump’s relationships have been consensual. His talk is locker room talk. You like the word so I will use it now. You are a p*ssy and probably run out of locker rooms in fear that you might hear some bad language. I don’t condone that type of behavior or yours but as long as no force is being used or people hurt that is not my business. On the other hand as President Trump has been very successful in many areas and mostly filled his promises to the voters. I wonder how many promises Joe Biden filled in 47 years. He is campaigning based on promises he never fulfilled even as VP for eight years.

            1. Trump is currently fighting court cases related to his sexual abuse of women. He admitted on tape that he doesn’t wait for consent. You defend a serial sexual abuser, Allan.

              1. State the exact complaint, date, time, place and witnesses.

                State the facts
                State the law

                We have heard a lot of bunk from your side of the aisle that all turned out to be lies or at the very least errors. Credibility counts.

                1. I don’t take orders from you, Allan, especially when you refuse to do what you demand from others.

                  The case names are Carroll v. Trump and Zervos v. Trump. Read them for yourself instead of wanting to be bottle fed, defamation suits involving alleged sexual misconduct. The video above has him on tape saying that he doesn’t wait for consent.

                  1. Anyone can sue anyone else and Democrats use the ability to sue when they want to make a false claim to destroy another’s reputation. That is why election or nomination time is the season for such claims no matter how old they are or how little credibility they have.

                    What is meaningful are the things I mentioned. It is obvious that this is just more bunk that is not going anywhere and that is why you leave the questions unanswered. Ambulance chasers are mostly democrats. It’s so convenient during these heated political times to suddenly bring up a case over 20 years old. That immediately tells us she has the same credibility as you. None.

                    Biden’s case however was documented when it happened.

    2. Karen, he has no “picks”. He has no idea about anything other than to bloviate about his greatness and connive on how to avoid humiliation. He was told the Evangelicals will vote for him if he allows the Federalist Society to make selections, so he did. Their criteria were: 1. overturn Roe v. Wade. Barrett has written law review articles about how she could do this. She has some stupid idea about ranking the importance of stare decisis, which is not recognized by any nonpartisan legal authority; 2. overturn the ACA. No matter that 20 million will lose coverage, and that most Americans support the ACA; and 3. help Trump cheat his way back into office. Trump has admitted to each of these as main criteria. The American people do not agree. Trump, Republicans and Barrett couldn’t care less. It’s about power. She pretends to be a legal scholar, but she knows she is being used for political purposes, and that most Americans oppose pushing ahead with her confirmation before the election. How ironic that many of the Republican Senators and Trump, if the polls are right, will be lame-ducks who will nevertheless saddle the American people with a 48 year old extremist with a lifetime appointment, and whose views most Americans don’t agree with. That’s OK with you, but adding justices to obtain a representative balance of views is wrong, even though there is nothing in the Constitution about the required number of judges. So says the true Fox disciple.

      1. Have you watched Joe Biden speak at any of his rare in person campaign events? Oh lordy. Today’s Ohio event? Snooze fest. Talk about LOW energy. Talk about looking at an OLD man, an OLD man who has been thru the ringer and is in no way up to the job of President. Talk about looking at an OLD man telling the same old stories, an old man who is undoubtedly suffering cognitive decline and the obvious onset of senility.

        1. Have you listened to tRump? Talk about cognitive decline. The guy can’t string a sentence together without rambling and tripping over words.

          1. Anonymous, you confuse a laid back manner of non-stop speaking sometimes for a couple of hours to the people with cognitive decline. Maybe you should look up cognitive decline and learn what it is. Then you can listen to Biden who has never been very bright or quick thinker and compare what you saw in the past with what you have presently. That is cognitive decline.

          2. Don’t take the bait, Anon. Allan is a troll, and he’s trying to provoke you. He needs to be fed less.

            1. Anonymous, I am waiting for you to add all your pretend anonymous friends to the discussion. It makes things so much more interesting.

              1. Yep, Anonymous is always looking for a pat on the back and if it isn’t given he will get it from one of his pretend friends.

      2. Trump has said he will sign a clean bill for stimulus checks. Why are Pelosi and her Democrats holding it up?

        1. good question. the answer is, they want to deny them to people and then blame trump, even though it’s their fault

          the reason they think they can get away with that? easy, the global mass media are in the palm of their hand

          see, our vaunted First Amendment is a lot less of a socalled protection than we think it is. sure, let’s dust that sucker off and work up an amendment to it. im game

          when private interests ie the global mass media, that is more powerful as any government news agency say whatever lies fit their corporate agenda, the First Amendment is of little help.

  10. Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Day is ‘mythomania’ — an abnormal tendency to lie and exaggerate.
    That’s new to me, but I can use it already: Trump is a mythomaniac.

    1. ” ‘mythomania’ — an abnormal tendency to lie ”

      What a wonderful word to describe you.

      In any event:

      Can you state the 5 most significant lies as President.
      Provide the facts involved in context.
      Prove your case

      1. Biden has been wrong, or worse, for his entire, sorry career

        Whatever Trump’s flaws, “That still doesn’t absolve the media of its obligation to examine the equally powerful evidence that Joe Biden is a liar, a serial plagiarist, a foreign-policy numbskull, a political coward, & a useful idiot for the radical Left”

        —————————-

        “As for cowardice, it is beyond all reason that Biden doesn’t face repeated questions and harsh criticisms from every media outlet about his refusal to say whether he would sign a bill to pack the Supreme Court. It is one of the election’s most important issues, with momentous ramifications for the court’s independence and the nation’s future.

        It is mind-boggling to see Biden change his position four different times on whether he, as president, can “implement nationwide mask mandates,” and maddening to see him skate on why he opposed Trump’s virus-restricting partial-ban on travel from China.

        It defies all journalistic standards for editorial boards to not demand answers about why Biden ferried his troubled son Hunter on Air Force Two to China when Hunter was seeking lucrative business deals from entities controlled by the Communist Chinese government. More broadly, why isn’t Biden forced to answer for the entire family profiteering ring that even the decidedly non-conservative Politico dubbed “Biden, Inc.?” And if money isn’t to blame, why isn’t Biden asked why he has been so soft on China for so long?

        Why isn’t it demanded that Biden renounce the Communist-terrorist-inspired Black Lives Matter organization (not the slogan) the way Trump is expected to denounce white supremacists — especially when his party’s whole convention passed without a concerted effort to distance itself from anarchic street violence?

        The media hasn’t pressed Biden on his call to eliminate the individual “right to work” enjoyed by 166 million people. It hasn’t asked him to explain exactly how his campaign can say the prohibitively expensive “Green New Deal” is a “crucial framework” for policy while he says he himself isn’t for the Green New Deal. (That seems like an unsquareable circle.)….”

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/biden-has-been-wrong-or-worse-for-his-entire-sorry-career

    1. WOW. Idiot Chris Wallace lecturing constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley about the law is probably the most ridiculous thing you will see on television this week.

      1. You didn’t watch it did you, if you did you would not have said that. Of course the voices in your head told you what he did say, right.

        1. I did watch it. My head told me Chris Wallace interrupted Turley mid sentence. My head told me that it would have been awesome if Turley had said, “Mr. Wallace, I’m speaking.” My head told me Wallace is sounding more and more like a cartoon character who is hard to take seriously. My head told me this entire Obamacare hearing is a farce. The voices in my head told me Repubs should skip this pointless Democrat political theater and go straight to a vote.

          1. The Repugs engage in just as much political theater as the Dems, if not more. That said, ACB will be confirmed, so just get it done and move along.

            Two words:

            term limits

            1. I won’t deny the Republicans have a lot of faults and that is why I was never a Republican until recent years, but we are dealing with a new revolutionary democrat party that has a lust for power without concern about what happens to the American public. Biden represents the leadership of Democrats well and sees to it that his position enriches his family and guarantees him a place up front in the bread line.

              Democrats support violence and do not stop the violence created by BLM and Antifa that destroys American families by destroying businesses, killing or otherwise injuring people, destroying neighborhoods and advocating fascist methods to control the American people.

              Florida is bigger than NY and a lot of the states where tremendous violence has occurred. It also is one of the most ethnically diverse states. It has locations that should be powder boxes, but for the most part Florida has been spared destruction by Antifa and BLM because the Republican government will not tolerate such destruction.

              Knowing that the democrats attempt to make the 2020 election appear questionable the Republican governor is already preparing for violence should it arise. There will be no defunding of police because that will cause a defunding by the state. There will be an active highway patrol that will rapidly move to any area where there is trouble and they will be followed by the national guard.

              The rioters will be arrested and there will be no bail. Penalties will be high for blocking up highways and major roadways that will be immediately cleared. Throwing things at the police will lead to incarceration and mandated jail terms, no bail. Out of states will be penalized even more. Public statues and buildings will be protected and violators jailed for significant periods of time.

              That is how one is supposed to act in the face of massive looting, rioting and arson. Democrats do nothing but fan such flames having power and money as their only objective..

        2. Gee, Turley is “concerned” and thinks bringing the effects of the court on real people into a hearing is “inappropriate”. What a hack! He finds the both Democrats and Republicans hypocrites and nothing new there, when Garland was denied advise and consent – not optional by the constitution, but Turley is not “concerned” about – and the seat came open 10 months, not 1 from an election. That is neither equivalent or “appropriate” and Turley’s hypocrisy on this is sickening and his “concern” for the court is concern for his team and nothing else. If he’s a Democrat, Trump is a successful businessman. Figures he’s on Fox, the network he never criticizes while laying into CNN and MSNBC every other day.

          What a phony.

            1. Tucker Carlson’s lawyer said in court that he’s just entertainment and no one should take him seriously.

              1. “Tucker Carlson’s lawyer said in court that he’s just entertainment and no one should take him seriously.”

                Anonymous, you can’t even paraphrase the attorney accurately. To use your own word you are a doofus.

                The lawyer said: “What we’re talking about here, it’s not the front page of The New York Times. It’s ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight,’ which is a commentary show.”

                That is correct. Tucker is not reporting the news. He is commentary which means he expresses his opinions. Earlier you didn’t understand what the words cognitive decline meant. Maybe you should go back to cut and paste.

    2. Another truth: Amy Coney Barrett is smarter than any shameless Democrat on this committee.

      She is in another league.

      1. Amy wrote a dissent which suggests she would take a firmer line on the 6th amendment right to counsel. Will the liberals notice this case? prolly not
        they have to know a thing or two about the bill of rights in the first place for it to matter and we have serious doubts that they do
        staffers write most of the schtick they puke out at these hearings, anyways

        https://nptelegraph.com/townnews/law/access-to-a-lawyer/article_81a0bddb-b733-5e3b-8c96-6e0ad167b9e5.html

    3. Turley should have said, “Mr. Wallace, I’m speaking”

      *and then Turley should turn it into ‘memes and merchandise’ for other constituional experts who are invited on shows and rudely talked over by the host….you know, the way the Harris/Biden campaign had merch, memes and ads up and running just moments after Kamala uttered her canned, phony, rehearsed line.

  11. An Obama judge, Amy Totenberg has barred the State of Georgia from switching to reliable paper ballots even though its current electronic system is unreliable and not readily subject to audit.

    Anything to make it easier to cheat.

    Judges are politicians and should be treated as politicians.

    None of the Democrat senators cares about Barrett’s judicial qualifications. They want to attack her faith and politics.

    Do your thing Mitch!

    1. None of the Democrats in the hearing has said anything about her faith so far. Her politics are relevant. If Trump’s choice was based only on qualifications, Merrick Garland is more qualified.

      1. Well maybe Merrick is, but he’s not the nominee, so get relevant to now not years ago.

        also you said politics is relevant, agreed.

        i would add that religion can be relevant as it intersects with politics at times. there is nothing inherently bigoted to observe that truth.
        we are going to be having that discussion where Muslims come up for the federal courts, or at least we should.
        it’s fair game

        it’s also fair game to question those who inquire. Perhaps the people who obviously dislike amy have a certain religious orientation of their own. in many instances

        lest i be called an ant eye seemite, let the influential group “jewish democrats of america” speak for themselves

        https://jewishdems.org/press_release/jewish-democrats-reject-the-nomination-of-amy-coney-barrett/

        I don’t mean to pick on jewish people here. I welcome the support of the Orthodox Jewish community for POTUS Trump! I dont know where they stand on ACB.

        I just want to point out, we may be a secular republic, but religion does matter in public office at times, or it might.;

        So let’s get it out there in a civil way. Perhaps somebody Jewish who does not like Amy, such as,

        Di Feinstein, instead of a snarky remark like “the dogma lives in you” could just come out with a straight question. Here’s what she could ask :

        “MS BARRETT. YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU ARE A CATHOLIC. WE RESPECT YOUR RELIGION AND OBSERVE IT HAS MORAL DOCTRINES.
        PLEASE STATE FOR THE COMMITTEE HOW THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ABORTION AFFECT YOUR VOTE AS A JUSTICE OR NOT.”

          1. Abstract
            The Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.

            https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

            that’s from 1998, her views may have evolved since then, but apparently she was in the trend of Catholic thinking if the Pope’s views are counted. Now I don’t know how the Pope over-rules a Doctor of the Church like Aquinas but I will leave that to some other person to figure out

      1. We should go to a nationwide paper ballot system. Tulsi’s bill won’t make it out of the Democratic House because it destroys too many opportunities to cheat.

        1. Ideally, we shift the voting day for federal elections to the Friday and Saturday after All Saint’s Day. Polls open in each time zone at 6:00 pm Friday, close at 10:00 pm Friday, open at 7:00 am Saturday, close at 6:00 pm Saturday. All posed ballots for federal offices would have to be placed in a lockbox on delivery. On the Saturday of the election, all the lockboxes would be transported to a gymnasium, the boxes opened, and the ballots sorted between tables (each of which would be equipped with a smaller pigeon-holed lockbox and assigned a tabulation machine). The big lockboxes would then be transported back to the offices of the board of elections or county clerk. As the tabulation proceeds, new ballots may arrive. These would be kept in the lockbox. Once the tabulation was complete and the results certified, the contents of the lockboxes would be mailed back to each sender with a note of regret that the ballot arrived too late to be tabulated. A provision of the law on postal balloting for federal elections would require that people receiving postal ballots have them on standing order, be debarred from voting in person if they have them on standing order, and meet certain criteria if they’re to have them on standing order. Another provision would require ranked-choice voting for federal offices, with tabulation according to the Condorcet method. Another would require that cast ballots be locked in a warehouse for four years.

          States could follow their own rules for state and local elections, but this could be a spur to inducing salutary amendments to procedure in that realm as well.

          Another possibility would be federal legislation to provide for a more efficient and rationialized presidential nominating process.

              1. “here the geeks at brookings discuss paper balloting. it is very under-rated”

                I would agree.

                Thanks for the article.

                As far as locks, there’s aren’t many that can’t be defeated by those with the right skills and/or contacts. Common criminals will typically leave a trail, but locks and alarms aren’t the barriers that they are thought to be. And the 4th Amendment means nothing to some people.

                1. right, every security system is conceptually similar in certain ways, they are all layered and all have some combination of barriers. they can all be bypassed but in principle the idea is to make the penetration more difficult, time consuming, and easier to detect both as they happen and retroactively by some sort of forensic analysis

                  digital systems can be very tough but they are often bypassed by the human factor. ie, people getting suckered into giving up their passwords. the problem is generally a technical one, but paper ballot systems seem to be considered more secure from the real life problems of elections, in general, than some of the older quasi electronic systems

                  i am old enough to remember a lot of the suspicions people had over the electronic ballot counting machines used in bush v gore for example, i dont know if those suspicions were well founded but i do remember them

                  1. I will add one more thing. beyond paper ballots, there is a means to have digitally secure voting that could be more feasible than we have generally considered

                    BLOCKCHAIN

        2. The vote-by-mail election of November, 2020 is illegitimate, illegal and unconstitutional.

          Voters must present at a polling place, be identified, be certified, be provided a ballot, execute a ballot and submit a ballot on “…the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November,….”

          Diplomats and soldiers on foreign soil may vote on Tuesday and have their results counted, reported and mailed, or otherwise transported, at the end of that particular day.

          TUESDAY.

          ONE DAY AND ONE DAY ONLY.
          _________________________

          ACTS OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

          Passed at the second session, which was begun and held at the City of Washington,
          in the district of Columbia, on Monday, the 2d dayof December, 1844, and ended the 3d day of March, 1845.
          JOHN TYLER, President of the United States. WILLIE P. MANGUM,President of the Senate, pro tempore.
          JOHN W. JONES, Speaker ofthe House of Representatives.

          STATUTE II.CHAP. I.–

          An Act to establish a uniform time for holding elections for electors of President and Vice President in all the States of the Union.
          (a)Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
          That the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed in each State on
          the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November of the year in which they are to be appointed:…

  12. Aha. A grocery basket of poorly fleshed out talking points from the right, Turley. Still see you’re leaning on the absolute lie that no evidence was found re collusion with the Russians in the ’16 election rather than the truth that there wasn’t enough evidence to be conclusive, that evidence being no doubt tied to the area of the investigation that would focus on Trump’s finances and in interview questions. Trump threatened firings over both…, which basically shows the shortcomings of administrations investigating themselves. Probably a good caveat to add to your one dimensional analysis. So A+ in disingenuousness there, Jon..

    And this: “That is a truly alarming position for a candidate to take. Court packing is widely viewed as threatening to destroy a foundational institution in our constitutional system.”

    Why would anyone answer this question ahead of time before knowing what happens with the gignapped Barrett nomination? Or the attempted removal of millions from their health insurance? Would you really think anyone stupid enough to not sidestep such elementary gotcha ism? At most, Biden should answer the ‘court packing’ speculation by saying his position relies heavily on the outcome of McConnell’s court packing efforts. Or that he personally favored the 19 member court advocated by academics like Jonathan Turley.

    Look at the bright side, only three more weeks of being forced into kitchen sink mediocrity until the beat down. Enjoy.

    1. Bug-Elvis why don’t you put in your name? Nobody I have ever heard uses this word “gignapped” as much as you. in fact i never heard it before you did and I got a lot of cute words in my lexicon

        1. And a friend of mine gignapped the term ‘gignap’ from ethers…, so it’s a new term etiologically speaking. Glad you like it.

        2. Are you sure that you’ve been banned under your name rather than your email address? I’m testing this by using your name. I bet you can recycle your name.

          1. Looks like that’s the case doesn’t it.? I’m just so used to getting banned here I kind of assumed that was the case this time as well.

    2. Rigged: The Chairman of the Presidential Debate Commission is Co-Founder of “Color Revolution” Org Linked to Steele Dossier and More

      Kayleigh’s characterization of the Commission is of course correct. However, its corruption and bias goes beyond the simple fact that it’s in the tank for Joe Biden. The nominally Republican Chairman of Presidential Debate Commission, Frank Fahrenkopf, is both a co-founder and current board member of the International Republican Institute (IRI), a top “Color Revolution” propaganda outfit. The IRI was run by Never Trump neoconservative John McCain for decades. It is closely linked to the thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier at the center of the Russia Hoax.

      https://www.revolver.news/2020/10/rigged-presidential-debate-commission-frank-fahrenkopf-color-revolution/

  13. Jonathan: Boy, are you a pessimist! Your entire column assumes facts not in evidence, that Biden/Harris win and Democrats take control of the Senate and retain the House majority. Considering what Trump and Republicans are doing to suppress the vote nothing is given in this election. And Trump knows that creating a 6-3 conservative super majority on the Supreme Court will ensure he will get a sympathetic hearing if he contests the election. I doubt that if Biden wins adding to the composition of Court won’t be one of his top priorities. He will have much bigger issues on his plate–like addressing the coronavirus pandemic and Trump’s disastrous handling of it. In addition, Biden will need to deal with climate change. Trump has denied the science, withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and actively worked to undercut efforts to deal with this existential threat. Biden has committed to rejoining the Paris agreement and making the US a leader in moving the world away from fossil fuels. This will keep Biden very busy for the next 4 years.

    Regarding U.S. Atty John Durham’s investigation it is quite clear your good friend AG Barr is using Durham as a political weapon to discredit the prior probe by Robert Mueller into the Trump campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Barr has so politicized Durham’s investigation that Nora Dannehy, top aide to Durham, resigned in protest over Barr’s political pressure on Durham to produce a report before the election–that even you admit violates DOJ rules.

    Trying to convince voters not to vote for Biden with all sorts of unfounded speculation probably won’t change the minds of most voters, especially those who have already voted. One thing is for certain. If Biden wins your buddy William Barr will be one of the first to resign. He knows that Biden will want to replace him with someone who actually believes in the “equal justice under the law”–not just the personal and political interests of Donald Trump.

    1. “Biden will need to deal with climate change”

      Hey Dennis.

      What did human activity have to do with the Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age?

      Answer that question, and we’ll go from there.

      (P.S. – Your Captain Planet Decoder ring won’t help you).

      1. “What did human activity have to do with the Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age?”

        Nothing, Rhodesy. But the earth being on a different gravitational rotation back then sure did. Took til now for humans to ante into the party. And gee, look at them trying to make up for lost time. Cool thing is, the whole phenomenon enabled you to get your 15 min of fame being the human whose face appears next to the definition of ignorance in the dictionary, so I suppose you’re realizing your true place on the space/time continuum.

    2. Jonathan: Boy, are you a pessimist!

      The real question is when you and your Act Blue troll colleagues appear at Turley’s home, drag him, his wife and children to the streets, stone, fry and pierce their hearts then carry their heads as symbols of totalitarian oppression because well thats what your ilk does.

      Since you relish trashing him week after month on this blog saying the same ol’ sh!t, we just figured we would put it out there. Not that your ilk repudiates anarchy, enslaving people and then exterminating them

      1. as if there were any doubt as to what they and Biden-Harris-Pelosi-Schumer will do to anyone who disagrees with them.

    3. “AG Barr is using Durham as a political weapon”

      if anything Barr sent Durham into a gunfight with a switchblade. the timidity of the process and its one felony outcome is not very impressive and the effort seems to have been curiously weak

      one wonders why this stops with one little fish Clinesmith. weak

  14. Turley pretends there are rules and standards for SC nominations. There are none left. It’s jungle ball and he should cut the pretense that there are any. The present court has been stolen and there will be justice eventually.

  15. There are hours-long lines for early voting in GA. We should not be making it hard for people to vote.

    “If Brian Kemp as Georgia’s Secretary of State had recused himself from overseeing the election that made him Governor, it probably wouldn’t be this hard.”

    1. I have waited hours myself in boring elections. This is no big deal. If people value their vote they can go to a little trouble to exercise it.

      1. You shouldn’t have had to wait for hours either. You and I have different opinions about whether it’s a big deal.

        1. I just took it as a pain in the neck. It’s happened more than once. If my vote was worth it then I would be willing to stand all day if I had to. Hours are no problem for me and my time is worth a decent fee in the open market. But look at me here, spending hour after hour talking about matters of public interest for free.

          But I’m an American and this is as close to a public sacrament as we get.

          Deep down, you understand this and you feel the same. You value your vote or you would not be talking here every day like you do.

          But the difference is, you seem to think that you will be better off if all the fools who do not value their votes, are not inconvenienced. Here is where we part company.
          I would not only wait but also pay a user fee and submit to a literacy test too, with glee, at the thought that impecunious illiterates might not then bother.

          I find it hard to understand people like you who believe that more always means better. But maybe you are right. Time will tell.

  16. Turley sez: ” Court packing is widely viewed as threatening to destroy a foundational institution in our constitutional system. Yet Biden refuses to say whether he would take a hatchet to the Supreme Court of the last two centuries.” “Widely viewed” by whom?

    Turley: where in the Constitution does it spell out that the SCOTUS must have only and no more than 9 judges? It’s not in there. There have been differing numbers over the years, so adding judges to carry out the will of the American people for a balance not dictated by the Federalist Society wouldn’t “destroy” the SCOTUS, nor would Biden be taking a “hatchet” to anything other than the Republicans’ misuse of power to defeat the will of the American people. Talk about pearl-clutching!. Republicans, who only control the Senate because of gerrymandering (cheating–in which the candidate chooses their voters instead of the other way around), have priortized shoving Barrett into the faces of the American public instead of focusing on things like COVID relief for businesses and individuals. If judges are added,their plot to control the SCOTUS, by denying Merrick Garland a hearing, and pushing a nominee who is radically right-wing, will fail.

    And, bear in mind, Barrett is nominated primarily for her likely ruling to overturn Roe, to vote against the Affordable Care Act, and to try to save Trump from the humiliation of losing. The majority of the American people do not want this confirmation process before the election. If polls are correct, Trump and many Republican Senators will be lame-ducks. That Barrett would allow herself to be shoved onto the SCOTUS, knowing that most Americans do not approve of this process, and to take up time that could be devoted to coming up with a COVID relief package that Americans desperately need, is disheartening and portrays her as egotistically ambitious. Her law review articles predict that she will, indeed, vote to overturn Roe, something that the American people do not want, either.

    Turley also claims: “Ultimately, there was no evidence of collusion, let alone anyone who committed crimes related to collusion. Indeed, disclosed evidence shows the FBI was told early on that the allegations were not only dubious but possibly disinformation from Russia.” Trump refused to cooperate, he procured the lack of cooperation of members of his campaign and staff, so it is disingenuous (deceitful) for Turley to claim “there was no evidence”. Mueller and Congressional investigation committees were deprived of evidence because Trump obstructed justice. The inquiry was incomplete, and if Trump had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he cooperate? Nevertheless, the American Intelligence community concluded that Russians did help Trump cheat by a targeted social media campaign in key states. That, too, is cheating. Trump’s presence in our White House is wrongful. Turley’s spin on the facts is disappointing. He continues to lose credibility.

    1. Widely viewed by constitutional scholars and historians and regular people who understand the system. That’s who.

      1. A “+10” on the Svelaz scale makes perfect sense in light of the obvious fact that you and Natacha are wingnuts.

    2. I favor term limits for federal judges. Should not 20 years be enough? or 15? My gosh one would think that they are ephors or something.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor
      Of course this would mean amending the constitution. I could really care less who that favors in the short term, in the long term it will be a good effect I am completely certain of it.

      Here is another thought provoking suggestion:

      https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/06/supreme-courteight-justices-425295

    3. Just an observation if you are seeking to persuade people — once you write that “Trump’s presence in our White House is wrongful,” you lose all save those who agree with you.
      The reasons that packing the court is destructive to both the court and the country would seem to be obvious — if the Democrats win and pack the SC, then it is no longer an independent judicial body; it is a partisan organ whose members are expected to rule to please those with a particular ideology. Should the Republicans win the next election and ‘repack’ it, then it will do their bidding. In effect, you are arguing that the Supreme Court should be a political organ, not an independent check on the powers of the Legislature and the Executive.
      Hannah Arendt long ago noted that a totalitarian government melds the judiciary with the police, and history suggests that an independent judiciary is a pain in the neck for would-be dictators, however well intentioned. What you are proposing is that the SC become an arm of whichever political party happens to detain power, and that can lead to all sorts of mischief and, I suspect, the decline of democratic institutions.
      The practical effect of a president appointing judges is certainly to attempt to assure that courts at all levels reflect the political beliefs of the president who is appointing them, but that is not how it works in pracice. With only nine members, appointments are relatively rare, so once a member is appointed, that member may reflect the ideology of the person who appointed them, or not. Each member of the SC retains his or her independence because they cannot easily be removed and so can evolve as the larger society does. In practice, many justices who have been expected to vote a certain way by the president who appointed them often have not done so. Roberts is a prime example, and Gorsuch has also disappointed some ideologues. But their independence depends on life-time appointments that guarantee them the right to think independently and a court that is not a mob, with rival gangs of ideologues at one another’s throats.
      Packing the SC would convert an independent body into an organ whose members are increasingly partisan and rigid because they have been appointed precisely for those qualities. It is not a good strategy for the country, nor for either party over the long run.
      I have disagreed with many of the SC rulings and failures to rule, including Yamashita, but I am also frequently disappointed by my elected representatives. But I have no interested in insisting that the House or the Senate have more members so that my opinion dominates. I have great respect for Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Jefferson, and I am a big fan of Paine — but once you start fiddling with basic institutions, you get, well, France, and a series of Republics, none of which is stable.
      If that’s what you want. . . .

      1. The House should have more members. The only reason that it’s as small as it is is because the House fiddled to limit the size.

    4. “If polls are correct, Trump and many Republican Senators will be lame-ducks.”

      If the polls are correct….like in 2016?

      “Mueller and Congressional investigation committees were deprived of evidence because Trump obstructed justice. The inquiry was incomplete, and if Trump had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he cooperate?”

      False. The reverse is verifiably true.

      Natasha’s brain has been turned to mush by BSNBC, etc.

      Bottom line message to remember: The left always lies. Always. What are they lying about now? And what is their agenda? This is always what we need to ask. Never assume they are telling the truth; they are not.

  17. Reposted:

    Judge Sullivan’s bizarre handling of the Flynn case shows why judicial appointments are so important. Judges have rushed into the political arena and joined the fray.

    The only thing about Barrett I care about is which side she is on, democracy and law or arbitrary rule from the bench.

    Professor Turley is concerned that political scheming on both sides will damage the judiciary. Too late. The judiciary has already destroyed itself and nothing makes that so clear as the maneuvers of Sullivan and the Court of Appeals that tolerates and encourages his totalitarian show trial. American courts appear to be trying to adopt the procedures of Judge Freisler and Judge Jeffreys. The Democrats in particular seem to be urging these corrupt changes into being.

    CTHD– I told you it looked as if Sullivan was trying to drag the carcass of this case across the election finish line. We will see.

    1. Young, the handling of the case wasn’t bizarre at all. It was well within the judge’s discretion. Turley is being deliberately disingenuous in his characterization of the case.

      Note his omission of the fact that the DOJ admitted to submitting altered evidence by “mistake”.

      This is exactly why judge Sullivan’s suspicion is warranted. The DOJ’s own handling of the case is the very reason why Sullivan rightly questions the credibility of the request to dismiss, especially when it claims Flynn’s confession of guilt wasn’t material to the case when in fact it is.

      1. Sullivan oversteps his boundaries by invading the discretionary deliberative processes of the executive. He can no more successfully demand the details of this, than the POTUS could successfully demand the SCOTUS to explain their own privileged deliberations, beyond the extend to which published opinions reveal them. Separation of powers. This one is a foregone conclusion

        1. Kurtz, yes, this one is a foregone conclusion. Easy. I suspect it is at the point that Sullivan isn’t doing the judiciary or the Democrats any favors by continuing like this. The courts look diseased and shabby and every other day more facts damning to Obama and his crooked administration are pried from the reluctant grasp of the DOJ and FBI. The Sullivan court is dripping poison.

Leave a Reply