Below is my column in the New York Post in response to the attack this week by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. I am honestly saddened by the ad hominem attacks that have become common place with many academics like Tribe. There was a time when legal disagreements could be passionate but not personal. The use of personal insults and vulgar trash talking were avoided in our profession. Now even law deans have called Supreme Court justices “hacks” to the delight of their followers. I have always said that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the 14th Amendment theory despite my strong disagreement with the theory. The public would benefit from that debate based on precedent rather than personalities.
Here is the column:
This week, CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” offered what has become a staple of liberal cable news: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe assuring Democrats that they are justified in an unconstitutional effort while attacking opposing views as “nonsense.”
I was singled out on this occasion for Tribe’s latest personal attack because I voiced a legal opinion different from his own.
Being attacked by Tribe as a “hack” is not as much of a distinction as one might expect.
Indeed, it is relatively tame in comparison to Tribe’s past vulgar and juvenile assaults on others.
Tribe has attacked figures like Mitch McConnell as “McTurtle” and “flagrant d**khead.”
He attacked former Attorney General Bill Barr’s religion and thrills his followers by referring to Trump as a “Dick” or “dickhead in chief.”
Tribe often shows little patience for the niceties of constitutional law or tradition.
He has supported the call for packing the Supreme Court as long overdue.
He has also supported an array of debunked conspiracy theories like denouncing Barr as guilty of the “monstrous” act of shooting protesters in Lafayette Park with rubber bullets to make way for a photo op — a claim found to be utterly untrue.
Some of Tribe’s conspiracy theories are quickly disproven — like his sensational claims of an anti-Trump figure being killed in Russia.
Nevertheless, Tribe remains the “break the glass” academic for Democratic leaders when political expedience requires a patina of constitutional legitimacy.
I have long disagreed with Tribe over his strikingly convenient interpretations of the Constitution.
We crossed swords decades ago during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, when Tribe argued that it was not an impeachable offense for Clinton to lie under oath.
Even though a federal court and even Democrats admitted that Clinton committed the crime of perjury, Tribe assured Democrats that it fell entirely outside of the constitutional standard of a high crime and misdemeanor.
However, Tribe would later say that Trump’s call to Ukraine was clearly and undeniably impeachable.
Indeed, Tribe insisted that Trump could be charged with a long list of criminal charges that no prosecutor ever pursued — including treason.
Tribe even declared Trump guilty of the attempted murder of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021.
Even though no prosecutor has ever suggested such a charge, Tribe assured CNN that the crime was already established “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.”
That is the key to Tribe’s appeal: the absence of doubt.
Every constitutional road seems to inevitably lead to where Democrats want to go — from court packing to unilateral executive action.
Take student loan forgiveness.
Even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that the effort to wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars of student loans would be clearly unconstitutional.
However, Tribe assured President Biden that it was entirely legal.
It was later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Tribe was also there to support Biden — when no other legal expert was — on the national eviction moratorium.
The problem, Biden admitted, was his own lawyers told him that it would be flagrantly unconstitutional.
That is when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave Biden the familiar advice: Just call Tribe.
Biden then cited Tribe as assuring him that he had the authority to act alone.
It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.
Even Democratic laws that were treated as laughable were found lawful by Tribe.
For example, the “Resistance” in California passed a clearly unconstitutional law that would have barred presidential candidates from appearing on the state ballots without disclosing tax records.
Tribe heralded the law as clearly constitutional and lambasted law professors stating the obvious that it would be struck down.
It was not just struck down by the California Supreme Court but struck down unanimously.
Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom pushed for the passage of an anti-gun rights law that was used to mock the holding of the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling in Dobbs.
Yet Tribe declared the effort as inspired and attacked those of us who stated that it was a political stunt that would be found legally invalid.
It was quickly enjoined by a court as unconstitutional.
In an age of rage, the most irate reigns supreme.
And there is no one who brings greater righteous anger than Laurence Tribe.
That is evident in arguably the most dangerous theory now being pushed by Tribe — and the source of his latest attack on me.
Democrats are pushing a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment that would allow state officials to bar Trump from the ballots — preventing citizens from voting for the candidate now tied with Joe Biden for 2024 election.
This is all being argued by Tribe and others as “protecting democracy,” by blocking a democratic vote.
Democrats have claimed that the 14th Amendment prevents Trump from running because he supported an “insurrection or rebellion.”
They have argued that this long dormant clause can be used to block not just Trump but 120 Republicans in Congress from running for office.
I have long rejected this theory as contrary to the text and history of the 14th Amendment.
Even figures attacked (wrongly) by Trump, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have denounced this theory as dangerous and wrong.
Tribe was set off in his latest CNN interview after I noted that this theory lacks any limiting principle.
Advocates are suggesting that courts could then start banning candidates by interpreting riots as insurrections.
After I noted that the amendment was ratified after an actual rebellion where hundreds of thousands died, Tribe declared such comparisons “nonsense.”
He asked “how many have to die before we enforce this? There were several who died at the Capitol during the insurrection.”
My comment was not to do a head count, but to note that (since Tribe believes that there is no need for a congressional vote) one would at least expect a charge of rebellion or insurrection by Trump.
Yet Trump was not even been charged with incitement.
Not even Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged him with incitement in his two indictments.
The 14th Amendment theory is the perfect vehicle for the age of rage and Tribe, again, has supplied the perfect rage-filled analysis to support it.
The merits matter little in these times.
You can be wrong so long as you are righteously and outrageously wrong.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
>”We don’t forget or do you just have early dementia.”
Evidently, Turkeyboi once thought highly of Merrick Garland .. . but he’s clearly changed his mind.
*that’s not Turkeyboi’s fault.
You’re a poopy head.
Jonathan: I think I will improperly use the word inure, as if that gives more weight to the keyboard diarrhea that I’m about to lay down. Them i’m going to try to be funny and completely blow the analogy of trying to dig your way out of a hole. I dont make reference to getting out, so i could very well be missing the idea that you’re digging a hole for a reason. You could be planting a tree. I suppose that inures my status as an imbecile. It at least ensures that I will be laughed at again by your readers.
Laurence Tribe is a moron. Period. Nothing else can be said about that fool. Never, in the history of law, has one person (Moron Tribe) done so little for so many. One would be wise to listen to what he has to say . . . then do the opposite.
Tribe was well respected years ago as a Constitutional scholar. No one has destroyed their own vaunted reputation more throughly then Tribe. I truly believe that he is mentally ill.
di·a·Tribe
/ˈdīəˌtrīb/
noun
a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
Jonathan: I think it doesn’t inure to your status as a “constitutional scholar” to get into a petty personal squabble with Lawrence Tribe over application of Section 3 of the 14 Amendment to DJT. The optics don’t look good. If you think Tribe, Michael Luttig, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, the latter three being conservative constitutional scholars, are all wrong then explain how your interpretation of Section differs from theirs. Engaging in personal attacks on Tribe doesn’t help your case. It’s a distraction. You are in a hole so stop digging!
I think Dennis just wants Jonathan to pass him the shovel because he’s tired of getting bullshi!t all over his hands
Can someone interpret “Section”
for Dennis?
“explain how your interpretation of Section differs from theirs.”
He has already explained it multiple times. Put down this months issue of vogue and you would know this.
Why should Professor Turley listen to anything you have to say? Your actions toward him are abominable. He permits the ignorant pigs to slop around in the pig pen while others are left to discuss intelligently.
Hi narcissism is evident in the very way he starts every post, “Jonathan:”. As is Turley gives a rat’s behind what some goofball lefty nutjob has to say. And he seems so genuinely concerned. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
No limiting principle.
>”Tribe was set off in his latest CNN interview after I noted that this theory lacks any limiting principle.
Advocates are suggesting that courts could then start banning candidates by interpreting riots as insurrections.”
*Turley
Or they could interpret taking a bribe as an insurrection. So every republican attorney general could tomorrow deem the actions of joe biden as VP as insurrection, and any democrat AG who didnt, their republican state house could begin proceedings to remove them as abetting bidens insurrection.
The left will NEVER accept that words in the Constitution have meanings, and they’re not open to interpretation, personal intuition, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder.
>”Or they could interpret taking a bribe as an insurrection.”
I believe they call that treason, in the case of corrupt bribers in Burisma/Ukraine .. . if not a war crime.
Still, one must cling to the robe of justice.
re constitution: ‘no paper can hold the iron, it must come from men’s heart’
*chief ten bears
“I believe they call that treason,”
You may be missing the point, if one can call a seditious act or conspiracy an insurrection or rebellion, one can call any act an insurrection or rebellion.
The ridiculousness of it is the point. Allowing a judge, or an AG, or a SoS to make this call is entirely antithetical to the rest of the Constitution, no matter wtf you interpret section 3 to say. It doesnt stand alone.
We may be talking cross-purposes.
i.e. if one can call a protest an insurrection, or an election challenge a vast RICO conspiracy .. . there is no limiting principle .
*if Biden took brides to influence/alter U.S. policy in Ukraine, I’m sticking with treason.
Perhaps, but again the point is, with treason, you need a conviction, either in a courtroom or the senate. With the 14th, applied the way Dennis and his buddies want it, all you need is one partisan hack to call something what its not.
And thereby disenfranchise at least 80 million people.
Dont look now, but it appears “our democracy is at stake!!!”
They should remove Brandon for aiding and comforting the Taliban!
We know Brandon aided and comforted the Taliban.
all election officials have a duty to kick Brandon off the ballot!
Dennis – waht is the evidence that Luttig, Baude and Paulsen are “conservative” constitutional scholars. It may be true that they are members of the Federalist Society, but that is not enough to judge their judicial or political viewpoints. Have any of these three restricted the power of the federal government in some way., e.g. in rule making? Have any of them uncovered and enjoinged government censorship? Have they ruled against the abuse of its power by the FBI? Did any of them require the Obama adminstration to provide information to Congress or private parties? Did any of them publicly express shock or disgust when Hillary Clinton got away with destroying evidence of her illegal emails? Please provide some examples of their conservatism. I suspect that they are run-of-mill never-Trumpers in judicial robes.
Brandon aided and comforted the Taliban,
He should be removed from office!
If only, vulgar rhetoric were the legal system’s worst issue.
Prof Tribe is 82, and it is conceivable his age is affecting how he reasons. I have known of Prof. Tribe for years, but I cannot recall that at an earlier time, he also resorted to personal attacks or name-calling.
I no longer listen to what the professor has to say because if a person has to depend on personal attacks and/or name-calling to be persuasive, then the person does not have much of an argument.
“Police State” trailer:
https://twitter.com/KyleSeraphin/status/1700204500013769005
Let me suggest to Tribe, given his propensity for partisan personal attacks, that he is a boring ass****!
We fain would hope that be the end of it.
*Prof Turley, bless his heart, it the worst at trash talking. .. it’s just not in him.
The 14th Amendment cannot be interpreted as blocking Civil War leaders and supporters from post-Civil-War federal office as that violates ex-post-facto law. Therefore, Section 3 can only pertain to insurrectionists who move against the government after 1868.
Trump’s unwillingness to accept electoral defeat after exhausting all the legal challenges in the states is the most brazen affront to the Constitution in our nation’s history. And, we still need to understand what the Willard Hotel “war room” was doing. We need to objectively assess how far a plan was put forth to declare martial law and deputize right-wing militias. But, even if those never made it out of the embryonic (fantasy) state, the plot to mickey the EC Vote count in the Joint Session is sufficient to qualify as a plot to overthrow the voters’ decision.
The question as to whether a conviction of insurrection in a court of law is required is a fair question. My problem with that steep requirement is that legal processes can be delayed by the antagonist long enough to run for an win office, in defiance of the spirit of Section 3. The incessant gaming of the law by the outlaw-politician has to be stopped in its tracks at some point before regaining electoral office, or else Section 3 is flaccid and pointless law. In other words, insurrection must be thwarted in real time….the continuance of the Republic depends on decisive action.
Some things are just too darn important for due process of law.
The ends always justifies the means.
The 14th Amendment cannot be interpreted as blocking Civil War leaders and supporters from post-Civil-War federal office as that violates ex-post-facto law.
Wait, the Constitution violates the Constitution?
“The 14th Amendment cannot be interpreted as blocking Civil War leaders and supporters from post-Civil-War federal office as that violates ex-post-facto law.”
Ummmm, except thats exactly what it was used for.
“I reject your reality and substitute my own”—-pbinCA
Not only is that what it was used for, that was quite clearly its purpose and the precise intent of the framers of that provision.
phinCA – In Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), the S. Ct held that the ex post facto prohibition in Article I, sec 10 (state laws) applies to only crimes. There is no reason to suppose that the same rule would not be applied as to Article !, sec 9 (laws passed by Congress). So, it does not seem to true to say that the loss of civil rights imposed by Art X14, sec 3, which is civil in nature, could not have affected former Confederates. An interesting question is whthere this sectin of the Constitution has evre been used against someone seeking office in a democratic election. I suspect not. During the Al Gore Jr. insrurreciton in 2000, no one even mentioned the clause. Except for its possible use against Trump, it would have remained a dead lietter.
Edward – that same limitation applies to the federal ex post facto clause. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).
Not to mention that a later-passed amendment can be in derogation of the earlier provisions of the Constitution. Unless there’s a pecking order in which some provisions can’t be amended even by implication, but I’ve never heard of such a theory. Have you?
Actually, Article 5 of the US Constitution specifies what in the Constitution cannot be changed by amendment. It lists three things in the Constitution that cannot be amended away. Two of those exceptions are now obsolete. Only the third exception, saying that states cannot be deprived of their equal representation without their consent, remains. The clear implication is that anything else can be amended. And SCOTUS, by upholding the Prohibition Amendment 18 against a constitutional challenge, expressly so held.
Cool – thanks Lysias.
oldman – I would like to argue that amendments can be changed by later amendments (e.g., prohibition, income tax), but that the Ur text cannot be changed. But I know of no support for that view.
Is it not ironic, would you not agree, that, on the grounds of resisting civil war, the never-Trumpers would empower Demo Secretaries of State (like Benson in Michigan), to prevent the candidate of the Republican party from seeking votes in the general election? This is not stopping civil war, it is recipe for starting one. This is not “saving democracy”, but a means of removing its legitimacy. Anyone elected by such a rigged system would not be regarded as legitimate outside the hothouse campuses where academics dream of dictatorship and twist the law to achieve that end.
Edward – the 17th Amendment shows that the main text of the Constitution can be changed by amendments. Yes, I agree those things are ironic. The “saving democracy” claim is never sincere. As a general rule, whenever they say “democracy” we should read “our power.”
E.g., “This is very dangerous to our democracy” (endlessly repeated by TV talking heads) really means “This is very dangerous to our grip on power.”
Brandon aided and comforted the Taliban.
Brandon colluded with the CIA to lie about that laptop.
These election officials should kick Brandon off the ballot, and anyone who supports or excuses Brandon!
Other cases say the same thing, e.g., Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585 (1913) (Justice Holmes) – states the federal ex post facto clause (article 1, §9) only applies to criminal punishments.
In dozens of criminal trials pursuant to J6th, we have several defendants admitting under oath that their violent actions at the Capitol were taken on cue from their President, acting on his intention to thwart the Certification of Joe Biden as the next President.
That’s a sound evidentiary basis for invoking the Section 3.
You can’t possibly be serious. First, they could only have been “criminals” at the time of their under oath declaration if they had already plead guilty and were simply providing allocution – in which case why not say “Trump made me do it” rather than admit to being personally motivated by (fill in the blank). Second, people lie under oath all the time. All you have proven is the “sound evidentiary basis” for this since we, as yet, have no court decision affirming your claim that Trump was “acting on his intention to thwart the Certification of Joe Biden as the next President.”
You can’t possibly be serious. First, they could only have been “criminals” at the time of their under oath declaration if they had already plead guilty and were simply providing allocution – in which case why not say “Trump made me do it” rather than admit to being personally motivated by (fill in the blank). Second, people lie under oath all the time. All you have proven is the “sound evidentiary basis” for this since we, as yet, have no court decision affirming your claim that Trump was “acting on his intention to thwart the Certification of Joe Biden as the next President.”
Apologies for the double post
“. . . several defendants admitting . . .”
There are numerous people who put tin foil on their windows, because voices.
That is not “sound evidentiary basis” for anything but institutionalization.
That’s right. They were triggered by the phrase “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Anyone would go wild after hearing that.
They actually met the President?
It was used against Victor Berger.
“Trump’s unwillingness to accept electoral defeat after exhausting all the legal challenges in the states is the most brazen affront to the Constitution in our nation’s history.”
Aside from Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats, it is an affront to those that do not understand the Constitution and support weaponization of government along with violating First Amendment rights. One has difficulty understanding why you choose to live here.
No, it was payback for what was done to him.
How can payback possibly be unethical?
It’s axiomatic that leftists are mentally deranged.
Up:down, left:right, right:wrong, day:night, good:bad, positive:negative, chromatic:achromatic, light:dark, 0:1, sense:nonsense, fair:unfair et al.
There are correct and incorrect in every situation.
The American Founders and Framers were irrefutably correct in human self-governance, as opposed to dictatorship, be it by monarchy or proletariat.
Those opposed to freedom and self-reliance are clearly and irrefutably wrong and incorrect in that they derive their sustenance permanently from the endeavors of other people which occurs nowhere in nature and nowhere in religion.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is synthetic, wrongheaded, unnatural and ungodly.
To wit,
“Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.”
– Maimonides
___________
“The Gods help those who help themselves.”
– Greek Proverb
“SUPPORT” THE CONSTITUTION
If the democrats can organize corrupt, radical, activist billionaires, district attorneys, judges and courts, and take out oppositional republican candidates by “lawfare,” the Supreme Court can take “desperate measures” in these “desperate times” to fulfill the sworn oaths of its Justices and “support” the literal manifest tenor of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court may invoke Judicial Review, upon the completion of any federal, state or local, legislative or executive act, in order to support and implement the literal manifest tenor of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court must act now before the total destruction of the American constitutional republic and the irrevocable imposition of the principles of communism under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” are complete.
________________________
The Power of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution.
This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions.
– Justia
_______
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
It took acting retroactively by 50 years for the Supreme Court to correct America back to the Constitution with reference to the eminently unconstitutional and co-called “federal right” to abortion.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) were able to hold America hostage for those 50 long years due to the wilful dereliction and negligence of the judicial branch.
Do you understand the Article IX? It says that the rights widely and traditionally enjoyed by citizens cannot be revoked by States just because they are not explicitly enumerated in the Federal Constitution. If Justice Alito had done an unbiased, historically-accurate analysis of history and tradition of abortion for Dobbs, he would have had to acknowledge that abortion was widely practiced in both the Colonial and post-1776 epochs, and was generally accepted as moral if done before quickening. In other words, abortion in the first 24 weeks is an unenumerated right under the 9th Amendment.
Another example is the right of parents to name their child at birth. Let’s say New Jersey decides that newborns can only be given unique numbers as their legal names & identities — by the state not the parents.
This law could be challenged as a violation of Article IX, and likely successfully.
After 24 hours of fertilization, a human being exists and is living, and that human being will continue to develop and live for approximately 76 years.
An extremely young, young, mature, or elderly American is a dependent or independent person, and that dependent or independent person shall be secure in his person, and that person shall not be deprived of life, per American fundamental law.
______________________________________________________
BRITANNICA
Abortion
Expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it can survive on its own.
______________________________________________________
Fetus
The eight-week unborn young of any vertebrate animal.
_____________________________________________
Embryo
The early developmental stage of an animal while it is in the uterus of the mother; at eight weeks, it is described as a fetus.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
An embryo, or fetus, is an extremely young human being that is developing.
Abortion of an embryo, or fetus, is homicide (i.e. human, kill).
Homicide is criminal in most States.
Homicide, in any place or locus, of an extremely young, young, mature or elderly human being is criminal in most States.
Homicide of an extremely young, young, mature or elderly human being in the custody of any person or organization, including his parents, guardians, or the State, is criminal in most States.
___________
An extremely young, young, mature or elderly human being is a person with the right to be secure in their person per the 4th Amendment.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
An extremely young, young, mature or elderly human being is a human being which is a person and a person shall not be deprived of life without due process of law per the 5th Amendment.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Buck v. Bell
Once upon a time, Laurence Tribe was a respected law professor. He, however, prefers to be known as a left-wing hack, a political provocateur, and an advocate of Venezuelan-style “justice.” His irrelevance can be measured by the degree to which ad hominem replaces reasoned argument, something with which he has ceased to be acquainted.
Tribe was always a left wing activist. I have no respect for attorneys like that and I worked for lawyers for 23 years. I hope someone finally sues his caboose off and shuts this old fool up.
This is not Logan’s Run.
Today’s Turley assignment: attack Laurance Tribe, attack Democrats, attack mainstream media and try to pretend he is above the fray and neutral, all as more daily affirmation to the disciples. The reason is because every single day, the news gets worse for Trump and you can only beat the “Hunter Biden Scandal” drum so many times before even the disciples catch on that you’re just a paid hack paid to assuage their fears abot their exalted leader. Since Turley went on the Fox payroll, mainstream media want nothing to do with him. Tribe’s not on the payroll of any news media. Tribe is far, far and away better respected than Turley is or ever will be. Tribe has taught Constitutional Law at Harvard for 50 years and has been the law professor who taught numerous judges. According to Wikipedia: “A constitutional law scholar,Tribe is co-founder of the American Constitution Society. He is also the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), a major treatise in that field, and has argued before the United States Supreme Court 36 times.[8] Tribe was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2010.” He has been an advisor to several presidents. How many presidents has Turley advised? How many Constituional law treatises has Turley authored? Turley sells his credentials to prop up a media outlet that has been proven to peddle lies for political reasons–to wit: the Dominion and Smartmatic Voting machine cases. Turley’s creds are supposed to help wash the stink off of Mark Levin and his “Biden Crime Family” tropes, but it’s not working. Turley is frequently criticized by the highly-regarded law blog “Above the Law”. It is indeed hypocritical for Turley who is on the payroll of an intellectually dishonest media outlet that mainly exists to help Republicans get power by attacking Joe Biden, Democrats in general, and some in particular, to spin the facts to try to benefit Trump, to complain about the “age of rage”.
Professors like Tribe are why our justice system is so partisan. Tribe is the hack he so hatefully calls others who disagree.
Tribe’s past accomplishments are irrelevant. He has sold his legal soul for a mess of political pottage, combined with a greater and greater attraction to authoritarianism. Your attacks on Professor Turley are no more substantive than Tribe’s, and in fact come across as a partisan tantrum.
Looks like I spoke too soon re: Gigi The Liar
Hey Gigi:
How many oil fired power plants are there in Texas?
Who does the DC National guard answer to, besides the President?
What were the inflation rates for June and July, 2023?
What was the actual inflation rate when Trump left office?
How much more does a $240,000 house cost, on a 30 year note, at 7% interest versus 3%?
Who is Amos Hochstein and what is his connection to Hunter and Joe Biden?
Did Joe Biden really call for Shokin’s dismissal because he WAS NOT investigating Burisma?
Which networks peddled lies about 1) Steele Dossier 2) Alpha Bank 3)Nicholas Sandmann 4)Hunter laptop Russian disinfo? Note, only going with the ones they have have admitted to, not the dozens of still contested ones.
Welcome to the no spin zone, LIAR.
You have a particularly pathetic posting function. Carry on drone.
How do you see around your nose to type on the computer screen?
Ah, Gigi enters the commentary, and the collective IQ of all the posters is automatically cut in half…
Tribe is at the end of his life and he can not bear to see everything he has worked for and desired his entire life come to an end so quickly. God works that way Mr. Tribe. Shake your clinched fist at the sky.
Seems to me that Tribe is about the same age as Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and numerous others who are prominent in the running and ruination of our country. Has anyone suggested to his colleagues or family that a competency test might be in order? If not, let me be the first, though certainly not the last.
This is why we need to be concerned about global warming. We may need all the ice floes we can find.
Tribe is mentally incompetent. Ditto Biden.
Those opposed to sending billions to Ukraine are just welfare recipients who would like
to see that money go to themselves.
The billions being wasted in ukraine for an utterly corrupted comedian are an incredibly hurtful action to the American tax payer. Hundreds of thousands dead to satisfy our criminal military industrial complex and the traitorous politicians who support it.
That’s a reasonable, succinct start describing the unfolding horrors in Ukraine and the approaching apocalypse if ‘the traitorous politicians who support it’ do not change course .. .
*sooner rather than later.
Not a welfare recipient. Never have been.
Rather see that money go towards American citizens in need than a proxy war.
Can you imagine how much good all that money could of done for poor inner city schools? The more charter schools that could of been funded. The number of homeless vets? The mentally ill? Help senior citizens who have to choose between paying for their needed Rx or the rent?
A lot of good could of been done with that money.
Rather than more death and destruction.
For a small, nominal percentage of the $150 billion wasted on the insane madness in Ukraine, I can :
~ end the war in 6 hours or less
~ reverse the flow of immigration
~ feed the hungry, house the homeless
*and still have money left over for a road trip to old Mexico.