Democrats Threaten Retaliatory Actions To Add Or Remove Justices On A “Court Out Of Whack”

Below is my column in The Hill on the call for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself or be impeached. The call for recusal is indicative of demands and threats that are becoming more unhinged by the day.  Whether it is adding or impeaching justices, the Democrats are yielding to the same 30 percent of irate and increasingly irrational voters in their base.  What is concerning is the utter lack of responsible voices from the party to counter this retaliatory impulse or to defend the institution of the Court. Instead, former Vice President Joe Biden’s declaration that the Court is “out of whack” now means that many Democrats are out to whack either the Court or its members.

Here is the column:

Judicial confirmations tend to be staid affairs in the Senate, with rhetoric running from calm regret to restrained celebration. This week, however, the language had the more menacing tenor of a syndicate rather than a Senate. Richard Blumenthal warned of “consequences” if his colleagues dared to confirm in a reference to threats to change the Supreme Court. The message was clear to vote “no” or the Supreme Court gets it.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went full Tony Montana with his “Scarface” version of “You wanna play rough? Say hello to my little friend.” He threatened to use the potential Democratic majority to strip the rights of Republicans that he declared “forfeited” in the confirmation.

Democrats feel disrespected and are threatening acts of retaliation in changing the Senate or the Supreme Court. But the most unhinged was the idea to impeach Amy Coney Barrett after she assumes her seat. This option was raised by columnist Norman Ornstein, who wrote that if she “immediately votes for voter suppression” after she joined the Supreme Court “she should quickly be impeached” because President Trump had “asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.”

It does not matter that Barrett denied such a conversation and that no one has an inkling of how she would vote on election challenges that have not even been filed. Ornstein was building on demands from various senators that Barrett promise to recuse herself from any election disputes. Others have demanded her recusal with pending cases, such as the challenge to the Affordable Care Act to be heard next month. After Barrett declined to discuss her personal views on the environment, still others demanded her recusal forever from any cases related to climate change.

The Supreme Court has been asked to block an extension of mail voting in Pennsylvania, and one party demanded Barrett to recuse herself from the case. The demand is legally and logically absurd. Justices are largely their own judges on recusal. While Blumenthal demanded in her confirmation hearing that she has to recuse herself, doing so would raise concerns of impropriety and political influence. Democrats were demanding that she remove herself without any legal basis for recusal. Now they are trying to muscle her out with this “recuse or be impeached” ultimatum.

Since they hold the highest judicial positions, Supreme Court justices do not submit to the review of lower court judges on conflicts. It is rare for justices to recuse themselves from merits cases although, for the 2019 term, the nine justices recused 145 times from the review with possible cases for argument. This is done for a variety of reasons, from financial interests in the underlying claims to personal interests in the parties or litigators. New justices are the most likely to recuse on merits cases due to past involvement in the litigation or decisions, as Justice Elena Kagan did after she served as solicitor general under President Obama.

The recusal standard is in the federal code of law, which details grounds like personal bias or prejudice, prior representation, or financial interests of a justice or her spouse. Democrats have been unable to find any direct conflict and instead count on a weak claim of an appearance of a conflict, but that is based on Barrett being confirmed before the election.

The recusal claim is opportunistic. It also is the flipping of the narrative. Democrats falsely accused Barrett of being nominated for the purpose of striking down the Affordable Care Act. The case concerns severability to remove a provision, like the defunct individual mandate, from the rest of the law to preserve it. No credible legal scholar thinks the Affordable Care Act is about to be struck down because at least two conservative justices will probably vote for severability. Indeed, it is far more likely that the law would be unanimously upheld on severability than struck down.

There is absolutely no indication how Barrett would rule on the issue. Yet Democrats made her confirmation all about a “scheme” by Trump to get her on the Supreme Court to strike down the law, showing the oversized photos of the purported victims at the hearing. The real reason for filling this seat is obvious. Republicans wanted to do this in case they lose the White House or the Senate, and they have been clear about that.

None of this has to do with a recusal from any election cases for Barrett. Claiming a conspiracy theory based on her as a judicial shill is not a legal basis for recusal. It is an insult disguised as a demand. For those folks like Ornstein, it also is one excuse for a “recuse or be impeached” threat. He knows no jurist would recuse herself without any certain legal basis from potential election cases. It would also leave the Supreme Court in danger of a potential tie on some of the most significant rulings in history.

However, that is not the point. By stating a demand that Barrett is unlikely to fulfill, Democrats create another excuse for abusive retaliation. Just as Schumer claims license to strip a future Republican minority of powers or privilege under a Democratic majority, others give themselves license to impeach a justice for refusing to yield to raw political demands.

Democrats are not talking about using their Senate majority in the same way should a Supreme Court vacancy arise, which would be fair action. They are talking about trashing the Senate rules, attacking the Supreme Court, or impeaching Barrett as the license of the victims turned victors. With the latest nomination, Joe Biden declared the Supreme Court is out of whack. Now something or someone is about to be whacked.

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

236 thoughts on “Democrats Threaten Retaliatory Actions To Add Or Remove Justices On A “Court Out Of Whack””

  1. During tonight’s Tucker Carlson segment the Fox News host updates the mysterious case of the missing flash drive that was shipped overnight via UPS that disappeared, then reappeared, and no one seems to know how…. WATCH:

    When it absolutely, positively, has to be copied by the FBI overnight…

    FBI integrity? Honorable rank and file? Please, spare me the oxygen…

    I review this story from a position that I cannot fully explain. However, I have personal experience -recent experience- with a similar and rather unusual situation that cannot be explained by any method other than DHS surveillance.

    So here’s what I think took place.

    The package, likely a Fed-X or UPS overnight delivery, was intercepted by FBI agents using mechanisms for tracking and surveillance that open targeting through portals connected to DHS.

    As an outcome of the U.S. Patriot Act, the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security has an agreement in place with mail shipping companies, public/private services, that essentially allows them a link to the proprietary portal to track all in-state and interstate mail deliveries.

    The FBI has access to this data network in the same way the FBI has access to federal transportation records. When you book a flight and DHS portals are open that allow FBI to track your movements domestically. This type of portal is also accessed in private company transportation like Uber, Lyft etc. DHS, and as a consequence the FBI, can easily track your whereabouts using public or private transportation. You willingly carry a transponder -called a cell phone- that assists them with their tracking.

    Without much hesitation I will bet the FBI was legally monitoring the communication of Tony Bobulinski, and by extension the entire Tucker Carlson production network. Once the Hunter Biden records shipment was known to be taking place, the DHS portals are opened; the package containing the flash drive is tracked; and the FBI moves in to intercept the delivery.

    The transport company (all of them) doesn’t need to be participating because they are essentially unneeded. Their system network is connected to DHS and by extension the FBI. Once the flash drive is copied it then mysteriously reappears… go figure.

    That’s the likely scenario.

    Wanna bet?

  2. The spoiled, unhinged Leftist Lemmings are bent upon the destruction of our American Heritage and Constitution. Whatever grievances they hold would be better served in a ‘ constructive ‘ manner rather than in their chosen path of childish petulance !!   

  3. Whenever the Democrats simply lose it’s always “illegal” or “breaking the rules” or “an illegitimate process.” No guys…you just lost. That’s it. There’s nothing to repair, fix, rectify or fight. Just do better next time. Try supporting American values for a change. You’ll do better.

  4. “the Democrats are yielding to the same 30 percent of irate and increasingly irrational voters in their base”

    Jonathan, follow the money. In 2016 the DNC was so desperate for money that it became hostage to Hillary Clinton.

    So the DNC was determined not to get caught in that same financial position again. So now in 2020, the 30% is where it is getting the vast majority of its contributions.

    Antifa rose from the anarchist Black Watch crowd of trust funders with lots of money that they never earned. They and the wealthy Silicon Valley types are the drivers of what’s left of the Democrat Party now. Neither of those groups give a Rats ass about anything other than themselves, and as a result they don’t care at all what happens to the working class.

    They know that if the US became a nation based on Fabian Socialism that their standard of living would remain unaffected. Service to their own self-interest is all that matters to them.

  5. ‘Whatever the case about Hunter Biden, this much is factually correct: While Joe Biden has been pushing to end fossil fuel in US, his family has been cutting billions of dollars in deals & profiting off of the oil industry in competing countries such as Ukraine and China.

    In fact, eliminating fossil fuel in the US while supporting it in other nations could be seen as putting America at a competitive and national security disadvantage, whether intentionally or by accident.’ ~Sharyl Attkisson


    No, not by accident. This is who Joe Biden is. Joe Biden has been selling out America for decades, even while he was serving as Vice President. All to enrich himself and his Biden Crime Family. “Ten percent for the Big Guy.” Joe Biden is a sellout and a crooked politician. Joe Biden should be ashamed of himself and his family. But he’s not. What does that tell you about character and decency? It’s treasonous. Joe Biden running for President? It is an insult to this country. He is unworthy of the office.

    How many times have we heard Joe Biden say he didn’t know anything about his son’s or family’s business dealings? That is a brazen LIE.

    We can DO something about this America. Vote TRUMP! Drain the Swamp!

  6. “First thing we’re gonna do is Joe Biden and I are about to work to get rid of that tax cut,” Kamala Harris tells Hispanic Americans at a rally in Texas today.

    Wait, didn’t Joe promise he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class?

    Kamala, you must know that ‘getting rid of that tax cut’ effectively causes taxes to go UP on middle class workers, right?

    So that makes Joe Biden is a liar. What a surprise. Not.

    And word is that Kamala is ready to go back to being in the Senate….where it’s not nearly as hard as running for president. She and Joe just are not up to the job. CLEARLY.

    1. Seriously, can anyone in their right mind envsion a President Kamala? Oh hell no.

      TRUMP 2020 is the only sane choice to literally save this country from going to hell! VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!

      1. Amazing support for Trump!

        ‘A Vietnamese-American choir released a jingle expressing support for @realDonaldTrump & encouraging others to vote for him on 3 Nov. The women are wearing traditional Vietnamese costumes featuring the American flag.’ ~Andy Ngo

    2. It didn’t win one contest in the primary, was forced to quit, and now the Deep Deep State is going to ensconce it in the presidency.

      What’s wrong with this picture?

      It will never be a “natural born citizen,” its parents were not citizens, it will never be eligible for the office of president and and now the Deep Deep State is going to ensconce it in the presidency.

      What’s wrong with this picture?

  7. Not one comment was made about this.

    “U.S. GDP grew at 33.1% annualized rate in third quarter, feds report” JTN

    The media tells us one story, the numbers tell us a different one. Compare that number to the Obama/ Biden numbers. The unemployment number is 7.9 and has fallen very rapidly. It was almost double 5 months ago. Compare that fall in unemployment to the Obama/ Biden years.

    Trump has a magic wand and it is bigger and better than what we have seen from the combined bitty wands of Obama and Biden.

    1. some of these people do not follow financial news Allan you know that

      it is impressive but the results are not quite as fantastic when you consider the comeback from the dismal awful second quarter under the quarantine conditions

      Trump however is a better leader for the American national economy and the workers and middle class. No doubt!

      Now to also be fair, Trump is a big spender. But Biden promises to be an even bigger one. And the spending will hurt us and help them. Them meaning New York California and these other massive urban enclaves, all at the expense of the rest. If he wins, Biden’s answer to the mess will be to pass a massive stimulus that will never be paid for and will be filled with pork for his friends and will make the red states pay for blue state and city mismanagement. He will have working taxpayers from Pennsylvania paying for the Chicago pensioners to keep on receiving their massive bloated pensions that the city and state of Illinois can’t afford and duplicate that many times over!

      Taxes will go up!

      how can a retired principal be making $321, 443? seriously! this is what they want US to pay for ! and they underfund them along the way. it’s a travesty but Joe wants everyone to pitch in and bail out these failing urban megapolises! They will make tax slaves of us all if they can

      and don’t forget what else is coming eventually if they get their blue wave… “REPARATIONS!!”

      man if Trump loses, get ready to OPEN YOUR WALLETS folks! Vampire Biden and Queen of the Dead Pelosi will start sucking your blood!

      1. “when you consider the comeback from the dismal awful second quarter under the quarantine conditions”

        True, but when you consider the problems created by democrats and the lockdowns one should not have expected this. Additionally one has to look at how much unemployment dropped. Democrats substantially inhibit the economy. Trump has done an amazing job.

        We spent too much for sure but Trump was in a bind. I doubt we would have gone into so much debt but he had to fight the democrats and members of his own party. He didn’t have that much maneuvering room but I don’t think Trump is as wary of the debt as I would like.

        If Biden wins that means no justice and business as usual in the deep state. It will get worse and corruption will grow while individual liberties will suffer. It has relatively little affect on us, but a tremendous effect on those that are younger and future generations. Those that are voting for their immediate pleasures are stealing from future generations.

      2. I do not think that Trump is an especially good president – particularly not on the economy.

        That does not change the fact that on the economy he is the best president in the past 20 years.

        He is also probably the best president in foreign policy in my lifetime.

        But most importantly he is the best choice we have in november by a large margin.

      3. Not just open your wallets. Time magazine had on their front cover, The Great Reset. This involves no one owning anything, you rent what you need. You can see where this goes, confiscation of property and assets. This is USSR ver. 2.0 and you can bet that the elites will still have their dachas and private luxury stores. Wonder who gets to live in the confiscated beachfront homes….

    2. Diaper Man, Did You Actually Look At Financial News Today??

      The three major U.S. indexes closed out the final trading day of a turbulent October with more losses, capping a wretched week marked by a record surge in coronavirus infections, dashed hopes for an economic rescue deal before the election and renewed fears of a new wave of business disruptions.

      Follow the latest on Election 2020
      The Dow Jones industrial average fell 157.51 points, or 0.6 percent, to close at 26.501.60. The blue-chip index shed 6.5 percent since Monday, marking its worst week since March. It also fell 4.6 in October to record its second straight monthly loss. The S&P 500 index tumbled 40.15 points, or 1.2 percent, to settle at 3,269.96. The tech-heavy Nasdaq gave up nearly 274.00 points, or 2.5 percent, to end at 10,911.59.

      The blue-chip index moved into correction territory this week, after falling more than 10 percent from its February peak. October is typically the most volatile month for stock traders, although it has rewarded investors more times it has punished them.

      The United States reported a record 90,000 new coronavirus infections on Thursday. The resurgence comes in the homestretch of the presidential campaign, amplifying a sense of unpredictability about the future of U.S. politics and the government’s response to the pandemic.

      President Trump “would actually like to see a big stimulus package — however his incentive to pass fiscal stimulus goes away if he loses reelection,” said Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco. “So I think chances are slim to none — and slim may be leaving town right now.”

      Stock market slide muddles Trump’s economic message days before 2020 election

      Governments abroad are also facing a resurgence of the virus that has rattled markets. France and Germany are reinstating business and social restrictions as sick patients fill intensive care beds and the rapid spread of infections strains the countries’ health-care systems. The German DAX is down 9.4 percent for the month, France’s CAC dropped 3.9 percent, and the Pan-European Stoxx shed 5.5 percent. Asian markets were more tempered, however, with the Shanghai and the Nikkei wiping gains for the month and finishing virtually unchanged from September.

      The mismatch between strong corporate earnings in the past quarter and sinking stock prices reflects a gloomy outlook for the future, analysts say. While profits rose for many companies that have already reported earnings this quarter, investors fear that the worsening pandemic will keep some from building on their gains and crush those that are just getting by.

      Edited from: “Dow Caps Volatile October With Worst Weekly Finish Since March”

      This Evening’s Washington Post

      1. PaintChips, keep whatever job you have, and let a third party invest whatever you can save. Your knowledge of the financial markets is obtuse, but I don’t blame you for that. I blame the WP that spins financial news and only blame you for sucking it up and not being able to think for yourself.

        There are long term trends and short term trends that need to be considered. The WP follows neither. It picks out the worst news of the day and amplifies it while leaving the good news behind.. Since the financial markets are cyclical as are many things their news of the day while Trump is in office will mostly record the downturns that are occurring. A 33% growth in GNP is incredible. Half of that would have been excellent. The fall in unemployment to 7.9% in five months was likewise incredible. To put that into Obama/ Biden terms, it took them 4-6 years to obtain such a drop.

        1. Diaper Man the stimulus has run out. That $3 trillion infusion is what powered the economy during this pandemic. But Trump squandered that money by undermining the pandemic response of his own health officials.

          1. PaintChips, it is nice to see that you still have the ability to pick words from column A and match them to column B even though the end product is worthless.

            Your next order for Diapers is the first of the month. Do you still want the number of diapers delivered to be twice as high as usual?

            –Diaper Man

          2. Money does not power an economy. That is nonsense,

            Wealth must be produced.

            Standard of living rises only when less human effort is used to produce more that humans value.

            Money does not appear in that equation.

            It was a mistake to shutdown the economy – and no amount of stimulus can fix that.

            No matter how much money you have you can only buy what is produced.

            When GDP rises – that means production ROSE.

            An economy with rising GDP does not need stimulus even according to Keynes.

            So you are on the wrong side of actual economics
            and you are on the wrong side of keynesian economics.

            The stock markets predict the future.

            They rose dramatically when Trump won in 2016 – because that was a good outcome for the economy and not the one they predicted.
            The stock markets today are predicting based on Wall Streets expectations regarding the election AND their expectations of the policies of the winner.

              1. Thank you.

                There are lots of ways that Trump has been economically wise as president.

                His fixation on stimulus – whether for infrastructure or C19 are NOT one of those.

                Even Keynes ultimately determined that Politicians could not act quickly enough or properly target stimulus to work.

                And Ideas RESPEC #4 ranked economist – Robert Barro who keeps the worlds most extensive data base of govenrment spending and its effectiveness has found that the Maximum impact of government spending is 0.8 for munitions during a war. That the norm is .25-.35,

                That means that normally every $1 govenrment spends produces $0.25-0.35 in value.

                That is compared to private spending which MUST always deliver more than $1 in value or the spending would not happen.

                1. JS: “That means that normally every $1 govenrment spends produces $0.25-0.35 in value.”

                  Which “value” I’m guessing is actually negative, once you factor in Bastiat’s “broken window.”

    3. It appears that the net change in GDP for 2020 will be zero. That is not good – while at the same time given C19 and the idiotic response to it, it is amazing.

      I would note that much of the world – the EU is going back into lockdown AND they are having case increases much higher than the US.

      It will also mean that US GDP for Trump’s 4 years will exceed that of Obama’s yearly average.

  8. An interesting proposal published in TNYT is to establish a Constitution Court. Idea has merit.

      1. Mr Kurtz — The proposal is by a law professor. You might actually read it to discover the merit.

        Before just writ another of the thoughtless comments which permeates this blog.

        1. Benson NYT has a paywall. I tried to get it and i couldnt. you could always copy the relevant text here if you want to share it

        2. Wow! it is by a law professor!

          Of course that makes it more credible than what Adams and Jefferson and Madison and a couple of hundred other founders came up with and that every state in this country has ratified.

          There already is a constitutional court – it is called the Supreme Court. we do not need another.

          We do not need a bigger one. We should not be mirroring failed games that left wing banana republics have engaged in.

          1. Jon Sez fails to have read the Constitution regarding Congress and the courts, including the Supreme Court.

            1. “Jon Sez fails to have read the Constitution regarding Congress and the courts, including the Supreme Court.”

              You know what i have read ? Really ?

              Please cite the plain language of the constitution that empowers the nonsense your law professor was espousing ?

              The constitution explicitly creates the supreme court.

              Only inferior courts can be constructed by congress.

              If you are going to argue that I have not read the constitution – it would be wise if you had.

              Once again your claims are shallow.

              Critical thinking is not your forte.

              “Article III
              Section 1
              The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. “

    1. “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin

      Franklin knew it was impossible to maintain the necessary resolve.

      What America needs is a Supreme Court sworn to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.

      Oops. America has one already, huh? My bad.

      Too bad the Supreme Court doesn’t support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution as it was sworn to do.

    2. We have a “constitution court – it is called the “Supreme Court” We do not need another.

      It should be small – as it is, it should read the constitution and law as written – as that is the only workable means to apply the constitution and the law. It is the only way that allows us to correct decisions that the overwhelming majority of us disagree with by amending the constitution, or rewriting the law. It is not the role of any court to decide what the constitution or law SHOULD say, only to apply what it actually says plainly. This is not – or should not be a left/right issue. We move the constitution left or right by amending it, we move the law by revising it. It is not the role of the court to determine policy, only to determine if policies are consistent with the law and constitution.
      It is not the role of the courts to adjudicate science – only the law and the constitution. Scientific failure on the part of our law makers will result in the failure of their laws. Something that should be unsurprising as few laws actually accomplish anything.

      If you want to revise the federal court system, create a large United States court of appeals – similar to state superior courts, between the existing district court of appeals and the supreme court. This would allow more ability to reconcile disparate decisions across the country and allow better resolution of significant appeals. That would leave SCOTUS with only constitutional cases of significance.

      But leave SCOTUS alone – enlarging it is a ludicrously stupid idea. It will make things worse not better. It will increase the number of inconsistencies in constitutional law not decrease them.

      But leave it to the left to make a hash of anything they touch.

      I would finally note that when you wish to make changes to the structure of government – such as this, you must have extremely broad public support to do so. Which you do not.

      Elections are supposed to have consequences in terms of the creation and administration of law NOT the structure of government.

    1. Benson that is fascinating, thanks

      And yet you demean your own worthy contributions with insults to the other readers and commentators. What is the purpose?

        1. Allan, I havent seen that one, but I heard other tellings of the story. It’s very inspiring how they made do with what they could

          and there was a critical moment when an important bridge got bombed that stopped the Egyptian advance if I recall– maybe this is it

          get the book by Stephen Pressfield, he is a fantastic writer. you might like “Gates of Fire” by him too, really awesome book about Themopylae

          1. Kurtz, I never read this author but I am due for some fun. It looks like Pressfield might have some of the attributes of Robert Harris whose books I liked. It is now on my list. In my mind that battle has the chutzpah seen in the Israeli war of Independence.

            1. How can one not admire the gumption of Israelis in defending their hard won new state? And not just then but ever since.

              I tell you Allan,. I have know some people who are not inclined to it, and yet who are sincerely impressed with Israeli resolve.

              And yet the BDS critics can only detract from them and ceaselessly portray the citizen armed forces in a negative light

              In the European right wing parties, they have finally figured this out and realized that if they want to lay claim to ethno-nationalism as a legitimate goal, then, it makes no sense to deny it to the Jewish people in Israel.

              And so you see for example, that Marine Le Pen, fired her own father from National Front in France, due to his perceived antisemitism.

              Today, this week, I am sure that French gentiles generally see Jewish Frenchmen as welcome allies in the troubles with Islamists


              “stabbings” doesn’t quite capture the nastiness of the terrorism this week in France

              an old lady was beheaded — invaders attacked in a church!

              This is terror. All Europeans who have their heads screwed on properly, will be looking to the brave example of Israelis in standing up to Muslim bullies, terrorists, and invaders.

              As should we. Now I know plenty of decent Muslims but the propensity of a certain element of their population to unruly mob violence is very obvious. The never do wells out there will be much encouraged by all the unpunished acts of riot, looting, and arson the past year in the Democrat cities and may yet have more wicked plans of their own

              1. “And yet the BDS critics can only detract from them and ceaselessly portray the citizen armed forces in a negative light ”

                That is because those BDS critics are anti-Semitic. That includes much of the left, along with their Sturmabteilung that consists of BLM and Antifa.

                I think France waited too long to see the future. They should have noted it when those of the Jewish faith started leaving in.

        2. The entire history of Israel is amazing.

          In the more Bekka valley conflict the Isreali Airforce was flying 2000 sorties concurrently – something that no airforce anywhere had ever acheived – until the US GW conflicts.

          Today the Israeli airforce is likely the 2nd most capable in the world – behind only the US.

      1. bahahahahahahahahahaha. Love when Kurtz pauses from insulting people to criticize others on the blog for it.

    2. Unlike the majority of the comments here on Jonathan Turley’s blog.

      Waal, don’t let the door hit your tuchus on the way out.

    3. this is exciting stuff to me Benson, and on the other side of it I wonder, has materials engineering advanced to where more efficient insulative materials are being used which can help refrigeration run more efficiently or is the newer stuff too expensive to deploy at scale? I had an engineer give me a big talk about that a few years ago and he claimed there were tremendous advances being made with polymers, plastics, paints and coverings that were momentarily too expensive to be adopted

      now as it relates to global warming, reflection of sunlight and so forth, the developments may be promising but i wonder: what is the cost of fabrication? Same way, it may be too expensive to deploy at scale. if nobody can afford to deploy it then it’s DOA, of course that is no reason not to continue R & D!

      but then here is another tradeoff, not clear to me from the article, but one that I always wonder about the fabrication of clean energy technologies like solar and wind: what would be the tradeoff to fabricate some of these at scale, in terms of Co2 or other greenhouse emissions, versus the potential rewards? keeping in mind that metals have to be mined, factories to produce, trucks or trains fueled to send materials to construction sites and so forth. that’s just a question of course– some technologies might be very good tradeoffs. I have no clue, perhaps these would be just that sort of thing. but such tradeoffs need to be considered once the technologies are mature for adoption, particularly if they’re intended to have net rewards

        1. There is no form of power that is not available whenever you need it that is not prohibitively expensive.

          Solar PV is prohibitively expensive – because you must either store it – which more than doubles the cost, or you must have equal or greater capacity from another source to provide power when Solar is not available.

          CA has successfully produced an enormous amount of “green energy” – but the cost is 100% EXCESS, as they still have to maintain the entire fossil fuel energy generating system because Green Energy is not reliable. It is not “on demand”

          This is inarguable as CA’s power mess demonstrates very effectively.

          The only cost effective means for storing energy that I know of is hyrdro pumping stations. Those have existed almost my entire life.
          But new ones are not being built and the left is highly unlikely to allow them to be built.
          There is a station very near me that likely has the capacity to store more power more efficiently then every battery in the entire world today.

          In the mean time Solar power could be completely free, it would still never be more than a suplimental system.

          And you wonder why I think the left is clueless regarding science.

          I expect over time – possibly a great deal of time, these problems will be solved.
          But no so called “green” energy is truly viable as primary power today, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.

        2. The fact that you buy this demonstrates quite effectively your inability to think critically – to get beyond the first order impacts of anything.

          I would be ecstatic to see truly viable solar or other “green” energy. But it does not exist today.

          I hope that will change quickly, but I would not bet the future of my children on it.

    4. David, from the article you linked:

      “The cooling effect works best in dry climates and with clear skies; when it’s cloudy or humid, water vapour traps the infrared radiation. And the super-cool materials might not last in all weathers or fit easily to all buildings.”

      So the article inadvertently recognizes a well known scientific fact; “water vapour traps the infrared radiation”.

      H2O not CO2 is the primary “greenhouse gas”. So much for the carbon exchange canard, and this technology only serves to reduce air conditioning costs in buildings by 15% during hot and sunny weather.

      Do you need me to explain what happens in cold weather?

    5. I have no idea of the scientific merits of your article – though the fact that it is published in nature makes it suspect.

      Regardless, published scientific papers are always interesting – but they are not actual science until they have been reproduced REPEATEDLY.

      The standard for science is reproducability – not where something was published or who peer reviewed it.

      Recent efforts to verify published papers have found that only about 1/3 are reporducable to any degree of statistical significance, about 1/3 reproduce but without statistical significance, and about 1/3 do not reproduce at all.

      Global Warming, Aka Climate change, Aka Climate Justice – does not reproduce. It is possible that 2020 may prove to be the warmest year ever – but if that proves true it will be only by 1/100th of a degree, 2016 was 2/100th warmer that 1998.
      3/100th warming in 22 years is far far far far less than warmists predict.

      The actual warming trend since the mid 70’s is about 0.11C/decade – the same as it has been since 1750.
      Put simply if there is any human caused change in the warming trend over the past 250 years it is miniscule.

      Assuming the current rate continues temps in 2100 will be less than 1C warmer than today.

      All the predictions of warmists have failed – that happens OFTEN in real science. HOWEVER a real scientist then revises their hypothesis.
      Warmists have not.

      In related areas the Imperial college in the UK is estimating the C19 reproduction rate AFTER kickdowns, masking, social distancing etc. at about 1.56 – that is much lower than the 2.4-3.8 that is the base rate for C19 – but it is higher than the flu, and it is about 1.0 and therefore unstopable. There are estimates from other scientific bodies in the EU – no one has an estimated R0 AFTER all efforts to mitigate at below 1.0.

      To an actual scientists that would mean that mitigation efforts are ineffective – and NET HARMFUL.

      BTW though cases are rising in the US – they are rising faster all over the EU – and in fact in much of the world.

      More and more scientists are starting to talk about Herd Immunity.

      There are now globally 126 different studies on HCQ – virtually all of them find it effective. We have subsequently found even better treatments though most are far more expensive. But do to the politicization of science by the left it is likely that hundreds of thousands died globally because the left was opposed to anything that Trump favored.

      And it turns out there really is a doctor with a published study who “injected bleach” (Hydrogen peroxide) to successfully treat C19.
      He had zero deaths in 1000+ treatments and much lower hospitalizations that the control.

      Again the left politicizing science.

      The fact is that science does not care about your ideology – even though leftists beleive that science MUST conform to their ideology, and any science that does not must bend to the will of their ideology.

      Can you name any scientific claim the left has made EVER that has proven correct ?

  9. Here’s what to do over the next week

    1. round up your family and friends. call and make sure they voted or when they will. get commitments. marshall them to the polls on Tuesday if need be

    2. otherwise lay low. stay tuned in, but stay rested. if things seem like they’re coming unglued, don’t freak out. stay balanced flexible and alert.

    3. it’s a little late to stock up. dont worry about guns and ammo, you should have them already and now they’re into shortage and price gouging ranges. And you should have learned to stock your groceries properly after the first part of the year with shortages. but if you go, go this weekend
    meds, milk, meat, and mead at the top of the list of things that go into shortage fast. oh and water and bread too lol
    in the end people are the best resources when the going gets tough

    4. remember, the strength of the wolf is in the pack. don’t be isolated, don’t be divided, and don’t think you are alone. stay positive. be an asset on your home team not a liability

    5. don’t be surprised if Trump gets a big win on election day. And then they try and vote after the fact to pull it back. dont worry, just vote on time and steer clear of the madness of crowds.

    these are exciting times!

    1. People can’t vote after Election Day. Votes that are already in the government’s possession may be counted after Election Day depending on the state. For example, some states don’t start counting absentee ballots until Election Day and may not finish counting them in a single day. Some states allow mail in ballots that are post-marked by Election Day (in the government’s possession) a few days to arrive.

      States don’t certify their results on Election Day. That’s nothing new.

      1. So they say. So they say. Ever seen someone backdate a postmark? I have

        it’s illegal but there’s plenty of cheating going on already

        1. Follow the constitution – the state legislatures – not the states, not the state governors, not the state courts, determines the criteria for federal elections EXCEPT where congress has dictated otherwise.

          The constitution requires congress to specify the day of the election.
          At the very least that is the day all votes must be received by – not postmarked by.

          Mail-in balloting is the most fraud prone means of voting. And where there is a way to commit fraud there will be fraud.

      2. While you are correct about variations between states – you actually miss the important point,

        It is absolutely essential that as little time as possible exist between the close of the polls and establishing the results.

        It is particularly important that from the moment the polls close no further ballots be accepted – regardless of the source.

        It is not so important that all votes be counted as it is that there is a hard deadling on election day for the RECEIPT of a ballot to be counted.

        The danger is that as the count proceeds if an election is close that the losing party – or just people who would benefit from the losing party winning, has the opportunity to slide in additional votes to tip the scales once they no how many votes they must pick up.

        We can debate whether this happens – frankly there is ample evidence that it happens frequently.

        But much more important than whether you can prove it has happened is that the incentives are enormous and you can not demonstrate that it CAN’T happen.

        And what can happen will happen when the inventives are high enough.

        The PA supreme court has rejected the requirement that mail in ballots must have a signature match. It has also allowed mail in ballots to be received as much as 6 days after the election – this is a recipe for disaster.

        And each of these revisions to PA Voting laws have been done by Fiat by the governor – these are not acts of the legislature, they are not laws, they are authoritarian decrees at odds with PA law.

        If you expect people to trust the outcome of the election when their prefered candidate does not win, you must not only conduct the election so there is no fraud, you must conduct it so that the losing voters grasp there is no possibility of fraud.

        That is not where we are.

          1. If I am wrong – then why aren’t you arguing for continuous elections ?
            Why can’t we all vote all the time about everything ?

            As I have noted the constitution requires fixed elections.

            But logic dictates it also.

            We get this nonsense from the left all the time.

            It is one of the reasons it needs to be 10 times as easy to repeal laws as to pass them.

            We constantly fight over different laws, and through a wide assortment of tactics and strategies many ultimately find a “right moment” and get passed – and quite frequently from that moment on we regret there passage – but it is harder to rescind a law then to pass it. So we end up stuck with idiocy – and hope that SCOTUS will do us all a favor and strike the law down.

  10. I expect ACB to vote on any SCOTUS cases that she has heard the arguments regarding.

    In a perfect world i would expect that SCOTUS would invalidate every single change made to elections in 2020 without the vote of the legislature of those states.

    Frankly they should (but likely will not) invalidate mail-in voting in its entirety – aside from being the most fraud prone form of voting, it is also unconstitutional.

    The constitution provides that congress will set the day of federal elections – that means you vote on THAT DAY. There is no provision for states to change the day.

    All elections should be ONE DAY – not months and months. again anything else expands the oportunity for fraud.

    Billions of dollars are being spent on the 2020 election – and I have no objection to that – but it should be clear to all that there is lots of money at stake.

    The incentive for fraud is unbeleivably high – regardless of party. Where the incentive is high and the opportunity to do so is readily available, Fraud is certain to occur.

    We are already hearing stories of Iran and China and Russia meddling. There are near infinite means for each country to be disruptive.

    Merely finding 10,000 blank counterfeit mail in ballots in dumpsters in swing states would likely cause complete apoplexy today.
    Nearly everyone of both parties would be speculating about how many actual counterfeit ballots were counted.

    This does not require casting a single fraudulent ballot just creating doubt.

    Nor are foreign states the only ones who could stir things up. Any government contractor with sufficient money at stake has the incentive to commit voter fraud.

    And that does not address the problem of corrupt actors within the parties.

    All of us are incredibly anxious about the results of this election – not just over who will win, but over how bad the fraud will be.

    And the answer to that question is unknowable.

    Well no actually it is not. We have seen the press bury the accustations of corruption regarding biden for more than a year.

    Democrats impeached Trump for trying to get an investigation into the Biden family political corruption – something all of us were repeatedly told was just some Alex Jones conspiracy theory.

    What a world we live in when Alex Jones is right.

    Had the press properly vetted Biden in 2019 – we would not be at risk of electing the most demonstrably politically corrupt president ever.

    We all though that was Hillary in 2016. And there is really little doubt Clinton is far more corrupt than Biden.
    But Biden is far less good at it. Biden has been CAUGHT with his hand in the cookie jar.

    He has also been CAUGHT trying to set up Trump and Flynn in 2016.

    For those who loath Trump – If Biden loses – it is YOUR Fault – Democrats had 4 years to come up with a nominee that could beat Trump and was not corrupt or falling off the left edge of the planet.

    YOU failed to do so.

    Should Biden win – It will be YOUR FAULT that we have elevated a truly corrupt (and likely incompetent) person to the presidency.

    I would further note that no one has a clue what Joe Biden will be like as president.

    2020 is a quite odd election – pretty much the entire Planet knows Trump. We know EXEACTLY what we are getting. We know we can trust him to keep his campaign promises. WE KNOW what the next 4 years will be like.
    But nothing is known about Biden. For much of his political carreer he has been a relatively moderate democrat.

    But he was VP in a left of center regime that was only held in check because it lost control of the House and Senate quickly.

    In the past year he has promised to be more of a left wing nut as president than Obama and very nearly so left wing nut as most of the democratic field – where is there a sane moderate democrat?

    Trump is making hay over the stupid promises Biden made to the left.
    But the real question is come innauguration day what Joe Biden (if any) will appear ?
    The crook, the left wing nut, the moderate, the idiot ?’

    Regardless I hear much nonsense about the death of the GOP – but that makes no sense. Trump has shifted the GOP to a position that will not only win, but do so with growing frequency in the future.

    But I hear few noting that the democratic party is in deep trouble. It can not give the left what it wants and win future elections.
    If given power it must deliver – which it can not – the ideology of modern democrats will fail – we have lots of history to confirm that.
    And it can not tack towards the center or the left will revolt – likely violently.

    While I think 4 more years of Trump would be best for the country. A Democratic sweep would be best for the GOP.

    Democrats in power will fail – quickly, and even the press can not save them.

    1. JS: “Had the press properly vetted Biden in 2019 . . .”

      Joe Biden’s and his family’s corruption has been widely known for years, and was reported on by the mainstream media. Note this piece from (incredibly) the New York Times: “[T]he credibility of the vice president’s [Joe Biden] anticorruption message may have been undermined by the association of his son, Hunter Biden, with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings . . .”

      For some strange reason, the media stopped such reporting when he became the democrat’s choice.

  11. Mitch Mconnell was put in a lose lose situation. If he lets Garland come to a vote and he is voted down, Mitch loses. If he blocks Garland, he loses. The Democrats gambled that the issue would cause the Republicans to lose the Senate. Their gambit failed. The entire ploy was not about Garland but about gaining power in the Senate. We should compare two questionably moral occurrences. The treatmment of Garland compared to the treatment of Kavanaugh. A famous politician said, “Elections have consequences”. The Democrats kept Garland from being on the court by losing elections. They’re still beating this dead horse to try and win another election. How’d the last time work out for ya. wah wha wha wha wha


      More nonsense from our House Troll.

      In this telling, Mitch McConnell was in a bind over Garland. ..No he wasn’t..!!

      It was McConnell’s decision, and no one elses, to deny Garland a seat. Mitch simply gambled that Hillary might lose, enabling Republicans to put a trusted Federalist on the court.

      1. It was McConnell’s decision, and no one elses, to deny Garland a seat.

        Again, Democratic leadership placed a moratorium on hearings and floor votes for judicial nominees in 1992 and 2007. Try playing Calvinball with someone else.

        1. Tabby, Democrats never denied a hearing to any Republican-nominated judge.

          And the truth is that Garland is a moderate. He would have more than likely been a swing vote. Ideally that’s what we should have more of on the court: ‘moderate swing voters’.

          1. Tabby, Democrats never denied a hearing to any Republican-nominated judge.

            They placed a moratorium on hearings twice in the last 30 years, Peter. Even if they hadn’t, so what? They bottled up lower court nominations for periods measured in years during the Bush Administration. Why is that legitimate but telling Merrick Garland no dice not legitimate?

            And the truth is that Garland is a moderate.

            Define ‘moderate’, Peter.

            You might attempt to do something other than recycle material in talking point mills.

            1. Tabby, you seem to imply that only Federalists are appropriate for the court. Nonsense! The Federalist Society is essentially ALEC for the courts. Members pledge allegiance to The Koch Bros Network of political donors. And Trumpers like you fancy that non-federalists can’t be trusted because they might grant exceptions for abortion. Not that the Koch Bros really care about abortion. .But abortion is obviously your main interest.

              1. Federalist Society has been around a long time and a lot longer than the Kroch bros.

                These are plutocrats who might as well be in bed with Soros particularly in the misnamed ideology of “free trade”

              2. Actually, that’s irrelevant to my point, which was a response to your procedural complaint. It’s quite puerile of you to play these games.

        1. wow, thanks for the vid of the low testosterone loser, blubbering, he wants more socialism so he can play the lottery and smoke weed. wow. candidate for eugenic sterilization.

          wait– why do i have a feeling that won’t be necessary? prolly doesnt want to get anywhere near a woman.


          This stupid ‘fly’ video is just our House Troll needing attention again. He has to post at least every 10 minutes.

    2. An d yet McConnell WON!

      Absolutely the failure to vote on Garland – as well as the vote on Barret were about political power.

      They were excercises of legitimate political power, with sufficient support from the electorate, and they were NOT violations of norms or existing rules.

      Over the past 4 decades the democrats in the senate have repeatedly violated norms and long standing rules, and anger at their actions have resulted in a growing portion of the electorate on the right that is voting almost entirely based on the courts. Despite the rants and fist pounding there is no evidence todate that there is any significant portion of the left electorate that votes based on the courts.

      This is therefore a non-issue.

      Separately McConnell is about 10pts up in his own senate race.

      1. McConnell is not a reckless rule-breaker, like the Democrats in Congress are. But McConnell plays the game as ruthlessly as they do. That’s the difference. He is a skillful politician who knows and understands the rules of the game and is a real asset to the Senate. He deserves to win re-election.

  12. I used to think that Democrats and Republicans had a lot in common – a love of country, and a desire for its people’s prosperity.

    That ship sailed with the increasingly hostile rhetoric as Democrats shifted to the more extreme Left. When “patriotic” and “nationalist” began to be slurs, and “racist” ceased to require a bigoted view of any race, it became apparent that we don’t have any common ground. Words don’t even mean the same thing. The Left has even thrown out standard dictionary definitions of commonly used words, attributing great evil to commonplace terms.

    I urge people not to vote for this.

    Conservatives seek limited government, and strong individual rights, as protection against tyranny. No matter how rude Trump’s Tweets are, he has not seized any power. Liberals are not afraid to walk the street wearing political clothing, nor do they fear to voice their opinions. But conservatives are. That reflects very badly upon the Left.

    Trump has chosen Supreme Court justices that will apply the law as it is written. These are not ideologues who twist the law to legislate from the bench, skipping Congress entirely. No, Liberal justices do that. Instead, these are judges who seek to apply the law as it is, and leave it up to the Legislative Branch to make new laws. That is not the action of a tyrant.

    It is amazing that the Left can engage in violence – looting, rioting, and threatening to burn down the government, yet they blame Trump and Republicans for their own actions. And it works! They preach the gospel of lethargy and helplessness. They urge the people to vote for more money from the treasury, squeezing those still working more, and more, and more.

    Do not subject the country to the excesses of the Left. One would think that the riots, looting, and pro-crime rhetoric of Democrats, of late, would make it clear the party should not gain more power. But amazingly, there are many Democrats who think voting for their party is voting their conscience. They think the country is going in the wrong direction.

    I wonder what they would think if they looked at polls where 56% of Americans think they are better off than they were 4 years ago, and that includes the pandemic!

    Vote responsibly. Don’t subject us to The Purge.

    1. When power becomes an obsession, tyranny results. For the democrats this obsession became intense with the failure of Hillary Clinton to win the election. Their turn to the radical left has become a mania, hence any means to achieve their ends becomes justified.

    2. ” Liberals are not afraid to walk the street wearing political clothing, nor do they fear to voice their opinions. But conservatives are. That reflects very badly upon the Left.”

      We need to stop thinking that weakness is strength. No, strength is strength. The mobs have intimidated and attacked Trump voters and only now a massive turnout of Trump voters to ensure a strong victory will be a sufficient answer. We have kept our heads down but now we must rise up en masse and show the organization of voting in record numbers. Bigger numbers than they. This is all that matters now.

      There is strength in social and political organization. I appreciate what Karen says but it is good hearted American individualistic thinking. Individual will matters but concerted action wins

      Individuals do not win wars. Teams which train and operate as a unit in selfless action do. Our team action has one goal this year: VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP. This is the only goal for now

      “the Left” such as it is- not pro labor, not pro worker, just anarchist rabble and mercenary “organizers” moved to action by billionaire plutocrats like Soros– that Left seeks power. It has gained such power that they have been able to run amuck committing countless crimes of riot, arson, looting, assault of police officers, attacking public property, federal courts, police stations, and even murder

      That is “street power” so strong that the feckless Democrat mayors have wet their britches and backed down from the mob. Because in reality, organized mobs wielding violence matter. If you are on the wrong end of it, lights out! And Joe Biden has with his late and weak denials, implicitly approved the mob violence and intimidation of 2020. Now the bigger mob of decent, law abiding, workers and middle class must RISE UP AND VOTE against this lumpen rabble and their billionaire masters.

      Here is a little bit of life wisdom. You don’t get stronger, in general, by becoming weaker. You don’t get richer by becoming poorer.

      Oh you may bottom out and rise back up, but most people who bottom out, just go away.

      We too should want power. We too should want to crush our adversaries. The will to live and prosper must be stronger than any bromides or false slogans designed to hold us back.

      As we enter a period of great uncertainty and possibly new higher levels of chaos in this unsettling year of the Rat– remember the adage

      “the strength of the wolf is in the pack” — We will see very soon, which pack is stronger. Collective will and collective action.

      in the end this has less to do with ideas than we usually pretend. ideas are rallying flags, linguistic banners. deep down these banners connect with you or they dont.
      this is about people. the groups form before our eyes, inside you know which side you are on. crazed rabble and their billionaire masters — or the people

      act accordingly. be a part of this coming Victory. Vote Trump! Vote like your life depends on it– because it may! Glory awaits!

      1. Well said, Kurtz.

        There is an apropos video from Dennis Prager on courage in the face of the mob. He remarks that if you bury your opinions, whether it’s to get a better grade, or keep “friends” who would otherwise turn on you, where is the limit?

        What I have come to believe, is that it is best to find out if a relative, friend, acquaintance, or your neighborhood barista, would go off on you, say reprehensible things, or disown you for being conservative. Those people don’t really matter. You have to identify who among those you care about, thinks you are important to them. Let the rest fall away, if that’s their decision.

        1. That’s right. Don Lemon of CNN said he’s dumped all his Trump liking friends. Guess what? I don’t want to be friends with a jerk like Lemon anyhow

          I don’t wave the Trump flag on the street. I am not a red hat guy. This is my covert outlet for vigorous political talk. In regular life I keep it to a minimum

          But my friends know where i stand and family too. They also know I am not a weakling or a puxxy. If they want to test me on being friends because of that, they can make a stab at it. I think one of my nieces disowned me. Too bad for her. her sister didn’t. Guess which one will benefit? I dont apologize for what i am. Only weaklings do that.

          I have to be fair and say most regular Democrat folks are not that way at all. Most regular Democrats are decent people. They too will have the privacy of the voting booth to cast their fateful vote.

          They will have a chance to think hard about which side their bread is buttered on too. They will benefit from law and order. They too can be targeted by angry mobs of BLM and ANTIFA.

          This is a fateful choice people. Take a look in that mirror.

          Ask yourself: would the angry freaks of ANTIFA spare my downtown business if they were on a looting rampage?

          Does BLM want to invade my savings to pay for the slavery grievances of generations long gone by?

          Do I want to pay taxes to fund Pelosi’s plan to bail out the Chicago Teachers pension so a Chicago high school principal can keep on making $321,000 in retirement?

          Reckon your answers and vote intelligently!

          1. The 1984 nature of the left today is not shared by the majority in this country.

            The vast majority whether republican or democrat, whether in agreement or not is capable of a rational disccussion and toleration of those with different views.

            Even here – the most rabid right wing nuts do not seek to silence those on the far left. But the left seeks to silence all who disagree.

        1. Careful what you wish for – you might get it.

          It is increasingly self evident that Biden actually is everything you have every accused Trump of.

          He is bumbling and incompetent,
          he is corrupt and nepotistic.
          He lies constantly.

  13. ‘In a statement to The Federalist, former Biden family insider-turned-whistleblower Tony Bobulinski blasts the media and notes that the evidence he provided the FBI has “been authenticated by an independent, nationally recognized forensic analysis firm.

    “History will not judge kindly those in the media that are sweeping under the rug one of the most significant and legitimate national security scandals involving a candidate for the presidency,” Bobulinski told The Federalist.

    Bobulinski says media goal is to protect Biden: “The media should focus on the very serious national security issues raised by the evidence I have provided, instead of ignoring this issue or writing process stories to serve as a distraction to help their favored candidate.” @seanmdav

    1. “Bobulinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden — who, once again, could be president of the United States next week, was planning business deals with America’s most formidable global opponent. And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied. And then he went further. He slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that. That’s not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential campaign. It’s true.

      So the question is, what is Joe Biden’s excuse for doing that? What is his version of this story? Everyone has a version and we’d like to hear it, but we don’t know what Joe Biden’s version of the story is, because no one in America’s vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden to answer the question. Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers have openly collaborated with Joe Biden’s political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has never happened in American history.

      Wednesday morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobulinski had to say. So did the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobulinski appeared on CNN or anywhere else. Newsweek decided to cover it, but came to the conclusion that the real story was about QAnon somehow. This is Soviet-style suppression of information about a legitimate news story. Days before an election, the ramifications of it are impossible to imagine. But we do know the media cannot continue in the way that it has.

      No one believes the media anymore and no one should. You should be offended by this, not because the media are liberal, but because this is an attack on our democracy. You’ve heard that phrase again and again, but this is what it looks like….”

      1. Will NO reporter press Joe Biden to answer this question before the election? Will Joe Biden simply NOT have to answer a single hard question b/c the media is protecting him? Is this America?


        “What is his version of this story? Everyone has a version and we’d like to hear it, but we don’t know what Joe Biden’s version of the story is, because no one in America’s vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden to answer the question.”


      “History will not judge kindly those in the media that are sweeping under the rug–

      What nonsense! Historians will note that Trump was a runaway wrecking ball bent on destroying every American institution.

      The idea that historians will be shocked the media’s refusal to spread a Fox News story presumes that Millennials will tell that story. But they won’t! Millennials are unlikely to say anything good about Donald Trump.

      1. In 2016 and for four years since, the media spread the Russian collusion story all over the airwaves nonstop. Now, the real story comes to light about Joe Biden’s corruption, and the media is in total blackout and running a protection racket for their candidate, Joe Biden. Social media platforms are shutting down, censoring, and locking out conservative views and Trump supporters, right out in the open, brazenly censoring pro-Trump messages, and blacking out negative news toward Biden. It is happening right out in the open. It’s unreal. It’s a Soviet era propaganda and disinformation mass operation going on right now, in our own media. How could Joe Biden NOT win in a landslide with all the election interference/help he’s getting from Big Tech?

      2. Jeez louise…typical of an anonymous poster of the left bent. So anything apparently that exposes china joe of being the corrupt POS he is is somehow “only” a fox story and by that false ?. Man you need to lay off th ekoolaide and step away from your daily Pravda…might wake you up a bit bro.

        1. Glenn Greenwald – definitely no right winger – or even centrist, has run the Biden story as well as criticized the media.

          He has pointed out that by every standard of responsible journalism this is a credible and important story, that the information has been authenticated to an extent much greater than the Press typically requires, that prestigious joutnalists from NYT as recently as 2018 have said that what is important about a story is whether it is true – not where it comes from.


        Our troll, as ‘Cunaeus, is praising himself as gray Anonymous. Such is the state of Johnathan Turley’s blog.

        1. the above pink Anonymous is a troll who chewed on paint chips as a kid…. others believe he still consumes paint chips thinking it will make him more intelligent

  14. If Democrats are lucky enough to take both the White House and Senate, Barrett should be removed and replaced with a Biden pick.

    Mitch McConnell started these court wars when he denied a hearing to Merrick Garland. Democrats have no obligation to put up with these abuses. And Turley is playing the victim card (again) by pretending conservatives are the aggrieved party here.

    Trump is an impeached president who never won the Popular Vote. Americans shouldn’t be stuck with a bullet-proof conservative majority on the court. Barrett represents a regime that is most likely entering its final days.

    1. Mitch McConnell started these court wars

      Either you know nothing or you’re lying your tuchus off. Which is it?

      1. Tabby, you contend that McConnell didn’t deny Garland a hearing? Or you just mean ‘dirty tricks are fine when played by Republicans’?

        1. Garland was never awarded or approved a hearing.

          That is a function of the Senate.

          You are —-ing crazy.

          Your words are —-ing crazy.

          The President nominates.

          The President does not set the docket.

          The Senate exercises the power of Advice and Consent, at a time of its choosing and when the Senate deems appropriate.

          That’s what was supposed to happen and that’s what did happen.

          Please cite the Constitution wherein Garland or President Soetoro had any power to exercise related to a hearing – they had none.

          You are conjuring a phantom power.

          You’re a whack job.

          Garland was nominated by Barry Soetoro. Great. Wonderful. End of story.

          The problem for America is that there are psychos out there that read your words and listen to your voice and believe you are rational, coherent and correct.

          The inmates are trying like crazy to take over the asylum – you’re like crazy and should be in an asylum.

          1. The Constitution gives the Senate the duty to “advise and consent”, not the Senate Majority Leader. By denying Garland a hearing and vote, he denied the Senate the ability to advise and consent. He should have just let Garland be voted down in the Senate.

            1. A —-ing leader leads you —-ing idiot, and he did.

              The Constitution does not say MollyG and every other parasite in the world get everything they order up.

              Please cite law wherein your idiotic position is supported.

              Oh yeah, you can’t, huh.

              No timeline, no deadline…read it and weep.

              Article 2, Section 2

              The President shall… nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court,…

              The Senate as led by its leader, was never compelled to provide advice and consent and it did not provide advice and consent for the nominee of the former, wholly ineligible poser; son of a foreign citizen of a foreign country.

        2. Tabby, you contend that McConnell didn’t deny Garland a hearing?

          Again, you’re either an idiot or a fraud. To make it explicit for you, the ‘court wars’ were well underway 30-odd years ago. You’re 60- something years old and of an age to have read about them in the papers at the time.

          1. Tabby, you’re presenting a sociopathic view of history that Turley validates. It’s a view where conservatives are always the victims. Which gives them the right to play dirty tricks.

            1. Tabby, you’re presenting a sociopathic view of history that Turley validates.

              The term ‘sociopathic’ does not mean what you fancy it means, Peter. And it doesn’t matter how absurd are your pretenses. The introduction of gross defamation into disputes over court nominations had a point of origin and it’s point of origin is Edward Kennedy and the har-de-har ‘public interest advocacy’ outfits run by characters like Michael Pertschuck. Next in line was the use of sketchy accusations of office misconduct. Who did that? The characters who pulled Anita Hill out of the woodwork, among them Howard Metzenbaum’s staff. Who made use of standing procedureal rules to bottle up lower court nominees for years at a time? That was Harry Reid in re Brett Kavanaugh and Miguel Estrada, among others. Gainesville bitc*es and moans over Merrick Garland, but there have been two occasions in the last thirty years where the Senate Democratic leadership scotched hearings on nominees to the federal judiciary. Did I mention the Kavanaugh imbroglio? Any regrets, Peter, or are you as pathological as Gainesville and Natacha?

              What was true from 1913 to 2009 is that Democratic presidents seldom faced much resistance to their Supreme Court nominations. Since the seven Democratic presidents in that time came up with some ringers for the Court, some more pushback might have been in the public interest. The nominees who did face resistance were Lewis Brandeis, Hugo Black, Sherman Minton, and the conjoined nominations of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry. Brandeis had never served in a judicial position and was up to his hips in work as the consigliere of political causes. Black’s time on the bench consisted of a couple of years as a local JP; he was an inveterate advocate of Roosevelt initiatives and his nomination came on the heels of Roosevelt’s court-packing plan. Minton was another politician and regarded as something of a crony nomination. The Fortas / Thornberry nomination was procedurally irregular as it was consequent to a contingent letter of resignation by Earl Warren (where he’d stay on unless Congress approved Johnson’s choice of a replacement). Fortas had skeletons in his closet, so everyone rather dodged a bullet when his nomination was blocked; he elected to resign from the Court the following year rather than face impeachment proceedings and a possible indictment of his wife.

              So, over a period of 96 years, you don’t face much opposition and only one nomination is ever blocked (and blocking it required the co-operation of dissidents in the Democratic caucus. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, nine of the 17 nominations to the Court made by Republican presidents over a period of 37 years faced a great deal of opposition (between 40% and 95% of the Senate Democratic caucus) and four were blocked. You could try putting on your big boy pants and accepting that you lose some battles, but that’s evidently asking too much of you and Gainesville and Natacha.

              Piss off.

              1. Yeah, Tabby, you’re just serving up a standard list of conservative grievances that presumably justifies all their dirty tricks.

                1. The above pink anonymous is the standard troll who insults others at the expense of losing credibility on internet forums. His given name on here is Paint chips

                2. What ‘dirty tricks’, Peter? The President was told in 2016 that his nomination was unacceptable and no hearings would be held, as is the Senate’s prerogative and as has been done before. Just recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee held ordinary hearings where the opposition could examine the nominee, then it was sent to the floor and prevailed in floor vote. Wasn’t any more precipitate than the Senate confirmation of RBG 27 years ago. Your complaint is what (aside from the usual whining that you didn’t get what you want)?

          2. It’s amazing how many here explain how our senate works in this very environment regarding SCOTUS nominees. And yet the left benders simply won’t take that truth as an answer. So bitterly partisan they cant see the forest for the trees !. When the corrupt lefty from Nevada Sen Reid changed votes to a simple majority to get their way at the time …he was warned that would come back to bite them. And brother has it done so in spades !!!. And they deserve every bite they get !. As continuously noted here it’s all about the power to the bitter left Nazis and the demoratz in general. Truth has little meaning to them , and their nefarious means are justified by their hoped for ends as always. Damned hypocrites !.

    2. “If Democrats are lucky enough to take both the White House and Senate, Barrett should be removed and replaced with a Biden pick.”

      Just because the WeHo crowd remove and replace you on Grindr with a dude far more attractive, doesn’t mean you can do likewise to others.

      1. Svelaz is our flamboyant troll who presumes everyone is gay. How boring!

        Last night he was Old Guy, another boring character. Said troll seems to be the first and last responder to every comment. And he is usually both the first and last responder.

        1. At least half of this Anonymous’s polls are about some this troll or that troll. This response is always following a comment she can’t rebut. Intellectual chasm.

          1. watch your pronounce. She is a He until he claims to be a She which means it is a Shim unless if Shim thinks Shim is a They. throw a pipe of crack cocaine at Him/Her/Shim/They and watch Hunter Biden show up

    3. And the Bolsheviks won guns and killed everybody and confiscated their property and “fundamentally transformed” Russia with brutal, murderous military force, imposing tyrannical, totalitarian communism and the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      Good for you.

      The current President and the Senate followed the Constitution.

      Be afraid. If the Supreme Court ever executes its sworn duty to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, your hysterical and incoherent parasitic heads will explode because the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and must be deconstructed and/or privatized, no matter the vote.

      As established by the Constitution, Americans are free and they can’t be regulated, they can’t have their private property used, directed or interfered with by government, and they can’t be taxed for charity and communist redistribution of wealth. A Supreme Court which finally supports the Constitution will be compelled to throw out your communism lock, stock and barrel.

      How is it you failed so miserably in life that you embrace dictatorship and eschew freedom?

      P.S. Every American is free to open a charity, solicit contributions and give away “free stuff” all he wants, voluntarily in the free markets of the private sector. That’s freedom, my friend.

  15. The vote matters not.

    “It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”

    – James Carville

    The Supreme Court is sworn to support the Constitution, not to modify it or “legislate from the bench.”

    The wild Marxist proposals are all unconstitutional and that must be declared by the Supreme Court.

    When in doubt, freedom and power default to the People.

    Rights, freedoms and powers which are not federal are reserved to the People.

    The people enjoy every conceivable natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment, and powers not in the federal domain are reserved “…to the people…” to avoid tyranny by States per the 10th Amendment.

    9th Amendment

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    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

    – 10th Amendment

    Congress has the power to tax only for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding taxation for individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth.

    The Congress has the power to regulate only the value of money, “…Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…,” and land and naval Forces.

    The 5th Amendment right to property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute. Congress has no power to “claim or exercise dominion over private property.”

    The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and must be deconstructed and/or privatized including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services,
    forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    The American Founders gave Americans the one an only thing they could: Freedom Through Self-Reliance.

    Regarding the wild Marxist proposals, the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) can’t do it.

    The vote matters not.

  16. Given Turley’s enabling of the theft of the SC majority from a President actually elected (twice) by American voters and now the railroad job of an intensely unpopular President’s selection of Barret by the GOP just before the election, he has no standing legally, ethically, or morally to lecture anyone on how the Court should be selected, organized, and run. He’s a pom pom waver, not a serious and principled thinker. He’s overseen without comment it’s breaking and conversion into an expression of pure political power and should expect the same in turn when his guys are gone.

    1. He is an eminent law professor and a famous lawyer with cases of constitutional gravity that show his expertise in these subjects at the highest level.

      but let’s take a look at his impressive legal credentials, from his wiki, and let his record speak for itself:

      Prominent cases
      Turley has served as counsel in notable cases; representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients in national security, environmental, and constitutional law cases. His cases as lead counsel have secured decisions striking down both a federal and a state law,[21] among them:

      Lead counsel in United States House of Representatives v. Price, the 2014 constitutional challenge of President Obama’s changes to the Affordable Care Act
      Lead counsel in Brown v. Buhman, for the Brown family from the TLC reality series Sister Wives, in their challenge of Utah’s criminalization of polygamy
      Lead counsel for five former United States Attorneys General in litigation during the Clinton Impeachment in federal court
      Lead counsel to ‘Five Wives Vodka” in successful challenge of ban on sales in Idaho due to a finding that the product was insulting to Mormons
      Lead counsel representing Dr. Sami Al-Arian in securing this release for civil contempt and later, in defense of criminal contempt charges (which were dropped after years of litigation)
      Larry Hanauer, a House Intelligence Committee staff member falsely accused of leaking classified information to The New York Times [75]
      David Faulk, a whistleblower who revealed abuses at NSA’s Fort Gordon surveillance programs [76]
      Dr. Eric Foretich,[44] in overturning the Elizabeth Morgan Act in 2003 [77]
      Former Judge Thomas Porteous’s impeachment trial defense [43] Turley characterized Porteous’s chronic bribe-taking as merely being a “moocher”, convicted on four articles of impeachment, removed as judge by a Senate vote of 94-2 [78][79]
      Defendants in terrorism cases, including Ali al-Tamimi (the alleged head of the Virginia Jihad/Paintball conspiracy)-[80] On September 1, 2020, a federal court found that his challenges to his conviction had merit and ordered his release to Professor Turley at Supermax in Colorado to drive back to Virginia to avoid risks of Covid-19.[81]
      Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada.[82][83]
      Lead counsel in the litigation over the mass arrests at the World Bank/IMF protests in Washington.[84]
      Turley represented the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado [85]
      Turley testified on December 4, 2019, regarding the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, regarding constitutional issues not supporting the impeachment of Trump.[86]

      1. I prefer to look at his recent writings, which say more to me than any list of alleged accomplishments Kurtz could come up with. Sadly, Turley has become a pure political hack–he ignores and downplays Trump’s corruption, including cheating with Russia’s help, refusing to disclose to whom he is indebted, the unstable “administration” with its revolving door, his misrepresentation of Mueller’s findings by claiming Trump was “exonerated”, while ignoring the fact that Trump not only refused to turn over documents or testify–he procured the lack of cooperation of other key witnesses, preventing a thorough investigation. He downplays Trump’s attempt to leverage aid to Ukraine for political purposes and the significance of Trump being impeached by 48 U.S. Senators. He ignores Trump’s malpractice in handling the COVID crisis, including the unnecessary deaths and illnesses, promoting Hydroxychloroquine, leading to a shortage for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis sufferers. And, then, there’s the endless lying, the racism, the misogyny, the xenophobia, pandering to Putin, refusal to turn over tax returns, trying to hamstring the U.S. Postal Service to prevent Americans’s vote from counting during a pandemic, and trying to take away health coverage for 20 million + at a time when there is rampant unemployment and a pandemic. He defends the hypocrisy of Covid-Barrett being confirmed less than 2 weeks before an election, with the vote of multiple likely lame-ducks, despite what was done with Merrick Garland. These are off the top of my head. Turley has forfeited his credibility.

        1. Wow! That’s some serious Twilight Zone stuff you have going there. Turley hasn’t changed and neither have you. What has changed over the last 4 years is the reality of what the facts and evidence, (provable truth) demonstrate. While Turley writes about this reality, you’re stuck in some alternate universe void of facts and evidence and heavy on feelings. Damn!

        2. ‘Watching Biden spew lie after lie in his quest to replace Trump. His low-information voters have no idea.’ scott adams

          100% yes. Everything coming out of Joe Biden’s mouth is a flatout lie. No one in the media is fact-checking him or calling him out for it. It’s unreal to see the Fake News working as part of Joe Biden’s campaign without shame or conscience.

          1. Here’s a doozy from Joe Biden:

            “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life.”

            Okay Joe, maybe YOU technically didn’t take a penny from a “foreign source”…..but how about your kickbacks through your bagman, Hunter? What a crook and a liar Joe Biden is.

            1. “I’m not going to shut down the country. I’m going to shut down the virus!” shouts Joe Biden.

              Yeah, how you gonna do that, Joe? Wave a magic wand and federally mandate that “Masks Must Be Worn” by everyone all the time only to be removed in between bites of food? Is that your plan, Joe? It’s a virus. You don’t just ‘shut it down’ you idiot. Will you “shut down the virus” right after you raise our taxes, before you kill the oil industry and all our livlihoods along with it?

              What a bunch of malarkey.

              1. Joe shouts that Donald Trump called our soldiers “losers and suckers.” That is a LIE.

                Joe Biden says Trump refuses to condemn white supremacy. That’s a LIE. Trump has condemned white supremacy over and over.

                Joe Biden says Trump will cut your Social Security. That’s a LIE.

                Joe says Trump called white nationalists “very fine people.” That’s a LIE.

                Joe Biden says Trump called Mexicans “rapists and murderers.” That’s a LIE.

                Biden says he won’t “ban fracking.” That’s a LIE.

                Joe says he won’t raise middle class taxes. That is a LIE.

                Joe Biden said he has “NEVER discussed his son’s business dealings” not once, not ever. That is a flatout LIE.

                Biden says so much that flatout isn’t true, and he has a very loooong history of being a liar and a plagiarist, and corrupt as hell, but stil here he is, in campaign speech after campaign speech telling lie after lie and NO ONE in the media is fact checking him or calling him out.

                No one in the press is asking Joe Biden important questions. They are giving him a complete pass. It’s outrageous.

        3. Russia Russia Russia. Both Clapper and Brennen said that they had no proof of Russian interferance. They made these statements under oath. Don’t you understand that using the “Russia” ploy destroys your entire argument? I guess it doesn’t matter because your just speaking to yourself.

        4. Natch refers to “alleged accomplishments Kurtz could come up with”

          No, witch, that’s what WIKI came up with and i cut and pasted it. Is it wrong? No. Not allegations, FACTS

          You just cant read and can’t admit GREATNESS in Turley. As a lawyer he shoes amazing skill and experience — and literally at the matters of highest constitutional consequence

          See folks this is a small minded bitter lady who claims to be a lawyer but she had not even a wee bit of grudging respect for the host of this blog whose cases speak for themselves!

          Why don’t you scurry off and puke out your stinking venomous bile somewhere else>? You hate Turley so buzz off from his website. That’s what any sane and decent person would do

          1. Just do what I do. When you read Natacha’s comments, picture her as Linda Blair sitting in bed with her head spinning around projectile vomiting all over the blog. It becomes very entertaining this way. Oscar worthy performance, really. hehe.

            (PS for those who don’t remember Linda Blair played the possessed child Regan in the horror film The Exorcist)

  17. I’m glad Turley has the guts to talk about this but it really doesn’t matter. Like Germany in the 1930’s lawyers will protest but when they run to the media to show them the evil coming, they will find the media has no interest in publishing concerns, they are all in on the madness…

  18. Nice country you have there, shame if anything happened to it?
    My Good God, please let this election be over with.
    Also, don’t think your recent Sherlock Holmes references have gone unnoticed.
    Greatly appreciated. Wooff

      1. Now that’s a good one and sadly where we may be.
        Batten down the hatches mates, were in for a hellava storm.
        Prepare we must.

  19. I commonly agree with Turley’s strong legal arguments, here he makes no such thing, he takes a swing at the obtuse and retributive nature of politics. He’s wrong.

    Demands made by politicians are the life blood of active democracy, and are normal. In fact what we have these days, that the media and entrenched status quo calls “divisiveness” is actually a sign of life & health in our country. America zombie politics, where most don’t vote and hardly care, has been overrun by a good dose of proper public passions. Crazed demands, in the long run, wake the sleepy center to action. We should bemoan the lack of this agitation, when Obama sat on his hands and allowed his SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland to be bagged & stuffed by Mitch McConnell.

    If one reads extensively in US history, you find that most of it is far more politically rancorous than the one-trick pony of pro/con Trumpism we have today. For America to have a healthy politics, that politics has to be a bit wild especially during election time. Politics works by grabbing the attention of the citizens away from their hobbies and work, shooting higher than the mark, and fighting with weighted gloves. Making war in words from the lectern is the business of proper democratic politics. Anyone who tells you otherwise does not appreciate the true breadth of political thought in a nation as diverse as the US.

    1. Obama sat on his hands and allowed his SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland to be bagged & stuffed by Mitch McConnell.

      Garland wasn’t ‘bagged and stuffed’. McConnell and the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee simply refused to hold hearings. What was Obama going to do, have the Secret Service shoot them?

      1. “Making war in words from the lectern is the business of proper democratic politics”

        Really? Wars and planned and executed with words. Real wars that end in blood and fire. Words like “attack”

        some people seem to think real wars are not far off. “survivalism” now includes businesses run by retired air force officers who went to Harvard

        and at the foot of every political order, there is a fundamental distinction between friend and foe.
        in parliamentary and democratic systems, that distinction can move very fast in unexpected directions

      2. Yeah, Arty: McConnell also refused to call for a vote hundreds of federal district and appellate court nominees, waiting to pack those courts with extreme conservatives, too. And then there’s the fact that the Republicans had the energy to sit up all night to ramrod Covid-Barrett onto the SCOTUS, but can’t do anything to help pass COVID relief, including working with the House’s bill passed last May. Can’t help but notice it’s the end of the month–how are people who are unemployed going to pay their rent or mortgage? Maybe Covid-Barrett can tell us. No, wait. She’s there to hear Trump’s election appeal.

        1. McConnell also refused to call for a vote hundreds of federal district and appellate court nominees, waiting to pack those courts with extreme conservatives, too.

          So what? Harry Reid et al bottled up George Bush’s nominees for periods measured in years and both Reid in 2007 and Biden in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1992 put a moratorium on hearings and votes. You know nothing. You’re worth nothing.

          1. Art Deco – as Professor Turley has explained, “court packing” means expanding the number of seats on the Court in order to pack it with ideologues of your own party.

            Republicans have not expanded any court, or planned such a scheme.

        2. Nancy Pelosi is blocking covid relief purely for political gain. That is all on the Democrats. Their sick poltical game-playing, while the people suffer for no good reason, should backfire on them, spectacularly. Hold the Senate, flip the House and keep Donald Trump four more years in the White House. This is the price they should pay for Democrat obstruction that intentionally harms the people who need help the most. Shame on Speaker Pelosi.

        3. More puke from Natch. The Pelosi COVID relief bill was chock full of irrelevant nonsense like a provision rationalizing federal banking law to adjust for states with legalized marijuana.,

          Oh and lots of stuff to help the blue states with failed pension plans out, by giving them Red State money. Like so a retired Chicago high school principle can make $321,000 a year — IN RETIREMENT.

          Spare me another piddly check if that’s what we get in return

          1. We should never have locked down.
            We should not have paid a dime in stimulus.
            We should have provided people recomendations and allowed people and businesses to make their own choices.

            Because we have already screwed up does not mean we should screw up further.

    2. Some words are different than others. Mean old Mitch Mconnell said, “You will rue the day you got rid of the filibuster for Justices”. Schumer says “You cross the CIA, they have seven ways from Sunday to get back at you”. Mconnell’s statement was refering to political situations. Schumers statement was referring to physical retribution. Clapper and Brennan heard him loud and clear.

Leave a Reply