Below is my column on Fox.com on the new effort to “reimagine” the resistance to Trump, including the recognition of the failure of lawfare. While some figures on the left are expressing doubts over the efficacy of weaponizing the legal system, it is doubtful that we have seen the end of it. They are only regretting that it did not work. The center of gravity of lawfare will now likely shift to the states and Democratic attorneys general and District Attorneys. “Reimagination” is rarely a form of self-examination, let alone self-criticism. That is evident in some of the most recent writings of lawfare warriors. They are like wandering Ronin samurai, warriors who lost not just their master but their purpose. What they seem to lack most, however, is principle. Whatever “reimagining” occurs, it should start with a recognition that lawfare was an abuse of the legal system for political ends.
Here is the column:
The reaction to the reelection of Donald Trump in the media has ranged from histrionic to outright hysteria. MSNBC analyst and former Sen. Claire McCaskill wept openly on television as CBS News anchor John Dickerson got choked up on national television in an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, still struggling to discuss the news days after the election.
However, arguably the most perplexing responses came a few days ago when the New York Times ran a column from one of the advocates of the lawfare used against Trump since 2016.
Yale Law Professor Samuel Moyn has long been a favorite of the New York Times as part of what I have previously described as a counter-constitutional movement in higher education. As I discuss in my book, The Indispensable Right, Moyn and others have insisted that the constitution itself may be the problem with America.
In a previous New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” Moyn and Harvard Professor Ryan D. Doerfler called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
While the New York Times publicly condemned a U.S. senator for writing about the use of the National Guard to stop violent protests (as would be done at both the White House and the Capitol), it has published a long line of figures who have engaged in violent or extremist rhetoric from the left.
However, this particular column may be worth the ink and hypocrisy needed to publish it. The New York Times long lionized those who brought raw partisan prosecutions against Trump and his allies, including efforts to cleanse ballots to deny citizens the opportunity to vote for the man who just won the popular vote.
In his new column “Liberals Bet They Could Beat Trump With the Law, Moyn regrets the lawfare, not because it distorted the law and weaponized the legal system, but because it did not work.
He even quotes Benjamin Wittes, who helped create the Lawfare website, which was used, in Moyn’s words, “to hem in Mr. Trump.” Wittes wrote, “I have no interest in recriminations.” Perhaps, but the public does.
The election—which handed both houses of Congress and the White House to the GOP—was arguably the largest verdict in history. However, it was not necessarily a verdict for Trump as much as it was against the lawfare and advocacy journalism that had been used openly for years.
After all, the “Let’s Go Brandon!” movement developed at the start of the Biden Administration and was as much a criticism of the media and political establishment as it was Joe Biden — a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the governing elite.
For years, these figures ignored the “recriminations” of some who objected to using the legal system for political purposes, particularly in the New York cases.
To his credit, Moyn now admits that “the more uncomfortable truth is that our search for political salvation primarily through the law has backfired.”
However, he remains remarkably uncritical of such tactics in the first place. Instead, he insists that these losses were due to simply “legalistic tactics.” Some of us call that the law.
Moyn plays Shakespeare’s Othello in claiming to be “one that lov’d not wisely but too well.” The problem, he explains to the fragile Times readership is that they “rooted their opposition to Mr. Trump in the law since his first month in office.” He even refers to efforts early on to block Trump’s immigration policies.
As soon as Trump came into office, he faced an acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, who ordered the department to stand down and not assist the new president in his immigration orders. I wrote at the time that the order was an outrageous and partisan act by Yates, who was planning on leaving in a matter of days.
While I criticized the initial Trump orders as poorly crafted (perhaps due to the lack of legal support) and in need of revision, I noted that he was likely to prevail on his claimed underlying authority. He ultimately prevailed after revising the orders. Yet, the New York Times and other publications again lionized Yates for an act that some of us view as unprofessional and arguably unethical.
The problem with the lawfare campaign is that it did not just treat the law as an extension of politics, but treated the public as chumps. A large part of the public saw these cases for what they were: the use of motivated judges in favorable jurisdictions for political advantage.
These same figures claim to be “saving democracy.”
The result was that liberals convinced many citizens that democracy was at risk . . . from them. What they saw was efforts at ballot cleansing to remove Trump and other Republicans from the ballots. They saw raw lawfare in New York courts. They saw Kamala Harris and other Democrats supporting an unprecedented system of censorship that one court called “Orwellian.”
Liberals continue to ignore that obvious disconnection despite the polls showing that they were increasingly viewed as the threat. Voters in swing states felt that Trump is more likely to protect democracy than Kamala Harris, who was running on a “save democracy” platform. One poll asked whether Trump or Harris “would do a better job” of “defending against threats to democracy,” 43% picked Trump, while 40% picked Harris. Likewise, free speech registered as one of the greatest concerns for voters in this election after years of censorship and blacklisting from the left.
Now, one of the academics who previously said that we have to reimagine our democracy and trash our constitution is advising that the election left “a Democratic Party in dire need of reimagining.”
There is a point where “reimagining” everything from the police to democracy becomes less of an exercise of self-evaluation than self-delusion. What many figures like Moyn are not willing to admit is that what Democrats attempted to do with lawfare was wrong and that the public rejected it … and them.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Disappointment & Regret
It’s time to regroup. Want to be on the winning team? Then be part of a team.
Actor Robert De Niro plays Al Capone in this flick.
Mike Davis and a few others have suggested investigating and potentially charging Jack Smith and the other lawfare prosecutors under 18 USC 242. Another possibility is for the House to impeach Chutkan. This is different from attacking political opponents, since it’s aimed specifically at those who engaged in and facilitated alleged political prosecutions. Somehow, deterrence needs to be established to reduce the risk that this happens again. It is unclear how best to do that. Maybe legislation requiring some special review procedure might be passed to deal specifically with prosecutions with political overtones. It’s hard to put this genie back in the bottle.
Mike Davis and a few others have suggested investigating and potentially charging Jack Smith and the other lawfare prosecutors under 18 USC 242.
I’d like to know when Mike Davis and anyone else in the Republican controlled House and Senate are going to haul justices before oversight commissions and ask them why they refused to deal with the serial felonies of perjury committed in their courts by the most senior prosecutors and lawyers in the DoJ and FBI. They certainly have oversight power to do that as those courts and those judges are a creation of Congress.
So far… after eight years… crickets, just crickets. Two Obama Attorney Generals, two Obama FBI Directors and former Obama FBI Director Robert Mueller still walk free, unindicted and not even brought before the state bars they are members of.
I’m not aware of whether or not Smith did something patently illegal like the Obama Attorney Generals, FBI Directors, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and lawyers working for the FBI, DoJ, and Mueller who repeatedly committed perjury and uttering false and forged documents into the courts.
Judge Emmett Sullivan would also have been liable for that charge after first countenancing and then allowing perjury to himself and the court from the prosecutor and FBI agents who prosecuted General Flynn. Followed by attempting to prosecute Flynn himself when the DoJ dismissed the case due to the perjury and false documents put before his court under the previous Attorney General.
Crimes like that would certainly qualify. IF Trump or some elected Republicans had the stones and the spine to proceed with indictments and trials without any special deals.
To date, no Attorney General working under Trump, no FISA judge who had perjury committed in his court, no federal prosecutor under Trump has indicted a single lawyer or judge who engaged in any felony including deprivation of civil rights through abuse of their office.
If Americans believe that deterrence to further investigations and prosecutions with criminal intent within the DoJ and judicial branch is necessary, the only way to obtain that is visible, public prosecutions and trials.
However I don’t believe Trump has the time and space to do that while working on his agenda with the midterm election less than two years away.
And whether the Senate and House have the time and space to do it, they have a perfect record so far of having a complete lack of gonads and spine when it comes to dealing with criminality within the DoJ and judiciary.
My biased theory is the reason they don’t deal with the felony laden atmosphere of DoJ prosecutors and judges is that they are cowards more worried about being disinvited off the Washington DC cocktails and canapes social circuit.
This is an excellent essay. Professor Turley could settle on this issue for quite a while, perhaps even write a book about it.
If it is possible to repeat history then lawfare should enable its proponents to repeat the 1932 to 1945 period once again and see if it turns out differently. The German NSDAP never encompassed more than about 30% of the electorate. The compromise of making Hitler the Chancellor, though, led immediately to the undermining of the legal system. The NAZIs political ends were frustrated by a legal system and they set about making a parallel system to persecute political opponents or otherwise dangerous political persons. These were the peoples’ courts. Our current fans of lawfare are not so crude as the NSDAP to set up an obvious parallel system, but have done the same by dragging their opponents into friendly courts in highly partisan venues — places where rabid citizens can cheer destruction of their enemies by any means. You know, resetting the statute of limitations clock, reimagining alleged misdemeanors as felonies, running kangaroo courts. Need I go on?
What I find perplexing is how they can engage in this hypocrisy and not recognize its antecendants.
Hamas and Hezbollah have regret but no remorse, just like the leftists in our country.
*Hamas claims it’s ready for Gaza cease-fire after Hezbollah’s deal with Israel
Published Nov. 27, 2024, 7:11 a.m. ET
Hamas claimed Wednesday that it is ready for a cease-fire in Gaza — just hours after Israel’s truce with Hezbollah terrorists went into effect in Lebanon.*
Why is that? War raged through the Middle East as soon as Biden was in power, and now, with the knowledge of Trump’s return, they all want peace.
The left and their terrorist allies can only think in terms of their dreams, a non-reality. So they have regret but no remorse. That means both the left and the terrorists will spend the next years building themselves up to again terrorize the Middle East and our hard-working families here at home.
The delusionary view of life by you MAGAs is literally stunning. You are actually trying to give Trump credit for Biden’s ongoing and skillful negotiations that brought about the ceasefire. You are as delusional as he is. S. Meyer–everyone on this planet, except you MAGAs, KNOW what Trump is–a lying, manipulative sociopathic narcissist who is not respected by other world leaders–a womanizing attention hog who will say or do anything to get what he wants, and who can be manipulated by attention and adulation. He is a convicted criminal who steals classified documents with impunity. How do you think the rest of the world views someone who lied about our economy being on the brink of disaster when it is the envy of the world, who engaged in racist and misogynistic slurs against the Vice President of the United States, who lies about his less than 50% “victory” by calling it “historic” and a “landslide”, who baselessly promised the American people that their personal wealth will “soar” and that grocery and housing prices will “fall precipitiously” without any viable plan to bring this about, who fellated a microphone, who did a 12-minute riff on Arnold Palmer’s genitals, and who relishes the idea of arresting and incarcerating migrants all to pander to the xenophobic and racist base of his supporters? Trump’s squeaker of a “victory” was the product of lies, misogyny and racism. No one “fears” him–they know he has ADD, and he has proven that he is incompetent as a leader–not just in his first term in which he destroyed our economy and public health, but choosing inexperienced, unqualified and conflicted people for his cabinet whose main qualification is being a boot-licking syncophant. Do you think any of this is lost on other world leaders? Oh, and there’s the tariffs, too. Mexico has already announced that it will enact reciprocal tariffs. No matter how many economists say that tariffs are not only a bad idea, but that they will push inflation higher–he won’t listen–he wants to push around our biggest trading partners, which are Canada, Mexico and China–his fragile ego needs that power.
Why are there problems in the Middle East? These conflicts go back for millenia, but as to Israel at the present, Israel’s endless persecution of the Palestinian people is a root cause for conflict–arresting hundreds of them, incarcerating them without even filing charges, controlling their water and food supply, and taking over the West Bank and moving in 700,000 Israeli settlers–which the UN has ruled to be human rights violations. Now, they’ve killed over 40,000, mostly women and children, and have starved the population. Children who haven’t died of thirst or starvation will have their physical and mental development stymied for life–because Israel will not even let in the UN or other countries to bring food to these people. AND, the US is complicit–including Biden–we give Israel a blank check–why? What does the US owe Israel? Why do we stand for them endlessly bombing Gaza and Lebanon and killing so many innocent people, which are mostly women and children? We keep sending Israel the weapons to carry out their genocide. The UN has found that Israel’s conduct is genocidal. So, will there be problems in the future–probably–because the Israel has planted the seeds for the next October 7th attack by its human rights abuses and genocide.
oh Lord, here we go again with Gigi.
“The delusionary view of life by you MAGAs is literally stunning. You are actually trying to give Trump credit for Biden’s ongoing and skillful negotiations that brought about the ceasefire.”
Biden caused the war. Peace was spreading throughout the Middle East until Biden came along. Is that something hard to understand? It shouldn’t be. Look at Biden’s failure in Afghanistan. For 18 months under Trump, no Americans were killed. We can also look at Ukraine. There was no war until Biden came in. Listen to how suddenly people are talking about peace.
Biden’s name is linked with mass killing and death. Unfortunately, some, like Gigi, are unable to think and rage when Trump’s name is mentioned. Harris had everything in her favor: the press,MSM, Hollywood, money, illegal voting, and much more. Despite all her advantages, the people had one thing to look at: Trump’s past performance and Harris’s Democrat failures.
No, S. Meyer–peace was not “spreading throughout the Middle East”-tensions have been brewing for decades because of Israel’s abuse of the Palestinian people–all of which upsets nor only their Arab neighbors, but the UN has declared that Israel has engaged in human rights violations by moving 700,000 Israelis in the West Bank . If anyone makes America look weak–it’s Trump–a foppish, arrogant womanizer with a fragile ego who constantly lies, who admires murderous dictators and even sides with them over his own intelligence heads, and who has been convicted of 34 felonies and adjudicated liable for sexual assault. Do you think that any of these weaknesses aren’t apparent to other world leaders? Only you MAGAs are blind to these realities. Putin invaded Ukraine because he thought that Trump had so fractured our relations with our EU and NATO allies that Biden couldn’t pull together a cohesive resistance–but he was wrong. NATO, Putin’s main opponent, is stronger than ever, and Biden deserves the credit. Finland and Sweden, who have always been neutral, now want to join NATO. Putin has said, long before Biden took office, that his goal is to reunite the former USSR–starting with Ukraine. Biden mended relations with our allies because they respect him. No one respects Trump, because other world leaders see him for the grandiose braggart and failure with a fragile ego that he really is.
You speak of “Trump’s past performance”–what “performance”? COVID out of control, Trump pushing quack “cures” that killed people, ying about the seriousness of COVID, trying to blame the Chinese, fomenting anti-Asian hatred, attacking world-renowed scientists, the country mostly shut down, schools, businesses, restaurants closed, no leisure travel, while we are setting new daily records for COVID deaths and infections, hospitals having to hire refrigerated trucks because morgues are overflowing, and long lines at food pantries and food give-aways while Trump kept lying that it would go away when the weather warmed. How about the unemployment rate when Trump took office and when he left? How many manufacturing jobs returned to the US after Trump took office? What were his legislative achievements–a tax break for the wealthiest. Did he get an infrastructure bill passed? No, he didn’t–Biden did.
What are the “Democrat failures”? Has any leader of Hamas, Hezbollah or Putin said that the conflicts they are involved with wouldn’t have happened if Trump was in office? NO–that’s more MAGA lies.
“No, S. Meyer–peace was not “spreading throughout the Middle East””
Gigi, you seem out of touch and need a tutor to keep you up to date about the Abraham Accords and the possible treaty with Saudi Arabia. I don’t know where you have been, but the rest of the world is moving on.
Biden’s policies caused an all-out war with both Hamas and Hezbollah being severely compromised. Your strange beliefs have supported the deaths of thousands and the use of women and children as shields.
Gaza will have to rebuild even their sewers, for Hamas used sewer pipes to create rockets when they could have created their own water and electricity. You must believe building underground tunnels and weapons is more productive than producing water and electricity. That is foolishness, but you can’t help yourself.
I won’t go further because your facts are so screwed up that you can’t defend them though you can repeat the same nonsense in every post.
” Israel’s endless persecution of the Palestinian people ”
Listen to the idiocy from Gigi. She won’t deal with a discussion because she knows nothing of the history of the Middle East. She is filled with lunacy and ignorance.
Who are the Palestinian people? It depends on what year one is talking about. There are no Palestinian people, but Gigi is too ignorant to realize that. She doesn’t even recognize that the first people called the Palestinian people were the Jewish farmers.
Gazans were given plenty of money but spent it on tunnels and weapons. The water and electricity were Israeli water and electricity because the Gazans didn’t bother providing for the needs of their women and children even though they had control over Gaza.
The West Bank is a name created for Judea and Samaria, part of the ancient civilization of the Jewish people. Jordan illegally occupied that area, and many of the people who settled there were thrown out of Jordan.
Your knowledge of history is corrupted by a small mind corrupted by hate and stupidity.
Gigi… again… The delusionary view of life by you MAGAs is literally stunning.
Talk about a cunning stunt. Gigi wants to claim MAGA is who illegally commissioned and illegally paid for the “Trump-Russia Dossier” she still buys into.
Gigi wants to believe MAGA is behind enlisting those 51 MAGA “intelligence experts” who sold her the delusion that the Biden Bribery Laptop was just ‘Putin election disinformation’.
And Gigi – just like the Democrats’ Anti-Semitic Genocidal Socialist Sisterhood in the House, wants to tell us that Israel is the real Nazis, committing genocide in Gaza because of the justifiable Oct 7 massacre.
Gigi is now playing the part of Ilsa – She-wolf of the SS. Move over Ilsa… Gigi and her Bolshevik broomstick are now in town.
Movie: Ilse – She Wolf Of The SS
Asking if these zombies feel remorse or regret; they feel as much regret as n*zis when asked about killing 6 million – their regret was that they lost the war but weren’t finished killing all the Jews. Maybe some other time they can finish the job. Same cultish mindset – nothing , not even logic or a sense of moral character, will deter them from their ultimate cult goal. This is why I always see the progressive mind as a twin to the islamic jihadi mind. I am sure we could find many a prog willing to fly a plane into Mar a Lago.
With all due respect to Samuel Johnson, lawfare, not patriotism, is [indeed] the last refuge of the scoudrel.
Lawfare is the weapon of dishonorable ronin. They won’t repent because they aren’t ever humbled before the law. They operate with a sense of qualified immunity. Not only should “licensed” lawfare operators be stripped of qualified immunity, sentencing guidelines should be enhanced so that such an abuse of public trust is reasonably deterred.
To OLLY: And they should be personally liable for the financial harm incurred by lawfare defendants. If Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, his actions are then unconstitutional and technically illegal. Qualified immunity does not protect government officials (especially law enforcement) from illegal or unconstitutional acts. Trump should sue Smith personally, and perhaps Garland who illegally “appointed” Smith special prosecutor, for recovery of his legal expenses. Both likely have malpractice insurance. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for these damages, and neither should Trump.
Vincente-I like that thought process. If this was an unconstitutional act then maybe there should be reparative damages in certain cases. If people do have to wonder about their personal liability (not covered by insurance) then maybe they would be more thoughtful before doing things like lawfare. Maybe this should be a federal suit by Trump against the entire Democratic Party . Pull the e-mails and all the documents from the WH when Biden or his people were meeting with Bragg and Willis and the DOJ
While the desire to severely punish those who engaged in ‘lawfare’ (the application of laws in a way not originally intended to try to achieve a political end) is understandable, there is one problem:
Lawfare is not crime.
there is one problem: Lawfare is not crime.
Wrong. Don’t partner up with George in attempting to give these lawyers and judges who are associates of Professor Turley that excuse. He’s bad enough.
Committing perjury while under oath before a judge to get warrants is a felony. Uttering false documents is a felony. Forging exculpatory evidence to be instead incriminating evidence is a felony. Wrongfully depriving Trump and other Americans of their civil rights is a felony.
Need more examples? Obama’s Attorney General Sally Yates (mentioned in this article, but the good professor not mentioning this) perjuring herself under oath to a FISA judge that the “Trump-Russia Dossier” was confirmed to be US intelligence agency evidence, and every word of it fully verified under the Woods Procedures as those FISA courts mandated.
Let’s try this instead: Some lawfare may be non-criminal violations of bar association ethical requirements, but other lawfare is completely criminal.
Lawfare is not crime.
That depends on the intent, especially in respect to ethical standards. Sending two FBI agents for a chat with Gen. Flynn was not a crime. Bankrupting him into submission because he wouldn’t comply with their intent to take down a sitting President should be.
Olly; “Sending two FBI agents for a chat with Gen. Flynn was not a crime.”
Those agents and the prosecutor they worked for later perjured themselves in court that General Flynn’s illegally wiretapped conversation had Flynn discussing with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak about Trump lifting existing sanctions on Russia.
That was a straight out felony by all three by more than measure.
Felonies committed AFTER Strzok had his lover and fellow FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, completely rewrite his original notes where both of the FBI lawyers interviewing Flynn in that ambush found his answers and conversation with them to be credible, forthright, and truthful. The original notes of both of them have managed to stay out of reach of Congressional oversight investigators and the public for some reason or other.
On the other hand, the transcript of that NSA illegally intercepted conversation illegally unmasked by Biden in his last hours in the Vice President’s office has been available for nearly eight years.
Not a single one of professor Turley’s fellow lawyers who participated in those felonies and depriving General Flynn of his civil rights under color of law has ever been censured by their bar association – much less indicted on multiple felonies.
Nor have these crimes committed by these lawyers been condemned by Professor Turley as being a “degradation of our constitutional order” as he repeatedly says the private citizens of J6 were guilty of in his mind.
Yes sir, Airborne.
In my understanding, ‘Lawfare’ is the application of existing laws in ways not originally intended to try to achieve a political end. The above descriptions and discussions of acts such as perjury, illegal wiretaps, lying to secure search warrants, altering evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence and on and on, are instructive because they are indeed crimes. However, the ‘Lawfare,’ (the use and application of existing laws in ways not contemplated by the legislators who wrote them) that Smith, Bragg, James, the malefactors who tried to exclude Repubs from ballots and many, many, others engaged in is not a crime, albeit a blatant bastardization of our legal system by those who are nothing more than political hitmen.
One thing is certain, the judges like Chutkan and Marchan(?) who permit this abuse of our laws and legal system are despicable and a disgrace, because it is their duty to stand between the legitimate application of the law and the abuses of the law such as we have witnessed over the last 6-8 years.
-g
Lawfare is the direct result of the Democrats having an empty coffer of policies and plans that would win over the American People. They got burned by Obama who was going to “Transform America” but who laid out no plan as to what he was going to do until he was elected and then it was too late. He won on Trust Me and then reneged on that trust. A signal would have been the fact that his popular vote dropped by almost 5 million from 2008 to 2012. By Contrast FDR won a solid victory in 1932 and then blew away the Republican Party in 1936 because he delivered, whether you agreed with him or not. But then he overreached and lost massive numbers of seats in the House and Senate in 1938. He still had Democratic Majorities but the conservatives in both parties brought the New Deal to an End.
You have to stay on focus and on plan and not be distracted. FDR had done well but then focused on trying to remove the conservative voices in his own party and have purity and it cost him his program.
If the democrats want go that route of lawfare again I think it will cost them. They are likely to come off as obstructionists seeking only power rather than trying to better the nation.
If I were Trump I would try to ignore the lawfare, start the deportations, close the border, clean up what he can in the economy, hack away at the size of government, and go after universities and their illiberal policies (but that should be mostly a reformed DOJ).
The other real major project is to get back out among the populace and recruit Republicans in all tossup states and where there is a real chance to expand the House MaJority and reverse the possibility of losing the House in 2026. If you do that then really put on the afterburners after 2026. But get the achievable now.
“Lawfare is the direct result of the Democrats having an empty coffer of policies and plans that would win over the American People“
Leftist dreams are not possible realities. They sound good, proven at the loss of 100-200 million lives in the last century.
S. Meyer,
“Leftist dreams are not possible realities.”
It is what they promise and fail to deliver on. Most of us with a degree of critical thinking, logic and common sense can see right through the dreams and blow them away when we ask questions like, “How are you going to achieve that?” “How do you plan on paying for that?” or “The math does not add up.” To which they respond with, “Racist!” Guess what leftists, the “-ist!” card no longer works.
““Racist!” Guess what leftists, the “-ist!” card no longer works.”
It works with the stupid, such as George Svelaz.
It Is Called 18 U.S.Code § 242 https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/it-is-called-18-uscode-242
I have failed to make the necessary gyrations and mental gymnastics to understand how the radical hard left Marxists have come fo be called “progressives.”
The term “liberal” was once given to people who still had a shred of common sense but otherwise had views outside the Democratic establishment. The malignancy has spread beyond repair.
What we have recently witnessed is a resounding rejection of the extreme radical, godless communist movement. The clueless radicalized are going through the grieving process. Instead of accepting their defeat, they are fingerprinting and accusing each other. The elite Hollywood actors are beside themselves and condemning us of ignorance.
We need robust debate but we need a return to common sense.
“I have failed to make the necessary gyrations and mental gymnastics to understand how the radical hard left Marxists have come fo be called “progressives.”
They lie!
E.M.
Common sense does not seem to be a common virtue among leftists, the elite, and those Hollywood types. I am fine with that. They will continue to double or triple down on calling all those who did not vote for Harris as racist, misogynists, ignorant etc. Will just further alienate those voters and they will lose yet again in 2026 and 2028.
“Common sense does not seem to be a common virtue among leftists, the elite, and those Hollywood types. I am fine with that. ”
Agree. If we can return the US to being a meritocracy, their lack of sense will result in self-served justice. I feel similarly about the various calls for revenge on the leftists. If we fix what is broken, they will ultimately get what they deserve, without any need for explicit, aggressive retaliation of the kind that they like to dispense. We need not descend to their level.
As I have stated before on this topic, until their is a repeal of Prosecutorial Immunity and Judicial Immunity along with an ability to reign in Prosecutorial Discretion, this stain on American Jurisprudence will grow!
Too early to cue the music for a victory dance. To assume that these Constitution-haters will be deterred by something so trifling as an election would be inexcusably naive. Those who have abused and corrupted the legal process for their own ends must be held accountable to an extent far greater than “letting bygones be bygones”.
A battle was won on 11/5/2024, but the war still is occurring and will continue to carry on. We must not lose sight of our goals to return to a healthy constitutional Republic with active participation by all involved participants.
It took 58 years to get from Plessy v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education, and 49 years to get from Roe v Wade to Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That slow Article lll pendulum is a designed counterbalance to the 2, 4, and 6 year national government election cycle. The Framers understood that consensus among We The People can take many elections to form, and form again. Let us all stay mindful that both the pendulum and elections serve the quest for consensus in our federal republic. To form a more perfect Union.
“Express Regret But Not Remorse”
One bank robber (the one with a conscience) shows remorse: I realize the error of my ways and vow to become a productive member of society.
The other (without a conscience), the Left, is disappointed about not being a more successful bank robber. And vows to use more effective means in the future.
I’m exhausted with their ideas of reimagining, lawfare, weaponizing, corruption, forcing behaviors, comprehensive immigration reform, DEI, BLM, ANTIFA and government officials failure to live by the oaths they take. After all is said and done not one of these individuals will be held accountable for their actions. As soon as President Trump takes the oath the attacks and lies will start, hopefully this time his team will be ready to counter attack.
Professor Jonathan Turley wrote:
“I wrote at the time that [Yates] order was an outrageous and partisan act by Yates, who was planning on leaving in a matter of days.
. . . While I [Turley] criticized the initial Trump orders as poorly crafted (perhaps due to the lack of legal support) and in need of revision, I noted that he was likely to prevail on his claimed underlying authority. He ultimately prevailed after revising the orders.”
At the time I as a law professor also concluded that the order was probably constitution and would therefore withstand legal challenge, SEE:
PROF. JOHN BANZHAF: DONALD TRUMP’S MUSLIM IMMIGRATION FREEZE ‘CERTAINLY NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL’
https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/06/21/prof-john-banzhaf-donald-trumps-muslim-immigration-freeze-certainly-not-unconstitutional/
However, I suggested that adding at least one non-Muslim-majority county – e.g. North Korea – to the list of countries would make it more likely to be upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
That change was made and, as Turley noted, Trump “ultimately prevailed after revising the orders.”
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf
It is a shame that such a game needed to be played, but played it was and therefore you were ultimately correct.
“Whenever HE finds…for ANY REASON…”
He being the President. Any reason of course includes racism.
The fvcking language could not be any clearer.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of ANY CLASS of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
If the President FINDS that admitting aliens who have seven letter last names, and the middle letter is “z”, is detrimental, he can exclude them. Period.
He doesn’t even have to state his reasons, according to THE LAW.
Who would even have standing to challenge this LAW??? Aliens??? LMAO
“The beginning of thought is in disagreement – not only with others but also with ourselves.”
― Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind: And Other Aphorisms
To the committed Marxist (or anarchist) Trump is simply a major obstacle in the path of their effort to tear down our Constitution and our nation. They will do “whatever it takes” to accomplish their ends, whether it is “lawfare”, riots (“mostly peaceful protests”), outrageous lies and hoaxes (“Russia, Russia, Russia”) or, yes, even assassination (murder). For previously respectable institutions like Yale to harbor them and give them a platform is outrageous and seditious. It should be treated as such.
Well said Carl. Well said.
And unfortunately, The same people will not be able to admit that they are wrong ever ever ever.
The optimism I feel for the new administration doing things to clean up government is refreshing since I have spent 4 years worrying about what was happening to our country. Now, how do we fix the academia’s problems?
JGG,
“Now, how do we fix academia’s problems?”
The problems with academia are very deep. My own Alma Mater:
https://courses.cornell.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=60&coid=1121685
WTF?
To quote a revered tactical thinker: “Nuke the entire site from orbit–it’s the only way to be sure”
It’s like the academic equivalent of biological evolution. If there is an open niche, then some creature will fill it — mosquitos, leeches, assorted vermin, etc…
Fish, it’s my Alma Mater too, and the course you cite is only one of many that fill the curriculum with horsecrap. If you haven’t already, please join the Cornell Free Speech Alliance. They are making some progress.
https://cornellfreespeech.com/
OldFish- Well said. Classical line.
Or as the Romans would do. Make it a desert and call it victory.