Federal Court Dismisses “Kung Flu” Lawsuit Against Trump

Former President Donald Trump achieved mixed results in courts this week. He lost efforts to prevent a $10,000 per day fine for contempt in failing to turn over evidence on his assets in the civil investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James. He also lost his lawsuit against Twitter over his being banned from the site. However, in a case that we previously discussed, Trump prevailed in Chinese Americans Civil Rights Coalition, Inc. v. TrumpI previously wrote that I considered this case to be meritless, but it took a year to see it dismissed on the grounds discussed earlier.

The Chinese American Civil Rights Coalition garnered national attention in the media where former President Donald Trump is being sued for his use of such terms as the “Chinese Virus,” “China Virus,” “Wuhan Flu,” and “Kung Flu.” I wrote earlier that the lawsuit was so clearly barred under the First Amendment that Rule 11 sanctions might be sought after a dismissal.

While Southern District of New York Judge John Koeltl does not mention sanctions, he does categorically dismiss the actions on various grounds. First, he notes that, as a matter of jurisdiction, “[t]he complaint does not allege that any statement was made in New York, although it alleges that many statements were made in tweets or press conferences.” It found that it lacked personal jurisdiction.

The court then found that the filing could not maintain a group libel theory. We have previously discussed this tort theory. Such lawsuits are very difficult to maintain.  In Neiman-Marcus v. Lait (1952), a New York federal district court addressed a defamation claim arising from the publication of the book “U.S.A. Confidential.” The author wrote that “some” models and “all” saleswomen at the Neiman-Marcus department store in Dallas were “call girls.” It also claimed that “most” of the salesmen in the men’s store were “faggots.” The store had nine models, 382 saleswomen and 25 salesmen. The court found the size of the group of women was too big to satisfy a group libel standard. However, the size of the group of salesmen was viewed as sufficiently small to go to trial.

In this case, Judge Koeltl wrote:

To state a claim for defamation under New York law, a plaintiff must allege, among other elements, a statement that is “of and concerning” the plaintiff. However, “[u]nder the group libel doctrine, when a reference is made to a large group of people, no individual within that group can fairly say that the statement is about him, nor can the ‘group’ as a whole state a claim for defamation.” The group libel doctrine thus defeats the “of and concerning” element of a defamation claim. The group libel doctrine can be overcome only by a showing that the “the circumstances of the publication reasonably give rise to the conclusion that there is a particular reference to the member.”

In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant described the SARS-CoV-2 virus as the “Chinese virus,” among other names. On the plaintiff’s own allegations, the phrase refers to at least 22.9 million individuals. It is thus “a reference … to a large group of people,” and the plaintiff has made no showing that “the circumstances of the publication reasonably give rise to the conclusion that there is a particular reference” to any particular member. The plaintiff’s allegations therefore cannot support a claim for defamation [on behalf of its members] under the group libel doctrine.

The plaintiff organization also plainly does not allege a defamation claim on its own behalf, given that the complaint contains no allegations that the defendant made any statements about the plaintiff organization, and indeed the plaintiff organization was founded after all of the statements in the complaint were allegedly made. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim for defamation of the plaintiff or of the plaintiff’s members….

[T]he plaintiff has [also] failed to state a claim for either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are “(l) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) the intentional or reckless nature of such conduct; (3) a causal relationship between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) severe emotional distress.” The same test of extreme and outrageous conduct has also been applied to causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Negligent infliction of emotional distress also may be alleged on a “bystander” theory when a person is “threatened with physical harm as a result of defendant’s negligence[,] and consequently … suffers emotional injury from witnessing the death or serious bodily injury of a member of her immediate family”; or on a “direct duty” theory when a plaintiff “suffers an emotional injury from defendant’s breach of a duty which unreasonably endangered her own physical safety.” …

As an initial matter, the plaintiff’s claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress fail because they are based on the same alleged statements that give rise to the claim for defamation. They are therefore duplicative of the claim for defamation, and should be dismissed on that basis….

The claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress fails for the additional reason that the conduct alleged by the plaintiff is not so extreme or outrageous as to be covered by the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The remarks at issue referred to the geographical origin of the virus rather than the responsibility of the millions of Asian Americans who had nothing to do with the virus. To fall within the ambit of the tort, the conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” The comments in this case fall well short even of the language that courts have found insufficiently extreme or offensive to support an infliction of emotional distress claim….

The claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress fails because the conduct alleged does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct that has been found sufficient to justify liability, and the plaintiff has failed to assert sufficient allegations to assert a claim under the “bystander’ theory or the “direct duty” theory….

The Court also holds that this is all protected speech under the First Amendment:

Finally, the plaintiff’s claims for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress fail for the additional reason that imposing liability for the alleged statements would violate the First Amendment. In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Supreme Court held that even where extreme and outrageous speech on a matter of public concern causes emotional distress to another, the First Amendment bars recovery in a civil damages action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. “In public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” No matter how deplorable the plaintiff finds the defendant’s remarks, the First Amendment precludes civil liability for the remarks in order to protect the right to free and robust debate on matters of public concern, which the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus plainly is….

I am still concerned about the filing of such lawsuits as press releases with legal captions attached. This lawsuit was jurisdictionally and constitutionally flawed from the outset.

121 thoughts on “Federal Court Dismisses “Kung Flu” Lawsuit Against Trump”

  1. Can’t wait for the American Revolution 2.0 can’t wait to get our hands on some leftists

    1. If enough people see 2000 Mules, I think when Democrats protest protections against ballot fraud, those people will be out there. Then the left will show its form and act violently as they have over the summer, in DC, etc. They will run away when they see a resolute opposition like they most frequently do. They are cowards and cannot survive the light of day.

      We have to push our legislators to view Mules 2000, and those legislators that have been cheating need to be thrown out.

    2. I wear my FJB hat everywhere. F the Dem mf’ers who are “offended” by it. FJB and the entire Democrat party.

  2. Disgusting and revolting than a Democrat and there’s nothing dumber and more obtuse than a called member of the Democrat Party you filth are absolute trash every one of you that suffers Trump derangement syndrome …I loathe you

  3. Here’s a little fact you left out, Turley: as a result of Trump’s dimwitted effort to project blame for his mishandling and downplaying of the COVID pandemic, attacks against those of Asian descent skyrocketed in this country. Asians were tackled and brutally and verbally assaulted all over this country for no other apparent reason than the fact that they were Asian. Regardless of whether Trump’s stupidity is legally actionable, he is responsible for fomenting hatred of Asians. And, I’ll bet the disciples don’t have a problem with attacks on Asians, either.

    1. Nice try. Every attack on asians was done by none other than black folks

    2. You have a very small intellect you’re not a very serious person in terms of critical thinking discernment or intelligence… we are all laughing at you.
      99% of Asian hate crimes are committed by black people

    3. “Everybody was Kung Flu Fighting, those courts upheld the right wing…”

    4. Asians being attacked has nothing to do with Trump you moron. It has to do with out of control black people.

    5. Let me add a note to you, that when he did try to take steps, the media, the left, the democrats, the CDC & Fausci, all hounded him by downplaying it as a flu, that its something that can’t spread too fast, and its something that is not serious, and that closing the borders to select countries is xenophobic (the entire world ended up doing it anyway, including China where they were xenophobic to most non-rich non-Chinese during the entire time), and a whole lot of other stuff – and all of a sudden, all this was ‘conveniently forgotten’ by the obviously biased media and this this guy was at fault.

      Also gotta blame him for actually making masks & vaccines political (whether he is right about that or not), but this history was largely forgotten – so convenient! And I’m not even an American and don’t even care about your politics – just annoying to see such obvious bias exist.

  4. So what do you think, Hilary and Donald part 2 in 2024.

    1. Not happening. The Durham investigation is eating its way through the Clinton group.

      At the very least Trump would spend the entirety of the campaign ranting correctly that Clinton had spied on him, and foist an enormous hoax on the country.

      1. I suspect that you have not paid close attention to Judge Cooper’s rulings to date in Sussmann’s case.

        1. I am certain you have not.

          The case will go to trial – unless Sussman pleads.
          Cooper has rejected Sussman’s efforts to avoid a trial.

          You can pretend all you want – but Cooper ruled AGAINST repeated motions by Sussman.

          Further Copper has denied claims of attorney client priviledge and is reviewing the material himself.

          He has denied Sussman witnesses transactional immunity and granted it to Sussman.

          With each motion by Sussman Durham reveals a bit more of the strength of his case.

          Frankly, Durham has already won with respect to the Clinton campaign.

          The trial is about whether it was criminal for Sussman to lie to the FBI.

          Even if by some miracle – and it is a DC jury so there could easily be a miracle, Sussman walks
          It is not Sussman’s lie to the FBI that is the big deal.

          It is that the Clinton campaign manufactured FALSE claims from whole cloth of criminal conduct against Trump and the Trump campaign, and then sold these hoaxes to the FBI.

          Let me restate – Durham found the sources to the Steele Dossier and the alpha bank scam. Those are all humans within the democratic party leadership. There is not even an unreliable russian source. Danchenko got his information from Gossip of members of the DNC.
          The CIA concluded that the Alpha Bank scam was obvious human constructed data – i.e. FAKE.

          The trial – if Sussman does not roll, might pull away the curtain even further, But the critical damage is already done.

          I beleive Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit. It is incredibly hard for a public figure of Trump’s stature to win a defamation lawsuit.
          But the facts here meet the requirements.

          Manufacturing a fraudulent criminal allegation, manufacturing evidence and then falsely reporting it to the FBI – exceeds all the requirements for defamation of a public figure.

          I can not recall EVER in US history a political act so despicaable.

          Give up Clinton is dead meat.

    1. Letitia James must be perp-walked for malicious prosecution.

      Every entrepreneur in America could be prosecuted for aggressive self-promotion and sales – those who fail that test are usually fired by shareholders who demand performance accretive to equity valuations.

  5. The Supreme Court abortion decision was stolen.

    The 2020 election was stolen.

  6. Georgia Grand Jury To Hear About Trump’s Demand For 11,780 Votes

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will wait until after the May 24 primaries to call in witnesses to testify about whether former President Donald Trump tried to illegally overturn election results in Georgia in 2020.

    Selection of a special grand jury will begin on May 2, but the group won’t hear from witnesses until June 1, Willis said in an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday.

    Willis said the four-week gap would give jurors time to approve subpoenas for reluctant witnesses and for the district attorney’s office to deliver those documents into people’s hands. The veteran prosecutor also acknowledged that she’s waiting until after the primaries to avoid the perception that her actions are politically motivated, as her Republican critics allege.

    Several of the people Willis is likely to seek an interview with — most notably Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whom Trump called on Jan. 2, 2021, requesting that he “find” enough votes to reverse his Georgia defeat — are on the primary ballot this spring. That includes Gov. Brian Kemp and Attorney General Chris Carr. They also received Trump calls following the November 2020 elections and now face Republican challengers.

    The special grand jury is authorized to meet until spring 2023 but could wrap work earlier.

    Willis also on Monday clarified for the first time the scope of how many people her team of 10 prosecutors and investigators have spoken to in the 14 months since she launched the probe.

    She said that at least 50 people have voluntarily testified before prosecutors and that she plans to seek subpoenas for at least 30 others who had previously declined to be interviewed. She added that there are another 60 or so people her team is hoping to talk to in the weeks ahead.

    In addition to the Trump-Raffensperger call, Willis has indicated that her team is also examining the abrupt resignation of former Atlanta-based U.S. Attorney BJay Pak; a November 2020 call U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., placed to Raffensperger; and false claims made by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani during a hearing before the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Edited From:

    Curiously Professor Turley has yet to cover this potentially explosive matter. On January 2, 2021, Donald Trump called Georgia’s Secretary of State and rambled for almost half an hour; demanding over and over that Secretary Raffensperger find 11,780 votes so that Trump could claim victory in Georgia. The entire call was taped by Raffensperger who had every reason to document.

      1. As the cheating unfolds, we can see that Trump’s position was absolutely correct. He was asking that out of the tens of thousands of illegal votes he and many today believe were the case, all they needed to find immediately was a specific number. The rest could be found later.

        ATS, there was nothing criminal except in your interpretation.

    1. Washington Post has issued a retraction Because the actual transcript of the phone call was found in the trash bin by a computer tech.
      The aid to the secretary of state lied..
      Trump never asked anyone to find any votes that is fake news you are behind the curve and still regurgitating discredited false information

      1. Trump wasn’t asking for fake votes, as proven by 2000 mules. There were plenty of illegal votes cast by mules in just a few areas that would overturn the election. This is not something that needs to be debated. This is something the Democrats are fighting for in Pennsylvania because some were trying to prevent the ballot boxes from once again taking illegal ballots. The Democrats lose most elections if voting is fair.

        See 2000 Mules and pass it on. Talk is cheap. Knowledge lets us know what happened so we can prevent it in the midterms.

    1. ATS, do you think building a case against Trump involves the number of cases? In your mind, as the number rises, Trump becomes more guilty.

      That is an ignorant way of looking at things. One should be looking at where Trump essentially prevailed. That number is extraordinarily high and occurred despite the infinite resources of the state. That demonstrates that Trump is more likely innocent than guilty in the outstanding cases because one has to recognize the number of errant people that jumped on a train solely to get Trump.

      You don’t just jump on the train as a follower. You are fighting everyone to be the engineer to increase the power of the train with more deceit and more lies.

      1. S. Meyer, all you’re doing is trolling again.

        You troll a lot.

        “In your mind, …”

        One of your favorite ways of trolling is pretending to read someone’s mind and attacking for what you’ve pretended. You did that above.

        Another of your favorite ways of trolling is to insult people. Here are some of your insults to multiple people on just 3 threads (said to Svelaz, to Jeff, to me, to others):
        “You act like a Nazi and talk like a Stalinist.”
        “That you are a child looking for a grown-up to fight his battles is laughable.”
        “You are unable to learn. … If you are too stupid to pay attention, live with your stupidity. … How Stupid can you be? … You use words without understanding what they mean. I feel I am talking to a six-year-old. … More stupidity. … I explained this to Enigma, who at least has a brain. … you will kill at the drop of a hat. You are a barbaric hypocrite, along with being totally ignorant. … That is only in your imagination, and your head otherwise is almost entirely empty. … I think it is time to make sure you start to recognize your lack of ability. …”
        “Here anonymous the Stupid is up to his old tricks. … he has NO CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.”
        “I use the word Stupid a lot. That is what you are, STUPID. … You prey on those that do not know what is happening around them and do not care. You are an animal of prey that kills his own future. Even most in the animal kingdom understand better. You don’t, yet you want to be known by another name than Stupid.”
        “you deserve every insult you get.”
        “Then there are the others, whether Jewish or not, who act like Nazis and talk like Stalinists. You belong to that latter group. No, I don’t get along with that group because they place their ideology ahead of the lives of others. They are mean, nasty and hateful people.”
        “That undresses ATS, stuffs him, and makes him ready for the table, November 25.”
        “ATS has self lobotomized himself permitting only filtered material to reach his cerebral cortex.”
        “you will say anything to trick people into believing your lies and factual distortions.”
        “You know nothing, and you can’t seem to extract yourself from your lies and deceit.”
        “Boy, do you lack intelligence.”
        “people like you have the Stalinist, Hitler, and Mao genes where, if led in the wrong direction, will be willing parts of the killing machines. … you blocked out the horrors of the victims and chose to be part of the victimizer class.”
        “Deep down, you are not a good person, which comes out loud and clear.”
        “That you act as if tearing apart a viable child limb by limb only demonstrates how sub-human you are.”
        “Dumb. … Are you too stupid to recognize … More stupidity. … And more stupidity.”
        “Of course, you and your friends find it a happy event when an illegal rapist enters the country to rape and kill American citizens. … You never cease in your abilities to make yourself look like a fool.”
        “Your intellect is very thin if it exists. … A six-year-old can do better than you.”
        “Your self-serving arguments make you look like an idiot.”
        “Your words betray an ignorance undiscovered by yourself. … You have a lazy mind.”
        “ATS does not support free speech. He is a fascist of the Stalin / Mao type.”
        “You are a fool … you are collecting dog Sh1t and packaging it.”
        “There is no proof that will convince you of anything. Your eyes and ears do not count when the brain is soft and mushy. The mush prevails while the truth doesn’t.”
        “You are dumber than sin.”
        “Stupidity is what you demonstrate daily … [Try] removing your head from your A$$.”
        “the intelligence of a birdbrain.”
        “You chose to act like a fool, and you have chosen to lie”
        “Anonymous the Stupid, you got 50% right which approximates your critical thinking skills. It is not a passing grade but far better than Svelaz’s whose critical thinking skills are somewhere around 0%.”
        “you are an abusive person … You deceive and lie.”
        “his posts are based on regurgitated superficial knowledge”
        “You are a fascist of the Stalinist or Mao type even if you don’t choose to recognize it. … [you] lie and deceive. Most of the time, your statements are shallow. You are obviously are regurgitating leftist talking points provided in much of the media.”
        “to the Borg (Democrats) what you say is meaningless”
        “you are more transparent than you think. We know your modus operandi, deny, deny, and deny while you lie and deceive. Your motto: Always blame someone else for your Stupidity”

        You project a lot in your insults.

        1. ATS, Above, I wrote a good explanation of the foolishness you were purveying. As usual, you couldn’t handle it, so you proceeded to dig your hole deeper.

        2. Only a psychopath makes a comment that long you got mental issues mental illness there’s something wrong with you

    2. Everyone should remember that on a daily bases Anonymous reveals her character when she alls people stooges, idiots, hayseed agronomist, a person with no balls and trolls if they disagree with her positions. Considering her name calling responses should any of us think that she has anything worthy to say. As to balls, I served in the U.S. Marine Corps in harms way while she placed her butt in a warm chair.

      1. Ti T, you seem to be confusing different anonymous commenters.

        I’m the Anonymous commenter who posted the 11:52 AM comment. I’m not the Anonymous commenter who refers to others as a “blog stooge,” and who I believe used to post under the name Seth Warner and was harassed by multiple conservatives here with homophobic comments.

        In fact, I’ve suggested that Anonymous-formerly-known-as-Seth-Warner’s endless “blog stooge” comments make him sound foolish. Here’s an example of an exchange where I said this to him, and he decided that I’m just a sock of the conservative “blog stooge” he endlessly complains about: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/18/the-war-on-free-speech-politicians-and-commentators-label-war-critics-traitors/comment-page-2/#comment-2167271

        Perhaps you wish were were sock accounts of a single person, but we aren’t. Maybe you’ll take solace in knowing that Allan S.Meyer also has difficulty distinguishing between us. As I note above, Allan posts both more insults than I do and nastier insults than I do. But I doubt that concerns you, since he’s a conservative.

        1. Anonymous, ?? I have clearly stated that references to fascist and Nazis as blanket condemnations of others who are posting here is wrong wether the are conservative or liberal. These references are just being used as another curse word. Such curse words are just used because of a limited ability to use a more expanded vocabulary. However, pointing out actions by those in power who want like the Nazis to have more censorship is an allowable comparison. I say that a weak argument through the use of curse words is a poorly thought out argument whether coming from the left or the right. Other curse words that we should consider when evaluating the value of the thoughts of any poster on this blog should be Troll, Stooge and idiot. Alas in this world it is naive to hope for civilized discourse.

          1. Ti T,

            So are you saying that you don’t believe that anyone ever trolls on this blog?
            Or are you instead saying that you believe that people sometimes troll, but they shouldn’t be called out as trolls?

        2. “knowing that Allan S.Meyer also has difficulty distinguishing between us.”

          That is deceitful. Everyone will have difficulty, but in the past, when you thought I erred, you tried to correct me. You claimed I identified you as the wrong anonymous, and I showed you that you didn’t read carefully enough because I was clearly talking about the other anonymous comment in the same thread. I am accurate most of the time but admit to an occasional inconsequential failure. Still, in another response, I showed how you were spiteful and let people provide lengthy answers to you when you knew that your initial response would most likely be removed, as would everyone else’s. Sure enough, I predicted which comments were likely to be dropped on the blog, and they were. You stopped with that nonsense after I revealed your nasty spitefulness.

          Additionally, I have pointed to other icons that were you. For instance, you used an anonymous green icon in lengthy discussions with Karen. Eventually, your anonymous green icon ran into trouble, and you abandoned it. You have used other icons and names along with your pretend friends under the generic name of anonymous. You are deceitful and a liar.

          There are reasons for one to get nasty and insulting. When one gets into a street fight (I learned that in the wrong areas of NYC as a kid), one has to let the others know that though he is upstanding, he is willing to get into the street and battle on your type of level. That is what I do. Anyone can see for themselves what I do and say. They will note that most of it is directed at you or is responsive to another individual’s unruly comments.

          1. “I am accurate most of the time”

            You aren’t. For example, on just this one page, you’ve called me “ATS” and you’ve also called the person who used to post as Seth Warner “ATS” (in your 5:33 PM comment to him where you say “ATS, there was nothing criminal except in your interpretation”).

            Frankly I’m astounded at how bad you are at distinguishing among people if you don’t have their names to guide you, and I’m not the only person to have said that to you. But you’d rather delude yourself and insist “I am accurate most of the time.”

            1. You are right, and it was clear, but I missed the “regarding above” and thought you were responding to Seth. My error. I sent about a dozen posts your way. I was wrong by less than 10%, and today was a bad day. Let me show you a response where I predicted your post would be deleted, taking down many others. That was pure spitefulness on your part. It proved you were a troll.

              I will post it below and people can go to the related posts to see the shenanigans you were up to.



              1. I expect the following comments to be deleted.
                Anonymous the Stupid #1 “You’re obsessed with anonymous commenters. Seek psych help.”
                Pretend ATS friend #1 “He certainly is.”

                Maybe I focus too much on Anonymous the Stupid because he represents a group of people out in the cyber world. They need to recognize how Stupid he sounds to understand how Stupid they sound. If you wish to call it an obsession, do so, but people like yourselves permitted a Hitler to do what he did. You are not nice people when you lie and deceive.

                Why does Anonymous the Stupid need a pretend friend to stand with? He believes that numbers determine right and wrong, so he adds fake generic anonymous postings to his numbers. He is a fool. It is a public service to enlighten people about the trash existing in our world.



              2. No, you were wrong about others too, I just don’t have a name to associate with them like I do Seth Warner, and unlike you, I don’t pretend that peopel are all the same when I don’t know.

                1. In over a year, the total number of corrections made by you, ATS, was three or four, and you goofed on one of them. Two of them were from Seth, which I quickly realized on review. I would have picked it up if I had spent a few seconds longer reading that. Considering the number of such posts, that is a tiny fraction. I don’t spend much time figuring out which is from you. It is pretty easy, and it doesn’t matter if I miss one or two over a year.

                  It would be best if you were patting me on the back, saying, ‘good job.’

            2. So long as you past as Anonymous – you can not prove that S.Meyer is inaccurate.

              Nor do you get to blame others for the inability to correct a problem of your creation.

              You choose to post as anonymous – your right.

              In doing so you surrender any identity. You are anyone or no one as the REST OF US CHOOSE.

              It is litterally impossible for you to Prove SM is wrong – without destroying anonymity that YOU choose.

          1. You’re the same person who told me to kill myself (deleted by Darren), so if you think IGAF what you want from me, you’re mistaken.

    3. Anonymous, I read your link. It did contain some very interesting information. However, it did not discuss the predominance of cancellations of Republicans in the U.S. it did not discuss the fact that Trump was not allowed to post on Twitter. It did not discuss the fact that postings about the Hunter laptop were censored. It did not discuss that any questioning of the China origination of Covid was not being allowed on facebook. It seems that there is a possibility that social media around the world does not favor one ideology over another. You on the other hand you use this link so that you don’t have to address censorship in the U.S. The details of how censorship is happening in America against conservative thinkers is just something that you refuse to believe. The number of postings by conservatives around the world is not what’s important. The thing that we should find most troubling is that the cancellations in our nation are completely leaning in only one direction. I understand that this is what you want to happen but you can rest assured that attempts at the cancellation of the voices on the right will not go unchallenged.

  7. Keep attacking the man, you just keep exposing what the left is all about and their dislike for the majority of Americans.

    1. What does defending a fraudulent thief expose? His University and fake charity have both been shut down after paying massive settlements. His corporation may soon face the same fate. A Grand Jury has been assembled in Georgia to address his attempts to steal an election. He has been accused multiple times of sexual harassment and rape. Plus he’s a habitual liar. If that’s who you’re with, who can you possibly be against?

      1. Different from 100’s of other politicians how? (ignoring the list is a steaming pile of hyperbole) The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. , a great example

          1. enigma……………..Regarding “fraudulent thieves” and “stealing money” :
            The riots across the nation led by Black Lives Matter caused between $1 billion to $2 billion in damage, US insurance companies reported.
            And your “Smash and Grab” thieving brothers are costing million$ of dollars in stolen merchandise and private property damage/destruction, with NO consequences for their criminal actions! NONE! Where is your outcry about that?!
            So, clean up your own house first, you racist hypocrite, before allowing your jealousy tp defame successful, rich white guys…… Is that possible? I doubt it.

            1. Wow, Cindy, just what are you imagining Enigma said that makes him a “racist hypocrite”??

              Seems to me that more harm is done to the US by white collar criminals that street criminals. You highlight $1-$2 billion in damage but are silent about wealthy tax cheats costing the US an estimated $1 trillion per year, per the IRS.

              1. anonymous…….You’re equating breaking expensive show windows, stealing very expensive merchandise, setting fire to the stores, and Mom and Pop stores as well, shutting down hundreds of Walgreens and other businesses thereby putting hardworking people out of work, including POOR people’…..and committing these crimes knowing you will not be arrested, all of this with NO consequences for one’s behavior……You’re equating that with not paying taxes?
                No wonder you call yourself “anonymous”. I wouldn’t use my real name either.

                1. Cindy, I’m saying that the people who commit white collar crime and the people who commit street crime are all criminals, and I’m pointing out that white collar crime does a huge amount of damage to the nation, but you choose not to criticize it.

                  And your response only reinforces that you cannot bring yourself to take seriously white collar crime and the harm it does.

                  1. They are all criminals, is a correct statement.

                    However, the documentary 2000 Mules shows that the 2020 election was stolen and Trump should be in the White House. That was a tremendous crime that should be punished. However, Democrats and many Republicans in leadership do not want to punish such crimes, so it is up to the people to force them to jail all who were complicit in this theft.

                    We have seen how the left has perverted our laws elsewhere so that rioting occurred over the nation costing lives, businesses, and homes at the cost of $3 Billion. The Democrat leaders averted their eyes from this, which is white collar crime because they derived benefit.

                    That is not all, for cities have changed policies leading to more crime and killings, especially in Democrat strongholds, for the same reasons. That is a crime as well.

                    Crime among Democrat advocates is rampant, starting at the school boards and city government and traveling up to the theft of an election which is devastating to a free people.

                    2000 Mules tells us how the most significant election theft took place and put an illegitimate person, Biden, into office. Everyone should see the film, even if they hate Trump. They will learn that our government is being taken over by people who are primarily on the left but can be on the right.

                    SEE AND TELL OTHERS TO SEE 2000 MULES while we still have a country.

                  2. Except that a great deal of what is called white collar crime is not the legitimate business of goverment.

                    Regardless, I would challenge your premise.

                    My wife was the victim of a violent assault over the course of 4 hours.
                    That stole 10 years from our lives, and it effects us even through today.

                    I had a client refuse to pay over 1M in contractual fees. It took several years to recover and then only half,
                    But the actual damage was far smaller than 4 hours of violence.

                    Real white collar crime should be punished – but all criminal violence is legitimately punished far worse than all non-violent crime.

                    It is easy to say things like that the actual harm of white collar crime is worse – but that does not make it true.

          2. Enigmain, how about stealing money from Black Lives Matter as a Real Estate investment plan by the BLM President. You know, the trained Marxist who believes in equality for all. One would think that after Jessie Jackson ($15,000,000 net worth) or Al Sharpton ($8,000,000 net worth) you would catch on. One has to wonder if that some in the black community just think these grifters are just into a cool brilliant scam. I guess the days of men like Martin Luther King Jr. with a net worth of of a paltry $250,000 are a relic of the past. Hopefully in the future a further awakening will occur.

          3. Answer:

            Illegal aliens stealing fake citizenship from the American government and free money from the American taxpayers.

            You are aware that immigration law required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” in 1863, are you not?

            And that the Constitution provides Congress no power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth, alms for the poor, or charity – merely “…general Welfare.”

            Forget the money, the false beneficiaries are stealing “status” that is completely impossible, inane, antithetical and counterintuitive as an egregious act of gross, incoherent “cultural appropriation,” usually experienced only in a time of war and invasion.

            If an American goes to China, will he be Chinese; is there a remote possibility of him even being considered Asian, much less proper Chinese?

            I wanna be East Timorese. It ain’t neva gonna happen; I ain’t gonna mislead and confuse myself.

            The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers – now that’s intuitive.

            But then, they had the capacity, ambition and acumen sufficient to the task.

      2. Enigma, we had gone through many of these questions before where the facts were provided. Despite being led to the facts, you continue to slime.

        “His University and fake charity have both been shut down after paying massive settlements.”

        Do you think ambulance chasers are? OK. But what does that say about you? What do you know about 501C(3) entities in NY.? Nothing. In fact, on the blog, we have heard all sorts of ignorant claims. Is it your desire to climb onto the hill of ignorance?

        1. That’s a nasty thing to say. There’s nothing wrong with being black. As a group, they’ve had to overcome things that none of the rest of us could imagine. Yes, there are still problems in the African-American community, but taken as a whole, they’re the most prosperous, highly educated blacks on earth. They’ve made impressive advances, and I have no doubt that their socio-economic status and happiness will only continue to get better.

          1. TIN………What in the name of Ned are you talking about? Of COURSE there’s nothing wrong with being black…Who said there is?!
            You are obviously too immature and too delicate to hear or read the word “black” used in a sentence.
            Grow up.

            1. Ind. Bob———Nothing wrong with being rich…
              My guess is that George Soros, Barack Obama, George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, The Clintons, the Bidens Rachel Maddow, Elizabeth Warren, and Joy Reid, concur.

        2. Cindy, just what are you implying that Enigma needs to “get over,” and why are you assuming that he hasn’t already gotten over it??

          Enigma isn’t complaining about Trump’s wealth, but about Trump’s corruption. Here’s the NY Supreme Court’s ruling ordering Trump to pay $2 million in damages for improperly using charitable assets, and dissolving the Trump Foundation: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=JLJih9v_PLUS_EKSuJs36THzexg==&system=prod

          1. e NY Supreme Court’s ruling ordering Trump to pay…”

            ATS, that is either deceitful, a lie, or an example of you not being accurate and your lack of understanding of who paid what to whom. Choose your poison. All apply.

            To make it short. The charity was forced to close. That is true, but it didn’t make sense for Trump to fight because the money wasn’t his. It was the charity’s money. Where did the money go? To charity. Where would the money go if he decided to close the foundation down for any other reason? To charity.

            1. “The charity was forced to close. That is true”

              What’s also true is that the New York Supreme Court ordered Trump’s charity dissolved and ordered him to pay $2 million in damages, concluding that he’d improperly used his charitable assets for his personal political benefit.

              Trump admitted to personally misusing funds at the Trump Foundation, and he’s constrained if he ever creates a new charity. Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric also had to go through mandatory ethics training as part of the settlement, because they too played a role in the illegal use of the charity funds.

              1. ATS, you have demonstrated is that you know nothing of the subject, and when that happens, you make things up. You replied to my above answer, which to the regular person was more than sufficient. You require remedial help.

                The charity is an entity in itself. Trump did what is done with thousands of those charities. Defending against the state means a lot of time and money.

                Trump did what the state asked and closed the charity. The charity money had to go to charity because none of that money was Trump’s.

                In the end, charity money went to charity. It couldn’t be any other way. Trump didn’t pay a dime, and the total amount of money meant for charity went to charity. Trump did not take the permissible management fee.

              2. The court was idiotic.

                The state has no legitimate interest in a private trust.

                This is literally no different from NY stepping in claiming that some persons will is not to their liking and stealing from the heirs.

                The Trump family Trust was NOT a public charity – it was a private trust. It was worlds different from the Clinton Foundation, or a public charity.

                Only the beneficiaries of the trust have an actual interest in the way the trusts funds are spent.

                The state interfering at all was lawless.

              3. No Trump did not admit misusing funds – that is quite litterally impossible.

                The Trustees determine what uses can be made of Trust funds. And only the beneficiaries have any right to object.

                Trump is not barred from anything anywhere in the world but New York.
                The only mistake Trump made was creating the Trust as a NY entity.

                I have little doubt he has subsequently created a new trust and moved all the assets to it and closed the NY Trust.

                This was all abuse of the courts as political theater.

                There are really only two consequential things a Trust can do wrong – steal from beneficiaries, or fail to pay taxes, and given that Trusts only pay taxes on income, not assets that is hard. There is no such thing as “misusing Trust funds”.
                Actually stealing trust funds is a crime – theft. I do not recall charges of theft of trust funds.

                All you have demonstrated is that prosecutors and judges are willing to meddle in things that are none of their business.

                Funds in trusts are either already taxed assets, or assets never subject to taxes. That is why only Income and only some of that is taxable. and why govenrment has no interest in trusts.

                But you do a good job of demonstrating how democrats feel entitled to meddle in things that are not their business.

                1. John, it is amazing how ignorant these people are. They stake claims that are totally wrong and don’t have the intelligence to figure out their problem even when the law is provided to them.

                  I don’t think 501C(3) should be tax exempt for the person making the donation.

                  1. Are you claiming that the Trump Family trust was a 501C3 ? That is not my understanding.

                    Some details such as that matter – but there is almost no structure other than a public charity that has much role for government supervision.

                    With respect to taxes – simple is best. Avoiding Double taxation is best.

                    The federal government operated for most of its existence on tariffs and excise taxes.

                    If we are going to have an income tax at all – it should apply ONLY to individuals – not businesses. And it should be a flat tax with no deductions of any kind.

                    If you insist on taxing businesses – again flat tax on profits and no income taxes or sales taxes.

                    Probably the best form of taxes is either pure income tax, or pure sales tax.

                    Sales taxes were too complex until the modern era.
                    But it is of fundimental importance that all of us pay taxes and know that as government spending increases our taxes will increase.

                    1. “Are you claiming that the Trump Family trust was a 501C3 ? That is not my understanding.”

                      John, what else would it be? There are multiple items under that category, but all function similarly. Since it gets tax-free money, it must be under IRS regulations to ensure the tax-free path continues to IRS-approved charities.

                      In Trump’s case, I think it could carry the title of Foundation or Family Trust.

                      A public charity is different but gets the same tax benefits.

                      My understanding is that Trump set up a private foundation. All monies deposited can be deposited tax-free, whether from Trump or another entity. The charity pays no taxes unless a profit is made, and then the taxes are only paid on the profit.

                      The board can take a salary up to defined limits, but that defeats the trust’s purpose.

                      I believe the Trump family were the major donors to their foundation, and occasionally non-family members made donations.

                      The claims of Trump taking money from the foundation are bogus. He takes no cash from it, and he transfers the charitable foundation to another charitable organization recognized by the IRS.

                      The Trumps never took a salary from the foundation, though they may have paid an accountant to do the books for the foundation. More likely used their accountant and paid with their own post-tax dollars.

                      When the state and Trump settled, closing the foundation, all the charitable money in the foundation ended up in IRS-approved charities. In other words, charity went to charity.

                    2. I am near certain that the Trump foundation was a private Trust. That is an entirely different type of entity. Far older than 501C3.

                      It is NOT a charity in the traditional sense.

                      It is a separate legal entity holding already taxed money, for later distribution to beneficiaries. In this case I believe the family.

                      This is very important because most claims regarding the misuse of a trust belong to the beneficiaries not the government.

                      A common theme in most of the government legal actions against Trump have been attempts by government to criminalize actions that caused no harm to those Trump owed a duty.

                      Like the nonsense about purportedly overvaluing properties for insurance.
                      If I overvalue my home that is of no consequence – unless I burn the place down in shortly after buying the insurance.
                      If the place is destroyed through no fault of my own 10 years later – the insurance company owes me the value insured – not the value of the property – because I paid higher premiums for years.

                      Or in simpler terms – no crime is possible. Many things that are alleged to be crimes on TV are not in reality. Because in reality things do not work like they do on TV. People are always doing nefarious and economically stupid things on TV and magically profiting.
                      This does not happen in real life – because people who do nefarious stupid things do not profit. Free markets are not perfect, but they are very very good at sorting out bad actors and letting them fail.

                    3. “I am near certain that the Trump foundation was a private Trust. That is an entirely different type of entity. Far older than 501C3.”

                      John, since Trump’s father, Fred, probably had a private trust, I would not doubt that the origins started in that fashion. However, the 501’s started around the time Donald Trump was born. My guess is if the Trust started with Fred, then Donald had to convert it to comply with 501 rules and regulations because Donald provided charity to the Trust that was likely pre-tax. I don’t think he would have used that type of Trust under present-day laws and regulations. If he had done the investigations into Donald’s 501 would have been stated in different terms.

                      Trusts (for heirs) are common amongst the wealthy, so I think you are confusing the two.

                      Almost all the claims against Donald Trump have no criminal significance, and so far on the blog, there has not been one claim discussed that legitimately can be leveled against Donald Trump personally. Most of the people making these claims on this blog seem to have no business experience or understanding of what happened.

                    4. I am not confusing the two. I am nearly certain the Trump trust was for the benefit or heirs.

                      Most trusts are NOT 501 organiztions.

                      Lots of people who are NOT wealthy have trusts.

                      My mother had a trust – it was eventually transfered to my father.
                      My father had a separate Trust.
                      When he died about 1/2 dozen people benefited.

                      Money in trusts is post tax. Only profits from Trust investments are taxed.

                      Regardless, All trusts are managed by the trustess for the beneficiaries.

                      There is very little state interest in them. So long as the minimal taxes most owe are paid and the beneficiaries do not allege fraud there is no state interest.

                      Public Charities are radically different. The Clinton foundation, and the Carter foundation are public charities.
                      Trumps’s was NOT.

                    5. “I am not confusing the two. I am nearly certain the Trump trust was for the benefit or heirs. ”

                      I would bet that is true.

                      “Most trusts are NOT 501 organiztions. ”
                      That is likely true as well.

                      “Lots of people who are NOT wealthy have trusts.”

                      Also true.

                      However, I believe Trump has both, and you are confusing the two. Control over the 501 C 3, Should Trump die, likely gets transferred to a child or all the children. An alternative might be his wife.

                      I am very familiar with trusts and 501 C 3 devices.

                      “Trumps’s was NOT.”

                      I think Trump’s was a 501 C 3, and the Clinton Foundation might be one as well. What I have seen written by the AG SDNY indicates that the claim against Trump had to do with a 501 C 3. You can set one up if you wish. It’s simple. It is a vehicle to control where charitable giving goes and the timing.

                      Today a person can give a full $100 to a charity or take home $63 after taxes. If one is in NYC, one pays even a higher tax rate. There are no taxes on the 501 C 3 as long as its income ends up in a qualified charity.

                    6. AS I recall a 501C3 is not merely a corporate form. It is specifically a corporation serving a public interest.

                      Clinton’s foundation arguably meets that. 501C3 is important because donations are tax deductible.

                      Trump’s trust does not pretend to serve a public interest.

                      TTV is a 501C3

                    7. John, my experience tells me that Public Charities like the Red Cross and Private Charities like theTrump Foundation have differences, but both function under the same 501 C 3 rules.

                      TTV is a 501 C 3. There is a bit more information you can see elsewhere if the broken windows are entered.

                    8. Do broken windows function?

                      John, I understand that public charities and private 501 C 3 function similarly. United Way is a public charity that provides funds to other 501 C 3s as long as those charities fulfill the definitions of charity by the IRS. The Trump Foundation did the same things. It gave money to other organizations approved by the IRS. The money did not go to private institutions. At one time, I mentioned examples of where the money went. That money benefited charitable organizations, some of which might be the same that United Way gave to.

                      Do you have any example of where that money went that wasn’t a charity (based on IRS approval 501 C 3)?

                    9. I am not interested in what is essentially a hypothetical debate.

                      I highly doubt the Trump Family Trust was a 501C3.

                      But that is a question of fact that can be confirmed.

                      There is a separate question of whether the Trump family Trust engaged in public charity – if it did not the level of public oversight it is subject to is limited to taxation.

                      I am near certain the Trump Family Trust was funded by the Trump family and used for the benefit of the Trump familiy.

                      There is no basis for government oversight of such a Trust beyond taxes, UNLESS a beneficiary makes a claim that the trust is being used at odds to its defined purposes.

                      I would note that a Trust can be used for any purpose – including ones outside of its defined purposes with the consent of all beneficiaries.

                      So long as the Trump Family Trust does not received public contributions the nexus for Government is only Taxes.

                      Even if the Trump Family Trust provides a private benefit – i.e it funds schools or a homeless shelter.

                      Only explicitly identified benficiaries have standing to challenge the use of funds.

                      Private Trusts – even charitable trusts are NOT public charities and not subject to the same oversight with regard to their operations and purposes.

                    10. John, I looked up the Trump Foundation in an argument on this blog in the past. I provided examples of the Trump Foundation’s charitable recipients and explained what this foundation did. It is of little importance, but you can look it up if it still can be found after its closure.

                      It is common for people to create such foundations under the 501 C3 guidelines. When in a high tax bracket, a taxpayer can place whatever amounts of money desired into such a charitable foundation. No taxes have to be paid. The foundation pays no taxes as long as the income earned is given to charity (based on 501 C 3 guidelines). The foundation can pay its manager based on government rules, but it doesn’t make sense for such income to be taken by the owner since it will then be taxed. When I looked, the Trump Foundation didn’t pay anyone for management.

                      You can create our own foundation. It can be used later in life when income and subsequent taxes are lower. The downsides of such a foundation are living within the IRS rules and reporting to the IRS. Ideologically I don’t think such foundations should exist, nor should public charities exist with a tax deduction that doesn’t go directly to the end receiver of the charity. All charitable organizations run the risk of being abused. IMO most are.

                    11. The ineptitude of those on the blog can be excused – given that prosecutors and judges seem to have less understanding.

                      The vast majority of the “criminal” allegations against trump – are only crimes if there is a party in the relationship that was actually harmed AND is alleging wrongdoing.

                      You can not commit insurance fraud by over or undervaluing an asset – first because at values far lower than Trump insurance companies and banks do MASSIVE due dilligence. If a commerical property worth 1/4M is sold today it is likely the bank sends an Army to do due dilligence, There will be an ESA checking for undisclosed environmental issues, a PCS evaluating the ongoing maintanance of the property, An appriaser valuing the property. an auditor validating the income and expenses. For larger properties there may be two of each. Further for purchases there may be a bank DD team, a buyer DD team and a sellor DD team.
                      There are even public standards that that cover exactly how each of these must perform their task.

                      When I bought my first apartment building the Appraisal came back to low to close the deal. I called the bank and told my banker to fix the appraisal or the deal died and the current owner would have to return my deposit. A day later the appraisal was revised and the deal closed.

                      That has not been possible for almost two decades. Banks now have almost no direct contact with Due Dilligence teams.

                      MOst people do not understand all the intracacies of due dilligences, but even prosecutors and judges should understand that the valuation of an insured property is almost meaningless. Insurance is just a form of gambling. If I value my building at double its market value – I am paying a higher premium in order to place a higher bet. The value of the bet is set by the value I choose to insure – not the value of the property. The size of the bet not the value of the property determines my premium. There are provisions in insurance contracts to cover my converting a bet into a sure thing – say by burning the building down. THAT is where insurance fraud comes.
                      You can get insurance on most anything. I can find someone to insure my bicycle for a million dollars. My premium will be huge.
                      And if I deliberately destroy it – that is fraud.

                      Regardless, nearly all crimes require someone to be actually harmed.

            1. The biggest fear the democrats have is Donald Trump being re elected. When he went to Washington he was like a bowling ball hitting the pins. It was not business as usual anymore. His first 3 years were good for me. Now I’m living in a hyper inflated country hat isn’t good for the working class. Let’s go Brandon.

            2. Cindy,

              Very good point. I have noticed that many blacks who post online are determined to make us realize that they are black as if that quality adds a cachet to their opinion that they would not otherwise have.

              They could just as easily post without racial identification as Anonymous does, although in his case I have had enough hints to guess that he is a lizard.

                1. “You’re always gonna be a Mexican. You’ll never be white, ya know that? You’ll never be white, which is what you really want to be.”

                  – Black Vehicle Operator

      3. You have severe Trump derangement syndrome and have swallowed miles of fake news so much fake news that we probably couldn’t deprogram you in a comment section.
        Almost everything you said is fake or wrong or misinformation man would I hate to be as obtuse and ignorant as you

  8. I am anxiously awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada…I mad a deragotary comment concerning Smelly Cats, and Now I am being sued Both by the Feminist Alliance of Canada and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals…I don’t now what to expect…which os the bigger population here?

    1. Denys……Is your family from the Picard region of France? I know that when a music piece is written in a minor key but ends on a major chord (by moving the third in the chord up a half step) , that’s called a “Picardy third”.
      It originated in that region.

  9. I just wish these Soros assisted lawyers would find as much interest in the biden crime family.

      1. Your feigned ignorance is not my problem, perhaps your researching skills are rusty because you rely too often on lefty talking points.

        1. Alma, you hit the nail on the head. ATS wishes us to view him in a single time slot. That is why he uses anonymous. He thinks his anonymity prevents anyone from holding him accountable for his previous statements. It doesn’t, and that is why he is labeled as ATS. But you knew all this before.

  10. “This lawsuit was jurisdictionally and constitutionally flawed from the outset”. Does Trump then have grounds to file a claim against the those that brought the action against him?

    1. I have always believed that when a frivolous lawsuit is filed, the court should always award attorney’s fees and damages to the party against whom such a suit was filed. Without consequences, these cases will continue to be brought without regard to the outcome.

  11. With all the expressed horror in the “journalistic media” and much of the tech media world about the fact of Elon Musk buying Twitter and bringing back “free speech”, just maybe there was some merit to the case. “What if” Musk exposes algorithms that were used to shut down conservative speakers and/or certain political parties, maybe they could refile or pursue a different course to achieve a better result. If Musk owns the company he owns the algorithms. Of course I would hope that he does not assume all legal liabilities of the prior board. Maybe discuss the merits of how that would work or not work with a new owner. I am not an attorney and will concede the point that i could be wrong but would like to see the discussion.

        1. What “scam” did these tech researchers carry out?
          Perhaps you’re not up to date on the findings about the anomaly they found: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/09/lawsuits-indictments-revive-trump-alfa-bank-story/

          Of course, even if it turned out that a few tech researchers were involved in a scam (odds are that that’s true of some unspecified tech researchers), that would not make the Twitter researchers’ findings suspect. Your ad hom relies on a claim that’s irrelevant to the Twitter research.

  12. The chinese case Trump should never have been heard, but dismissed as an attack on free speech. Unfortunately, judges are so corrupt their balance scale is no longer balanced. I’d like to see the assets of New York Attorney General Letitia James, the hypocrite. The left has gone completely insane, and like Pharoah, will be left to their own reprobate minds, or what’s left of their minds. I said “minds” plural because to get a normal IQ, one must put many leftists together to reach such a score. Smart mouths, yes. Intelligence, no. Because they don’t have the wisdom to see the future consequences of the decisions they make today.

  13. “Kung Fu”. Where does that term come from?
    Who flung foo? Kung?

  14. Turley says:

    “Former President Donald Trump achieved mixed results in courts this week. He lost efforts to prevent a $10,000 per day fine for contempt in failing to turn over evidence on his assets in the civil investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James. He also lost his lawsuit against Twitter over his being banned from the site.”

    Since Turley declined to criticize the rulings in these 2 cases, it stands to reason that he agrees with the judges. Trump deserves to be held in contempt, and his claim against Twitter was meritless.

    1. Hey Jeff. You mad at me? I responded to a couple of your posts this week and nothing back from you. And I was mostly singing your praises.

      1. Paul,

        I have to set aside more time to respond to your posts than 99% of those who attack me. I respect your opinion unlike most. I did read your long exchange with Anonymous. He and I see eye-to-eye. I’m glad that he too respects your civility. The fact that you are among a handful with whom we can maintain a cordial conversation is proof that you are the exception to the rule on your side.

        1. Jeff,
          you have an incredible opinion of yourself.

          But that is not an argument.

          You are free to waste all your effort in masturbatory narcissism,
          But that is still not an argument.

          Alot of time is wasted dealing with leftists who hem, haw, and dodge issues.

          Civil is nice – but it is no excuse for pointlessness.

Comments are closed.