Daily Condemnations with Al Franken: Former Senator Denounces John Roberts and the Supreme Court

YouTube Screengrab

This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts should get up, look into the mirror and declare “I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am an attractive person. I am fun to be with.” That mantra from SNL’s “Daily Affirmation with Stuart Smalley” seems appropriate after the former Smalley comedian (and former U.S. Senator) Al Franken declared Roberts a “villain” and his Court “illegitimate” in the latest attack on the institution.

Now that Franken has turned to a podcast as a public platform, the comforting sweaters are gone and the dark Stuart Smalley has emerged. Call it “Daily Condemnations with Al Franken.”

Franken declared that  “The court is a very divisive entity now, institution right now. And the Supreme Court, to me, is illegitimate.” He added that Roberts is a “villain” for heading such a divisive court.

Roberts needs to keep in mind that Franken may be “a caring nurturer, a member of several 12-step programs, but he is not a [sitting Senator].”

Franken resigned from the Senate in 2017 amid sexual harassment allegations.

He is also not much of a constitutionalist.

The Supreme Court has long been the subject of public ire over unpopular decisions. It was designed to resist the demands of the public or politics to rule according to the rule of law. In other words, it is meant to be “countermajoritarian” — resisting the pressures of the majority of the country to protect constitutional values and rights.

The first Chief Justice, John Jay, was so hated for that he once remarked that he could travel the “country at night by the light of [my] burning effigies.” One editorial declared: “John Jay, ah! The Arch traitor — seize him, drown him, flay him alive.” Crowds burned Jay in effigy, including a Kentucky mob that stuffed its effigy with gunpowder, guillotined it, then blew it up.

Later, Chief Justice John Marshall also was burned in effigy after writing the famous opinion in Marbury v. Madison. During the desegregation period, Chief Justice Earl Warren was burned in effigy and an “Impeach Earl Warren” campaign launched across the country.

Today it is the left that is calling for court stacking and denouncing the legitimacy of the Court.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rendering opinions against “widely held public opinion.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., even questioned the institution’s value: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

In 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared on the steps of the Supreme Court: “I want to tell you, [Justice] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Justice] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

In addition to controversies over travel and financial benefits for justices, Franken objects to decisions made by the Court that have “divided” the country. It is as comically superficial as his former skit. The country is divided on abortion rights. Yet, Franken believes that the Court was wrong to decide against his side. The earlier division in favor of abortion was perfectly acceptable. It is now “partisan” because it no longer rules with Franken and the left on core issues. Of course, it was not partisan or illegitimate before because it was . . . well . . . right.

What is particularly humorous is that Roberts did not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. He voted alone to preserve the doctrine while adjusting the standard.

Nevertheless, Franken declared “I think the Chief Justice is actually much more culpable for this division than people think. I think Roberts is much more the villain in this than people give him credit for.”

Roberts is a curious target for the left given his repeated votes with the left of the Court in major cases. He is the ultimate institutionalist who has a well-known aversion to the Court intervening into politically sensitive areas. Yet, he is also a conscientious jurist who will vote to do what is constitutionally right rather than what is politically popular.

I often disagree with members of the Court, but I have never questioned their integrity or their institution. Indeed, the public shows the same respect for the Court. It is in our DNA. Despite a constant call to stack or even eliminate the Court from the left on MSNBC and CNN, the public remains committed to the institution despite only half having a favorable opinion of the Court. However, the popularity of the President is even lower and the popularity of Congress stands at just 26 percent.

Despite these divisions and polls, few of us would call the President or Congress “illegitimate.” By these measures, the Supreme Court is a runaway hit with just 48 percent declaring favorable opinions.

Of course, none of this is easy for a Chief Justice who, like everyone, wants to be loved.  That is why the Chief needs to go to the ornamental mirror near his chambers every day and say “I’m going to do a terrific [hearing] today! And I’m gonna help people! Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!”


This column ran on Fox.com

225 thoughts on “Daily Condemnations with Al Franken: Former Senator Denounces John Roberts and the Supreme Court”

  1. Blah, Blah, Blah: Turley tries to defend the indefensible. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all LIED about Roe being “settled law”, just to get onto the Court. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were nominated by someone who lost the popular vote and who cheated to get into office. Gorsuch’s presence on the Court is purely political: McConnell denied Barak Obama, a legitimately elected President, his choice to fill Scalia’s seat due (allegedly) to the proximity of the election, and then threw out this rule to shove Barrett onto the SCOTUS. The Dobbs decision took away a right found to exist under the Constitution–something that has never happened before in US history. The FBI, under Trump, refused to investigate credible claims against Kavanaugh, and Republicans refused to allow 25 witnesses to testify about his character.

    Now, it turns out that Roberts’ wife, Jane, made $10 million in recent years as a headhunter, by placing lawyers into high-profile law firms that do business with the SCOTUS. Thomas’s mother lives rent-free in a house owned by a radical right wing millionaire who provided free travel and other perks to Thomas. And, Gorsuch made a killing by selling a house in Colorado, but failed to disclose the profit he made–claiming it came through an LLC, of which he is a member.

    And, Turley tries to defend these turds by some half-axxed argument about defending the Constitution has never been popular–blah, blah, blah. Turley: people aren’t as stupid as you think, and you have now cemented yourself to be nothing but a paid mouthpiece for Fox (non) News.

    1. The Constitution is a living document.

      Suck on that, instead of sucking babies out of wombs.

      F’in degenerates.

      1. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789; its very same “manifest tenor” has held dominion since then.

        The Constitution is living in perpetuity as the Constitution, distinctly not as the Communist Manifesto or any aspect or facet thereof.

    2. So Gigi, Trumps good buddy Comey wouldn’t investigate Kavanaugh. So yes sir Comey was right under Trumps thumb. There were some other agents in Trumps control such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. It is amazing how well your comment was thought out. It’s a capital Gigi and it rimes with easy and it stands for duh.

    3. Plessey was Settled law – until it was not.
      Dredd Scott was settled law – until it was not.

      I would further note that Roe was not even good law at the time of their confirmation.
      The actual state of Abortion law at the time was Casey – not Roe.
      While the outcome is somewhat similar – Casey is a substantial departure form Row.

    4. The Constitution was “settled law” before the country was stolen by illegal and unconstitutional brute force and the Constitution was “injuriously” amended for the benefit of Karl Marx, and Karl Marx’s improperly ratified “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” were forcibly imposed with a gun to America’s head. It is typically impossible to ratify even one amendment. Lincoln and Marx rammed through three. What’s that tell you?

      ”And if there are AMENDMENTS desired, of such a nature AS WILL NOT INJURE THE CONSTITUTION, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

      – James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

      “They consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln,…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”

      – Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, Letter of 1864

    5. If you actually want to get anywhere at all with me or many others on abortion – tie it to something that is an actual right.

      Many pro-choice like to chant “our bodies, our choice” – which is true up to the contents of the uterus – which is NOT their body. It is quite obviously a different body.

      regardless, Buck V. Bell is unfortunately still good law – and “our bodies, our choice” is not and has not ever been a recognized individual right.

      It should be. But it is not. Myriads of courts including scotus allowed infringements on our rights to control of our own bodies during covid.

      If the State can inject you or your child with something against your will, then they can force to you have an abortion, or force you to not have an abortion.

      Regardless, so long as the left is fixated on “The greater good” or as Marx said “to each according to their need , from each according to their ability”,
      you can expect that the law will be manipulable by what group hold power.

      I will be happy to agree that each of us has the right to control our own bodies – Will YOU ?

      As long as you are OK with the state forcing vaccination, forcing masking. forcing lockdowns, then there is not the slightest common ground, and your position on abortion drowns in your own hypocrisy.

  2. Senator Kennedy today in the Judiciary Committee, on the Dems’ long-term intimidation campaign against the Court. There’s a little turbulence a few minutes in, but then it clears up.

    1. thank you for posting that link. It has made my day. The comments from YouTube viewers, in just a few hours, confirm what a majority of Americans believe: Democrats are destroying our nation’s institutions. All of it was moving and on point, particularly @10:25

      Justice Barrett if you’re listening I hope you don’t have library books overdue if recent in history is in the indicator you’re next

      Chuck Schumer threatened Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch speaking from outside the US Senate. I fail to understand why he can not be charged with incitement to violence and threatening Justices of SCOTUS given they were stated outside the US Senate.

  3. Jonathan: This is the strangest column from you in awhile. Why engage in petty comments about the way Al Franken chooses to dress on his podcasts? Just because Franken is no longer a sitting Senator don’t you think he deserves a modicum of respect? I guess not in this “age of rage”. But ridicule and belittling doesn’t seem the way for a respected legal scholar to address important issues.–especially at a time when the Supreme Court is facing a major ethics scandal. Public support for the right-wing conservative Court is at his lowest point in recent years.

    If Chief Justice Roberts wants to be “loved” why did he give the middle finger to Senator Durbin in refusing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee? In his letter to Durbin, Roberts asserted “separation of powers”. But justices have testified before Congress. Even Roberts has testified in the past. So why does he now refuse? Roberts has his own ethics problem now that it has been revealed his wife, Jane Roberts, has made millions from commissions she earned recruiting attorneys for big law forms with business before the Court. You would think Jane Roberts could find other employment that would not present at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. The Chief Justice probably likes his wife’s income That’s why he won’t enforce even the lax SC ethics rules. He simply is an empty robe who doesn’t want to confront Thomas or Gorsuch who might say: “What about Jane’s lucrative commissions?”. You can’t exactly enforce conflict of interest rules when you don’t come to the table with “clean hands”.

    That’s the problem. The right-wing Justices on the Court don’t believe the ethics rules, that apply to all other federal judges, apply to them. No wonder the Court is held in such low esteem by the public. That’s what happens when conservative ideologues get to set their own ethics standards. And that’s why we need strict ethic obligations for the Court, term limits and, maybe, even impeaching those that consistently violate them.

    1. Dennis – You say “Roberts has his own ethics problem now that it has been revealed his wife, Jane Roberts, has made millions from commissions she earned recruiting attorneys for big law forms with business before the Court.” Where is there a conflict of interest? Surely Justice Roberts gets no 10% commission on paymnets to his wife? Are you suggesting that firms that use his wife’s services get favorable decisions from the Supreme Court? Can you direct us to cases where such favoritism may plausably be shown? If she worked at the DOJ, would you say that Roberts would be biased in favor of the government? No one would make such an argument, but it is stronger than the argument you are making.

      1. Atleast we actually know what Jane Roberts is doing. for her money.

        What are the 9 members of the Biden family doing ?

    2. The article is a satire of one of Franken’s recurring roles on SNL, that is the basis for much of what you object to.

      I personallythinkt he satire is flat. But it is not offensive as you seem to beleive.
      The satire is flat because Franken was never very funny as a comedian.

      Franken chooses to continue to be in the public eye. That subjects him to criticism.

      The supreme court is NOT facing even a minor ethics scandal.

      All of this is an effort to throw up a dust cloud to hide the Biden influence peddling.

      As other posters have noted – Even Ginsburg engaged in this type of conduct.
      As do pretty much all congressmen.

      I do not have a problems with rules of ethics or law that preclude this conduct – though not limited tot he supreme court.

      Those rules get much harder when you start adding spouses and other family members.

      I find it interesting that you presume that Roberts spouses activities are a corrupting influence,
      yet 12 members of the biden family do not constitute corrupt influence – even when Biden is refered to psyodonymously in these deals.

    3. Judge Jackson spent the week before her confirmation hearing cleaning up undisclosed contributions much like we are seeing on the Supreme court.
      What you call requirements for all are being ignored by all.

  4. Sadly, way back in the day, he was actually funny as a comedian and comedy writer. Now he’s just a clown.

  5. The big guy is sending 1500 troops to the border. They’re going to the border cause it’s closed. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.

  6. Frankly I could care less what Franken has to say. He’s one of those self-adulators from show business, and the left in general, always thinking their wacky opinions are worthy of consideration. During Franken’s 8 +/- years as a senator what if anything did he accomplish worthy of praise? As a reminder of how vapid the lefts opinion is, a quick reminder of Shakespeare famous Macbeth Soliloquy may be in order; using only the last sentence

    “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, SIGNIFYING NOTHING.”

  7. There has been a lot of conversation on this blog recently about Justice Thomas accepting travel accommodations by a longtime friend. On April 25 all nine Justices signed a code of ethics statement. Here’s an important part of the document. The statement didn’t directly address the Thomas controversy. It mentioned gift limits and disclosure requirements only in passing, as well as an exemption for “personal hospitality“. So Justices Kagan and Sotomayor signed a document stating that personal hospitality need not be reported. Why did they do such a thing? It just might be true that they too have been accommodated by wealthy friends and they felt the need to put the silliness to rest.

    1. Not silliness. It is a coordinated attack on the Court. The tactics are so transparent now. They cannot do anything legally to prevent the Court from ruling. So they have to create rage from lies to see if maybe on of their crazies acts upon the rage and eliminates a Justice so the Biden can appoint one.

  8. Simply put, Al Franken is a has-been who had a chance to make more of himself and was just not up to the task. His actions are likely attempts to appear relevant more than anything else.
    Poor Al, apparently he believes he will redeem himself by trashing others. Sophomoric behavior once ingrained is tough to overcome.

  9. It’s well and good that all that remains for Al Franken is to podcast to anyone who, having nothing better to do, might care to listen. The Judicial Branch in general and the Supreme Court in particular has been the nemesis of illiberal progressives like Franken ever since the time of Woodrow Wilson when their cause was first founded and Franklin Roosevelt when it became institutionalized. In their graves Woodrow and Franklin yet murmur: “Oh, that damnable Constitution! But for it we could run roughshod over any and all who would ever dare contest the will of a dogged majority.”

  10. If a democrat appointed justice had been caught doing the same thing as Roberts, Gorsuch, and Thomas, Turley’s fingers would bleed writing about how the court needs to change.

  11. In their confirmation hearings, the latest 4 Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson) all told Congress (paraphrasing) “it’s your job, not ours, to decide major policy on controversial issues”. I distinctly remember Al Franken acting miffed that Gorsuch would do his part to stop activist plaintiffs in their tracks, and send them across the street. Franken’s concept of SCOTUS as a place where liberals go to get “hard things” done was openly being challenged.

    It may be a bit too soon to know for sure, but I think we now have a Supreme Court majority that will turn away activist plaintiffs litigating for policy change. I think Dobbs was correcting past activism, and the latest upholding of FDA control over mifepristone pending lower court proceedings sends a chilling message to those pro-life plaintiffs.

    We still have a stinging legacy of poor SCOTUS policies to be repealed, e.g., Citizens United and Sullivan. In both those cases, the court majority awkwardly legislated a new policy, in open defiance of long-established statute. It’s a relief that this style of juris-imprudence is now out of favor. It’s a relief.

    1. How was CU wrongly decided–you do realize that this was uncoordinated expenditure to make a movie? How in the world can the government ban that?

    2. You have to give details on your CU opinion

      “Congress shall make to law…
      Then congress makes a law limiting free speech. Of course its a violation of enumerated rights.

    3. The courts may not touch policies that are constitutional and legal.
      The courts may not preserve policies that are unconstitutional or illegal.

      That sometimes results in policy change. By reverting to the constitution and the law.

    4. CU was not a “new policy”

      Contra the left – there was really nothing new about CU.

      The legal convenience of Corporate personhood was NOT part of what was before the court, regardless it is as old as the country.

      Fundimentally CU was a first amendment case indistinguishable from a long line of first amendment election cases.

  12. There is an old statement that says “If you want to be loved, buy a dog”. The dog will love you no matter what. Which is why I like cats. All that dog slobber and slavishness of worship gets on my nerves. Now the cat and I are equals and we live together with my family. We respect his space and he respects ours. He gives respect and affection when he desires to and we respect and show our affection and respect to him. Really, respect is the far more desired outcome in dealing with people or cats. Respect means they will listen to you and the respect that you have “earned’ may sway arguments in your favor. But if people love you it does not mean they will love your decisions and leadership. That sort of love is fleeting and can be lost by the most flimsy of reasons. I love my wife, my children and grand daughter. Unreservedly. Every one else gets respect to start with, more so if they earn more respect by appropriate actions and performance. Less respect or none if they fail miserably in the performance of their duties when they should have succeeded.
    I had the honor of training with some of the greatest physicians of the 20th century. None were particularly loving individuals but they pursued high standards and ethics for themselves and the people around them and earned the respect of the world. Doctors and patients sought these physicians out because everyone respected and trusted them to do the proper thing when lives was on the line. You cannot have any greater trust or respect than that.
    I like certain politicians and despise others. I don’t trust them but a very select few who I also respect. I don’t love any of them, irrespective.

  13. The one thing on which Justice Roberts is an absolutist is the Federal Arbitration Act.

  14. Turley focuses on Franken because he isn’t wrong. Franken was a very effective senator. He was far more of a threat to republicans in the senate and that is why he was targeted with allegations of sexual improprieties. That were at best far more tame than Trump’s own problems, one of which he is on trial for right now. This is a president who glorified sexual harassment and is currently on trial for the rape of a woman. I’d say Franken’s alleged improprieties pale in comparison.

    At least franken is being honest about the court’s ethical lapses. Turley simply wants to ignore it because it would require hint to criticize the court and he does not want to do that. Instead he can criticize Franken who is still being more honest than Turley.

    1. Come on. First of all, Trump is not “on trial for rape”–he is being sued civilly for defamation because he denied raping this woman. Did he rape her? Certainly doesn’t look that way. But who knows. We know what Franken did.

      1. Trump is famous for cheating on his wives and has always bragged about being able to sexually harass women because “they wanted to”. He was rich and powerful enough to believe that he could get away with rape. It’s not out of the ream of possibility that he indeed raped a woman. Nevertheless the allegations against him are still sexual in nature and they are far worse than anything than what Franken was accused of.

        1. Wow–we’ve gone from “on trial for rape” to “it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he indeed raped a woman.” Is it out of the “realm of possibility” that Joe Biden raped Tara Reade?

          I don’t want to say that Franken raped anyone–but what he did was pretty bad from the standpoint of humiliating the woman.

          Also, I don’t know that I want to hear from anyone on the Dem side re: sexual misconduct–Senator Neckbrace, lionized by the Dem party, left a woman to suffocate in a car. Despicable.

          1. We should ask him if he believes Ashley and the showers with daddy entry into her diary . . . .

            1. .We should ask him if he believes Ashley…

              He doesn’t ‘believe’, he just reads their mind to get the facts.

        2. Trump never said that. He didn’t pursue women who said no. There is no reasonable evidence Trump raped any woman. There is reasonable evidence that you are a pervert and a groomer. We heard it on the net, so it must be true.

        3. A whole lot of assumptions, conjecture, hypothesis and extrapolation in your post. Which appears to be par for the course.

        4. Trump does have a reputation for cheating on his wives.
          No one can argue that Donald Trump was a playboy for some time.

          But that is not the same as sexual harassment. And far different from Rape.

          “He was rich and powerful enough to believe that he could get away with rape”
          This can be said for oh so many people – that does not make them rapists.

          “It’s not out of the ream of possibility that he indeed raped a woman.”
          It is not out of the realm of possibility that you have.

          Pretty much every single billionaire has been accused of Rape at one time or another.
          That does not mean they raped anyone.

          Allegations are far far far from proof, and so far all Carroll has is an allegation.

          BTW there were allegations of Rape against Franken.

          There was also PROOF of sexual harrassment.

          There is an allegation of Rape against Biden.

        5. “Trump is famous for cheating on his wives”
          Correct – often with future wives. That is between them.

          “and has always bragged about being able to sexually harass women because “they wanted to”.”
          Incorrect and self contradictory.

          “He was rich and powerful enough to believe that he could get away with rape.”
          Anyone can beleive they can get away with Rape, that is a bizzare argument.

          ” It’s not out of the ream of possibility that he indeed raped a woman.”
          It’s not out of the ream of possibility that you indeed raped a Carroll, and if you ever met her – she will likely accuse you of doing so.

          “Nevertheless the allegations against him are still sexual in nature and they are far worse than anything than what Franken was accused of.”
          Franken was not merely accused – he was caught in the act in photos. And what franken did was indecent assault which is actually a very serious crime.;

      2. Rape is a very difficult charge. It is a heinous act. Many who are raped never come forward. Unfortunately claims of rape are easily made and often impossible to disprove.

        The result is many people are falsely accused and many people are never accused who should be.

        It is in theory possible that Carroll’s story is true. But the probability of that is very low.

        Carroll claims to have been raped 21 different times by 21 different men. She has in here published writings contemporaneous with these alleged rapes advised other women to come forward. Yet she has never filed a police report herself.

        I beleive her case in cheif is over. Based on the evidence so far, the defense should get a directed verdict and legal fees.
        But the court is so biased that it is pinch hitting for the plantiff’s attorney’s./

    2. Poor Al Franken! His sophomoric ranting against decisions with whom he disagrees , regardless of any constitutional aspects, remind me how fortunate to have him back with SNL and out of the senate.

    3. Republicans did not Target Franken – Women – many of them Democrats – his VICTIMS stood up to Franken.

      Franken “won” a razor thin election – by “finding” about 6000 votes in the months after the election.
      Ballots were found in car trunks and all over in places they were not supposed to be and could not be accounted for,
      and the WI courts ordered those ballots that helicoptered in to be counted.

      There have been worse senators than Franken. But Franken was not some nuclear threat.

      I would note that there are numerous allegations against Biden that are as egregious or worse than Franken.

      We has been caught repeatedly nuzzling and sniffing the hair of wives and children of democrats in photo ops with him.
      Off camera, there are numerous more serious incidents involving secret service agents or their wives and family.
      And of course there is the Tara Read allegation that Biden raped her.

      Read does NOT have the evidence to get into court. Though she has much more evidence and is far more credible than Carroll is.
      Read has not claimed that she was raped 21 times over her life by pretty much every man she has ever encountered and many she did not.
      Carroll can not even make up her own mind whetrher sex with any of these was consensual and at times is not even clear than it happened.

      Carroll has mental health issues and those of you on the left are essentially abusing a disable person to “get Trump”

  15. JT says “Franken resigned from the Senate in 2017 amid sexual harassment allegations.”

    And trump is on trial for rape. So what’s your point? Franken doesn’t have a right to say what he thinks? I thought JT believed in the first amendment right to free speech. Now he complains about a person with a sexual harassment allegation saying what he thinks while he seems to support a political party that looks like they will select a man on trial for (soon to be convicted of?) rape to be the next President.

    Give me a break JT, there are serious ethical lapses on this Roberts court and Roberts thumbed his nose at the Senate.

    1. BabyTrump – “there are serious ethical lapses on this Roberts court.” The only serious ethical lapse was release of the draft of the Dobbs opinion. I don’t hear many Leftists demanding that the leaker be uncovered, nor do I hear of any left-wing journalists looking for the leaker.

    2. Trump is not on trial for rape. And if you believe Carroll, do you believe Ashley Biden who confided in her diary that daddy dearest took showers with her. Ewwwwwwwwwwww.

    3. Franken did not resign because of allegations.
      He resigned because he was caught in a photo fondling a sleeping womans breasts, and numerous other women came forward with recent similar acts.
      Franken resigned because he Was GUILTY of indecent Assault.
      Carroll has accused in writing 21 different men – many of whom there is no evidence she met, of raping her.
      Except when the mood strikes her she decides it was consensual.
      With few exceptions – such as her former husband, the re is no evidence that there was any sexual relationship with any of these people.

      Carroll is nuts – even the left wing media which breifly paid attention to her – until it was clear she is NUTS, did not beleive her.

      Carroll is an insult to women everywhere who are actually the victims of sexual violence.

      And those of you on the left are so desparate to “get Trump” that your making a mockery of it all.

      I would note that Stormy Daniels tried this stunt – with far more evidence – and ended up owing Trump 900,000 in legal fees.

      This case is much worse than Daniels. Carroll is not even close to credible.
      She has no evidence.

      But for F’d up NY courts this would have been dismissed long ago.

  16. Why would anyone taken anything seriously coming from the mouth of the lecherous leftist of the north? He should go back and cancel himself!

  17. This is part of an intimidation campaign the Democrats are waging against every aspect of civil society. Their shock troops in the streets intimidate their opposition on college campuses and in the streets. They silence opposition voices on every level, from K-12 through university. Media elites get cancelled if they go against the narrative, SC justices get trashed and threatened with impeachment when they don’t vote for the fascist agenda, and you may get jail time if you don’t agree with their gender and climate “science.” Democrats, lacking any honest or useful policies, have to push through their agenda through fearmongering and intimidation.

    1. “Their shock troops in the streets intimidate their opposition…” Are you talking about the 1000+ trump supporters that stormed the Capitol building on January 6? I’m just a tad confused because I don’t recall a similar band of Demos storming the Capitol building.

      1. Some of whom were waved in by the Capitol Police–I think you mean the Antifa goons who shined green light into the eyes of cops.

      2. Then you have a poor memory.

        I would note that “storming the capitol” is legal.

        Most recently several hundred Kavanaugh protestors “stormed the capitol” – atleast one with an axe that ended up in a senators door.
        And DOJ/FBI were kind enough to return the axe.

        The TN capitol was “stormed” twice int he past month. With some getting onto the capitol floor while the legislature was in session.

        Thousands “stormed” and occupied the Wisconsin State capitol to thwart republican legislators.

        Going beyond “capitols” we spent all of 2020 watching left wing nuts “storm” and burn down, occupy or destroy police stations, municipla building. and federal courthouses.

        The Courthouse in Portland was “stormed” every single night for 3-4 months.

Leave a Reply