On MSNBC’s “All In,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) doubled down on his pledge of legal retaliation against Trump officials and associates if Democrats retake power. He noted that Trump “sycophants” in the Department of Justice do not have immunity and will be pursued. The statement comes after the indictment of Letitia James for mortgage fraud. The statement suggests that the country could be in store for waves of purge politics in which parties fire or prosecute officials from the prior administration.
The comments come after the charging of Letitia James for mortgage fraud, a move widely viewed as retaliation for her own lawfare record.
On the program, Jeffries was asked about his prior threats of tit-for-tat actions against Trump supporters or enablers.
Host Chris Hayes noted, “You put a statement out in response to the news of Tish James’s indictment, in which you said, among other things, that those sycophants who aid and abet the president’s schemes will not be able to hide from serious legal consequences of their behavior. They will be held accountable. What do you mean by that?”
Jeffries responded that
“there are so many different corrupt sycophants within the Trump administration, including, but not limited to within the Department of Justice. Now, these people don’t have immunity. And the reality is the statute of limitations is five years, and there will be accountability with the next administration, if not before, when Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives.”
In the meantime, James is claiming victim status in the indictment despite being lawfare’s happiest warrior, who ran on a pledge to nail Trump if elected (without bothering to specify what that crime or offense might be). James is declaring, “I am fearless.” She is also shameless.
I have been critical of some of these cases, which followed a social media posting in which Trump chastised the Justice Department for not indicting a list of political opponents. Within days, Comey and James were indicted. That posting will feature prominently in the challenges to be filed for vindictive prosecution by both defendants. James is likely to raise the resignation of former acting U.S. Attorney Eric Siebert, who reportedly was forced out after objecting to the basis for indicting James.
Jeffries’ pledge suggests that cycles of purge politics are likely to continue unabated in this country.
Well, as Ronald Reagan noted, there you go again as you stay silent as the Justice Department is now Donald Trump’s personal lawyer-and you helped enable it. What a legacy!!
““there are so many different corrupt sycophants within the Trump administration, including, but not limited to within the Department of Justice. Now, these people don’t have immunity. And the reality is the statute of limitations is five years, and there will be accountability with the next administration, if not before, when Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives.” Jeffries is confused. He thinks the House handles prosecutions. They are the legislative branch of government. Prosecutions are in the hands of the executive branch, there is little chance that the Hate Trump agenda will sell with the American people in his lifetime.
Progressive Drivel! No facts.
A little late but:
Shabbat Shalom everyone 🙂
Have a peaceful sabbath
And peas to you.
Wish for whirled peas in our time.
Shalom
Anyone heard about the air force base in Idaho being refurbished by Qatar? Qatar will be training in Idaho at a US military base in F-15s.
I can’t take anymore of this.
OMFK, carrots also…
We have had foreign governments training in the US for many years. There was a section of Fort Bliss TX used by the German Air Force. It was still a US base. This ranks right up with ‘not a big deal.’
East or West Germany?
South!
Hakeem and company are going to freak when Trump’s last executive act is to pull a Biden and issue preemptive pardons to everyone in the country who dentifies as a Republican, and those pardons will be effective from their date of their birth to their death.
Wasn’t that understood and de facto before Biden?
The Madman in the White House will wave his orange wang…um, wand that is, and preemptive pardons will magically appear? Cute.
Yeah. White people only!
I said here months back that it was odd that most of the prosecutors going after Trump were black, Fani Willis, Bragg, James together with black politicians and I added that they weren’t doing black people any favors by having them front such absurd cases.
Now someone else has noticed. Gilbert on Bannon said that the Democrats were using black prosecutors as cannon fodder. Interesting thought. It was only a small part of a long discussion on how James may be vulnerable to more indictments. We are waiting on New York for example.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/must-see-theres-more-indictments-coming-tgps-joel
Racism and sexism fall under the Diversity umbrella. Most people do not give these bloc ideologies, party, and religion a second thought. #HateLovesAbortion
It is a duty not to engage in racism nor sexism in the US because of the law. It’s a struggle for racists to be lawful and they must rely upon duty. When they struggle but keep the law it is moral.
For another who is not racist by nature or by inclination keeping the law is not a struggle nor is duty employed. In such cases no moral work has been done. This is the reason virtue signaling has no merit .
You say, most people don’t give it a second thought? What merit is that?
Neither racism nor sexism is illegal.
Only some types of discrimination based on those or other beliefs are illegal.
As terms of reproach both racism and sexism are losing their sting because they are overused, almost entirely by Democrats who, oddly, often turn out to be racist and sexist.
Of course. They are not stupid enough to throw away the future millions in grift each democrat walks away with.
Jeffries is a Dollar Store Obama
10 seconds to demonstrate how a strict adherence to the rule of law can be a problem:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OsF1CUv7jWc
Strict adherence to the rule of law.
I like it.
So did Alexander Hamilton.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] 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
Strict adherence to the rule of law would abrogate all communist redistribution of wealth, social engineering, etc., in America.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare”—ALL” or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY “the Value of money,” “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” and “land and naval Forces.”
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Who do “principled people” support, Karl Marx or George Washington?
“Free stuff” and “free status,” or Freedom?
Not free stuff, other stuff belonging to other people that worked and paid for that stuff.
As mad-man-domi said. seize the means of production, seize private property. seize the fruit of others labor.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress determines what is for the general welfare, not me or you.
General welfare is general well being as in happy unhappy.
David Benson, what is the time difference between New York and LA?
Couple days ago you claimed it was 4 hours. Remember? Right before your arrogant a$$ told someone to learn to think.
That comment didnt age well, did it?
Arent you supposed to have been some sort of educator?
Tell me, how does someone “learn to think”. If they arent capable of thinking, can they learn anything??
You really need to double up on the Rexulti, Davey.
Pacific Time
Mountain Time
Central Time
Eastern Time
You can count those on your fingers without even using your thumb.
Yes, the time difference is 3 hours across the country.
Used to be 4 hours. 🤔
DBB 4 time zones means 3 hours difference from the first to last.
EST = UTC -5 CST = UTC-6 MST = UTC-7 PST = UTC -8
THE WHOLE – EVERY MEMBER – NOT CONFINED BY LIMITATION
Merriam-Webster
general
adjective
gen·er·al ˈjen-rəl
1: involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group
3: not confined by specialization or careful limitation
Affecting the whole?
Cops arrest criminals which is negatively applicable to criminals but positively applicable to crime victims. Does that render cops as unconstitutional because not everyone sees the same outcome?
Public education means that I don’t live with a majority who are illiterate, paying for children not my own to learn how to read, write, and perform some mathematical calculations. I rarely drive, but my taxes pay for the upkeep of roads so that food can be delivered to grocery stores.
The arguments about having to be a direct and equal benefit to every single American sound as crazed as those put forth by the Sovereign Citizen followers.
The Supreme Court of 1803 ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of 1869 ruled that because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited.
The Supreme Court of 1973 ruled that abortion was a constitutional and federal right.
Supreme Courts since Lincoln have ruled communism constitutional.
Anon– “The Supreme Court of 1803 ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.”
Only part of it.
Actually the supreme court ruled that the General Welfare clause is window dressing.
While SCOTUS has givern te federal govenrment wide latitude with respect to the extent to which it can push the explicit powers of the federal govenrment, it has NEVER found that a federal power is authorized solely by the General welfare clause.
Yet we collectively elected those people to Congress to do exactly that. It is a called a representative government. Yet we have been lied to and deceived by the politicians that promise to do one thing and once elected do something else. The problem is we keep electing the same liars, so we collectively have some culpability too.
“The problem is we keep electing the same liars, so we collectively have some culpability too.”
That problem was greatly exacerbated by the 17th A providing for the popular election of Senators. which removed a significant impediment to the Federal government trampling the rights Constitutionally reserved to the States, and the People thereof.
Alexander Hamilton could not possibly have envisioned a world where people choose to fly through the air in metal tubes with their companion animals.
It’s just as well.
Thanks for the videos, Floyd!
Real dummy here.
“Real dummy here.” A dull, empty response. There is no need to use name-calling.
Hamilton could not – But Jules Verne could.
Regardless, what has that got to do with anything ?
Please identify a single clause in the constitution which is obsoleted by techhnology ?
The purpose of governmnt has not changed. The fundimentals of the rule of law have not changed.
Murder is still murder, what was a crime 250 years ago is still a crime today.
The fundimentals of human behavior have not changed.
In Hamiltons time men routinely cross the atlantic and survived. A few hundred years early almost no one tried and those that did often died.
No. 10 seconds to demonstrate the stupidity of many laws.
What you are demonstrating is the rationale behind the categorical imperative.
Make no law that can not be applied universally.
If we don’t hold our own side to account like we hold the Democrats, we are not principled people. And one unprincipled person is as bad as another.
There is too much looking back at the Dems, who DID suck, and not enough demanding that our side hold to its own principles.
You bring up an interesting point, and I believe it’s the same one that S. Meyer brought up in a response to me this morning. Does our side use a scorched earth policy to prevent harm from the other side, which would involve perhaps breaking norms? The difference between breaking norms and breaking laws is crucial. Nobody’s suggesting our side acts outside of what is legally permitted.
In my view, we have reached a point where the fullest measures within the law should indeed be used to prevent the wholesale destruction of society by the Left. There has to be tit-for-tat. Otherwise we will lose everything to their insatiable appetite for power. The Dems have to be taught that whatever they do, will be done to them (again, within the bounds of the law).
About tit-for-tat:
Back in the 1980s Robert Axelrod wrote a book called The Evolution of Cooperation. I read it in the early 1990s, and there was one chapter I still remember. A group of computer scientists was invited to a convention to simulate their own programs against those of the other computer scientists in a competitive, punishment-or-friendly-treatment kind of game. Through that experimentation it was determined that a “tit-for-tat” strategy had the best outcome in terms of convincing both sides to cooperate and forestalling attacks on one’s own side. This included both friendly and hostile gestures toward one’s competitors (he developed that it was just this tit-for-tat idea that led many soldiers during WWI trench warfare to disobey orders from their commanders and purposely miss when charging the enemy’s trench, which was followed by the enemy extending the same courtesy to them; he had other examples but that one stayed with me).
@oldman
Double dip, my friend. Yes, but what else do you do? Just get steamrolled? I very much agree with the Professor that we live in an age of rage and uncommon contentiousness, to the point of fatal violence. I know it isn’t the first time, but it is very much the first time that modern tools outpace the time required for logic or temperance. Honest question: what else do you do in the face of that except try to turn the tide, particularly when many of the proponents of insanity have no earthly idea they are in fact, insane?
James – as you noted, this is NOT the first time, or the 10th.
We will survive this. I think the evidence is out there – we have passed peak woke.
We have seen a shift of 5M voters from D to R in the past 4 years, and that is a trend that has been accelerating since 2008. I agree with Peter Theil – We have passed Peak woke.
The threat the left poses today is mostly that of a wounded animal. Dangerous, but still the left is slowly bleeding out.
Better still – both here and everywhere the conduct of those on the left is alienating the very people they desparately need to persuade.
We were not left uninjured. We lost ground, though Trump has gained a lot back.
Recall when there was a huge number who shifted party in the 1930s? They wanted to make their country great again. A political shift is rarely a good sign. Peter Thiel is exactly the sort of person who would have been at home in the middle of that previous movement, one he appears to be working hard to duplicate.
John, what sort of spelling and punctuation checker do you use that ignores so many really obvious errors? Even voice-to-text doesn’t f’ things up that badly.
>”There has to be tit-for-tat. Otherwise we will lose everything to their insatiable appetite for power. The Dems have to be taught that whatever they do, will be done to them (again, within the bounds of the law).”
It has nothing to do with tit-for-tat. .. and, quite frankly, I don’t think Trump is qualified to teach anybody anything? (see eg. Trump U.)
I’m not surprised you and S. Meyer would hold such views,
*as always, the answer to poor, befuddled, hateful speech is better, uplifting, loving-kindness speech .. . within the bounds of wise discretion, of course.
Trump is more than qualified, perhaps more qualified than almost any other politician.
DGS, your arguments are shallow and disconnected, lacking any coherent path of reasoning. In time, most people come to see this failure for themselves.
Ha, ha, ha!
Oh me, oh my.
Game theory.
But isn’t that why the nuclear option was withheld until Democrat Harry Reid used it?
Meyer – yes. The Dems are the ones that started bashing through norms. Case in point: sending an armed FBI raid to a former president’s private residence to supposedly look for classified information. The real reason, it has now come out, was to look for and steal incriminating evidence on themselves in relation to the Russia collusion hoax, so as to suppress that evidence.
Whatever the reason, it is a prime example of how in the age of Trump the Dems have cast all norms aside. They have set the precedent for virtually anything the GOP and Trump do in return – which, again, they should.
Omfk the left must kill God or leave only alla . They must change history by rewriting it via computer. Spain must be the North American Victor and not England.
They’re liars. We know who their father is. He’s a liar, too.
All you need to know.
Kansas Elder — ICE agents are behaving legally? Look again, please.
Professor – they are enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress. If you think they are breaking the law, and can explain how, I’m all ears.
Kansas Elder — See The New York Times articles about ICE excesses.
Same New York Times that is saying the prosecution of James for mortgage fraud is plainly racism? Those aren’t her signatures on those documents and she DID live in that home and DIDN’T rent it out which was forbidden?
Same reliable NYT who told you for how many years that the felonious Russia Dossier was 100% verified intelligence agency evidence Trump, not Clinton, was conspiring with Russians to fix the 2016 election?
Tell us again why we should look at their history and accept the NYT as reputable?
Kansas Elder — See The New York Times articles about ICE excesses.
You LOVE to point to “articles”.
The NYT is not a “source”.
It may as well have been your next door neighbor Wilson, telling you over the backyard fence.
You make yourself a laughingstock every time you refer to them.
Kansa Elder — see
Brennan Center for Justice
americanimmigrationcoucil.org
Professor – can you name any examples of actions by ICE that broke any specific laws? I’m not going to go out of my way to research the NY Times, particularly as I don’t consider it reliable. And you didn’t link to anything.
Lmao an immigration advocate is now a good source???
Just keep digging that whole deeper davey.
And duels were conducted with shots that went high and wide as a deliberately non-lethal courtesy.
It should be self evident from what we are seeing that we are not even close to “tit-for-tat”
The strategy you described requires a playing field in which all players are approximately equal.
We do not have equality today – I noted that democrats – and to a large extent hard left democrats have take a dominant position in our institutions over the past 50 years.
I do think there is an ideological difference in the higher likelyhood of democrat misconduct than that of Republicans. But even if there was not – once Democrats marginalized Republicans in nearly all positions of power,
Every republican had to conduct their affairs EXPECTING intense scrutiny for misconduct, While democrats could ecpect to get away with everyhing short of the most egregious misconduct.
Look at what we are hearing from the left in defense of Comey and James
“Everyone does it” – and in their world that is likely true.
Those tied to democrats have had little to fear from lying under oath or on mortgage forms or from leaking.
Was Obama’s DOJ going to prosecute them ? Were the so called carreer DOJ employees going to even under Trump ? That is the reality for democrats today.
But that is NOT the reality for ordinary people.
I would note that while absent the racial overtones – this is similar to the situation in the south a century ago.
If you were white and murdered a black person – your chances of going to jail were zero.
If you were black and looked funny at a white person – you would be dead before nightfall.
I would note this too was in a world Democrats had total control.
While again for ideological reasons – the left is far more inclined to beleive the ends justifies the means,
Still whenever on perspective dominates an institution – the “tit-for-tat” approach does not work.
As Lord Acton state – Power Corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In any institution the more lopsided the distribution of power is, the more corrupt those with power will be.
Trump is not and can not possibly a threat to democracy – because outside of elected and politically appointed people, the entire executive is made up of people almost entirely on the left.
We see some small violence challenging Trumps LEGITIMATE uses of power – and alot of that challenge comes from the INSIDE. We learned this weak that Biden was surveiling Republican Senators.
Do you honestly think that Trump could get away with surveiling democrats ?
The conservatives abandoned higher education, clearly.
“We learned this weak”
“Trump is not and can not possibly a threat to democracy”
“inclined to beleive”
“likelyhood”
“democrats have take a dominant position”
I suspect that flunking out is the major problem. The examples here are rather convincing.
Wholesale destruction. Lose everything.
Those are extremist claims. That “harm” from the other side protects workers from exploitation, protects communities from being poisoned by uncaring international industry. Protects everyone from the rapacious health insurance-big pharma-corporate controlled health care complex.
Ask, why are so many workers at Walmart capped below full-time hours and sent to get food stamps? Why are mining companies allowed to abandon toxic waste dumps rather than being required to have an operational bond that would cover that cleanup if they went bankrupt? Republicans is the answer to those.
Greed, malice, racism, hate. It is rare to see any Republican policy that is not explained by one or more of those four guiding principles. I am unsure it’s the principle of all of the Republican voters, but it is 100% the principles of the billionaires who fund the Republican leaders. Recently it was exposed that Charlie Kirk was getting $2M a year from one donor, among many, to set up his tent and groom youth to do what the billionaires want them to do.
Presently Missouri Republicans are refusing to follow the Missouri Constitution in order to eliminate districts where Democrats might be elected. This leaves Democrats in Missouri, if successful, without representation. Immediately after citizen led policy changes were widely approved, the Republican leadership wrote new laws to abolish the will of the people, explaining that the citizens are fundamentally too stupid to understand what they had voted for. That is the elitism that the Republican leadership uses as false cover for their real opinions.
Structurally, your comment is worthless; over-emotional and hollow, tossing around moral labels you neither understand nor can define. With little reasoning, there’s nothing here to take seriously. You’re a victim of slogans, not of thought.
I’m not the one concerned that there will be wholesale destruction and everyone will lose everything.
Put down the crack pipe and the Everclear chaser.
With a bit more work you too can get on the propaganda gravy train that paid actor Charlie Kirk was benefiting from.
Sumone big mad
More nonsense with random words and phrases, but it is elucidating that you say you are not concerned, though we see your pants are dripping wet. Charlie Kirk used his real name, but being the coward you are, you can’t even create an alias.
That’s all any man can ask for.
*a fair hearing.
“The means ought to be proportioned to the end; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist-23
Or, to paraphrase, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Washington hung traitors – at least a dozen that we know of. Lincoln authorized reprisals against POW’s and civilians. Authoritarianism becomes inevitable in any situation where a critical mass of the population jumps on the table and demands it – we’re getting close. The winners will write the history…
Absolutely – Republicans MUST hold themselves to the same standards that they hold democrats too.
That does NOT mean letting democrats get away with criminal conduct.
Further there are many reasons to focus on Democrats.
There are far more who have held power far longer, and particularly in places where corruption is much easier.
The gradual take over of institutions in the US over the past 50 years inherently means that even if Democrats and republicans misbehave at the same rates – there will still be 20 or more times more democrat misbehavior than that of republicans.
In universities – the ratio of republicans to democrats is about 20:1 – the same is true of those in federal and state govenrment.
But the problem is worse than simple ratios. If the ratio was only 3:1 or 5:1 you would expect those with power – mostly democrats to scrutinize those out of power – mostly republicans more thoroughly, and that means far greater scrutiny of republicans for decades, and that means greater pressure to keep their noses clean.
Everything I have noted above is based on the norms of human behavior combined with known facts about the makeup of our institutions.
Nothing I have said above has an ideological foundation – though ideology – makes all of the above even worse.
Large portions of the left honestly beleives the ends justifies the means today far fewer on the right beleive the same.
You can see the evidence of this in the Collusion delusion.
Ordinary common sense should tell any rational person that Putin did not want Trump as president and that Trump would not for MANY reasons – starting with he was highly likely to get caught and that there was nothing of value Putin had to offer Trump that was worth either the cost or the risk.
Yet Hillary sold the FBI that nonsense, and the FBI – knowing it was bunk shilled it anyway.
These people either truly beleive something completely absurd, or knowingly shilled a lie for political benefit.
But flipping the script – Clinton actually had all kinds of mutually beneficial relationships with Russian and Putin.
Yes they OCCASIONALLY were in conflict over policies. But at other Clinton was getting hundreds of millions from Russian Oligarchs, brokering deals to give Russia control of 1/3 of the worlds uranium.
While it STILL would make no sense for Clinton to collude with Russian over the election – the FACT is Russia SUCKS at efforts to manipulate US elections. So even for Clinton there is no value in colluding with Russia to win the election Atleast not in a way that was different from Obama telling Medved to wait on an issue until after the election.
Regardless, despite the absurdity of the claim – the left bought and sold that lie to massive numbers of people.
Nor was that the only consequential lie the left has sold.
Might republicans do the same thing under similar circumstances ? Possibly, But we are 50 years from those circumstances. AGAIN democrats – and increasingly – left democrats dominate the institutions in this country.
Electing a republican president and congress does not significantly alter the fact that 90%+ of the federal work force is democrats, and probably 50% of them are pretty far left democrats.
Earlier today, I made a comment about Democrats substituting substance with melodramas. Lo and behold, this article showed up on zero hedge, and I went to the full article. Here is an excerpt:
Greta Thunberg: The Patron Saint Of Performance Art
Mastering the art of the recurring headline whilst sacrificing absolutely nothing.
Quoth the Raven
Oct 09, 2025
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” — Thomas Sowell
Once upon a time, Greta Thunberg lectured a bunch of people who think they are important at a climate conference and the world declared her the Joan of Arc of climate change.
“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” she barked at a room full of people she had never met before at age 16. “How dare you?”
Self-loathing liberals loved it. A 16 year old that had likely endured little, if any, actual discomfort in her life, berating them and all but telling them they were actual pieces of shit for not acting on climate change fast enough.
Whereas I would have chuckled, grabbed another free martini, and walked out, a room full of adults instead decided to canonize a teenager as the patron saint of planetary guilt.
After all, nothing says “serious policymaking” like outsourcing your conscience to a 16-year-old with a hand-painted sign and the emotional range of a fire truck siren.
https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/greta-thunberg-the-patron-saint-of
If those within the Trump administration have committed crimes – like those crimes of Comey, James, Schiff and others that hopefully are prosecuted – then democrats should seek justice against them.
The difference between the lawfare that Democrats waged and what we are seeing in the Trump DOJ is that there is more than political animus – There is ample evidence of illegal and immoral conduct by Comey – some of which will never be able to be prosecuted. The collusion delusion was more than just politics – it was a criminal abuse of power. Again one that will never be prosecuted.
Regardless, Comey is not in trouble because of his animus towards Trump. He is in trouble because he violated the law and illegally leaked information. and because he perjured himself and lied about it.
James is not in trouble because of her animus towards Trump. She is in trouble because she lied on federal forms to secure a better mortgage rate, and she did so repeatedly. It is unlikely that she will be prosecuted for her crimes in New York – but she also lied to the City of New York repeatedly to get more favorable treatment for her rental properties.
Lisa Cook also lied on federal forms to secure more favorable mortgage terms. She certainly should have resigned,
The courts ultimately are going to uphold her firing, and she may well be prosecuted and convicted.
Adam Schiff conspired with alleged whistle blowers to leak classified information – that is a crime. And he too lied of federal mortgage applications to get more favorable mortgage terms.
Making a political enemy of those currently in power does NOT provide you with immunity for criminal conduct.
If Jefferies has evidence that members of the Trump administration have actually committed crimes – they should be prosecuted – not in 4 years – but NOW.
What we do NOT want is democrats to continue to go after their political enemies trying to manufacture crimes that do not exist.
What we DO WANT is for those in power to be shining examples of lawful conduct. And when they are not to be made examples of the consequences of unlawful conduct.
John Say. Big problem. Nobody lied on their mortgage forms. Cook’s forms do not say what Trump says they do. James and Schiff don’t either. There is no evidence other than pure allegations. Bill Pulte is digging through applications and giving dirt to Trump to use for his vindictive ego.
Pulte is a well-known Trump sycophant eager to help Trump seek revenge. It’s already been shown the allegations are not supported by evidence. Pulte may find himself in legal trouble for looking through private information to use against Trumps enemies.
GeorgeX: You lying to us like James lied on her mortgage documents is not going to give you any more credibility than lying gives to James.
However, given that you have ZERO credibility here, we come back to the same question: Why do you show up here daily, lyin’ and denyin’?
Is it a sexual thing you have for Professor Turley? Or the results of Shaken Baby Syndrome.
“Nobody lied on their mortgage forms.”
In what world do you live ? James has admited that the forms are incorrectly filled out – she blames her accountants, but SHE still signed them.
BTW there are 57,000 cases of this per year. Most are settled by those who did this paying large fines.
About 4,000/year end up getting investigated by the FBI and most are subsequently prosecuted.
“Cook’s forms do not say what Trump says they do. James and Schiff don’t either. There is no evidence other than pure allegations. ”
No George – you are just making things up – this is not just Pulte – this information was dug up by people OUTSIDE of government accessing public records. James in particular has more problems than just mortgage fraud.
She has not only been lying to the City of NY – but not even lying consistently from year to year or even within the same year.
“Bill Pulte is digging through applications and giving dirt to Trump to use for his vindictive ego.”
No he is actually taking reports delivered to him by people OUTSIDE of government, checking them and then refering them to DOJ. That is actually his job. FHFA is NOT an investigative agency.
This is NOT the same as the idiotic nonsense that Lois Lerhner under Obama.
“Pulte is a well-known Trump sycophant eager to help Trump seek revenge. ”
Ignoring the inflatory rhetoric – So What ?
If Pulte’s referals to DOJ are fraudulent – that is an actual crime too – and there is a separate civil cause of action.
Have you seen either James or Cook or Schiff file a S1983 action for abuse of power under color of law ?
If Pulte is lying to DOJ – he can be prosecuted under 18 US 1001, as well as 18 U.S. Code § 242
and he can be sued civilly under S1983
I would note that the 18 USC 242 and the S1983 charges are also potential charges against James and Comey.
“It’s already been shown the allegations are not supported by evidence.”
It has ? By who ? You left wing dingbats constantly make stupid claims like that.
Has it already been shown the allegations that the Collusion delusion was a hoax are not supported by evidence ?
Has it already been shown the allegations that the Hunter Biden laptop is legitimate are not supported by evidence ?
Has it already been shown the allegations the FBI participated in J6 are not supported by evidence ?
Has it already been shown the allegations that Covid came from a lab in Wuhan are not supported by evidence ?
Has it already been shown the allegations Joe Biden was non-compis mentis are not supported by evidence ?
Has it already been shown the allegations Joe Biden was taking graft from Burisma are not supported by evidence ?
Has it already been shown the allegations James Comey lied under oath to congress are not supported by evidence ?
When you have made these stupid claims before – WHEN HAVE YOU EVER BEEN RIGHT ?
“Pulte may find himself in legal trouble for looking through private information to use against Trumps enemies.”
Make up your mind – Which is it ? Did Pulte find evidence of Fraud on “private” FHFA records ? Or did he just make this up out of thin air ? Only the latter leads to innocence on the part of all these people.
Mortgage records are filed locally with the recorder of deeds. ANYONE can go pull the mortage records for any property.
The reported information on all of this is that as James was prosecuting Trump for alleged Mortgage Fraud. Private actors decided to look into James real estate dealings. That should not surprise anyone. When you accuse someone else of something that it is possible that you could have done yourself – you should expect scrutiny.
NORMALLY I would expect MSM investigative journalists to do that. Maybe CDB/60 minutes will return to that type of journalism now that Barry Weis is in charge. But for much of the past decade the MSM has been completely incurious about any inquiry into the misdeeds of democrats. Why didn’t NYT get to the Truth regarding Biden Family Corruption in 2015 ? They had the first shot at the story ?
Regardless, today the left partisan MSM will actually look into the records of republicans – sometimes, because frankly most MSM journalists are much like YOU and it is easier to just make things up than to investigate.
Did the MSM actually go find the so called Pee Tape ? or did they just make it up ?
Did they look into FBI agents at J6 or just make it up ?
However the independent media – some left of center, some right of center – though all are increasingly portrayed as right of center – because actual investigate journalism is really just fascism according to the left.
Regardless independent Media does actually investigate these things.
The James Mortgage Fraud was in the news approximately 2 years ago. What is relevant regarding Pulte is that he took the reports of the independent media checked Records – which are PUBLIC RECORDS confirmed that Fraud had likely taken place and refered the cases to DOJ. That was NOT going to happen while Biden was president.
The examination of Schiffs mortgages took place BEFORE Trump was elected too.
Whether you like it or not – this did NOT start with Pulte. It started in the independent media.
Next why exactly is it that you think a GJ from the same district that refused to indict the sandwhich thrower would indict Comey and James ?
Do you honestly think the GJ did not demand the Federal Forms and James’s signature ?
BTW these Mortgage fraud cases are all likely to get MUCH WORSE.
Tax returns are harder to get. But it is near certain that if you claimed made a false claim regarding a home on your Mortgage application – that you continued that False claim on your Tax Return. Tax returns are harder to get – but an indictment is sufficient to get them from the IRS. There is likely to be tax fraud charges added to the Mortgage fraud charges. The financial analysts I have heard from estimate that James saved just under 10,000 in taxes and interest by misrepresenting her VA property as a primary residence. Huge amount of money ? No. But people actually go to jail for much smaller tax fraud. Tax Fraud is ALWAYS a problem when you commit other financial crimes. It is one of the reasons that we KNOW that there was no actual fraud in Trump’s loans from DB – because the Biden IRS would have been happy to go after Trump for Tax fraud if there had been any.
But the fact is there was no fraud.
The only “lack of evidence” is with respect to Trump.
To the extent those of you on the left are the TINEST bit correct about the mortgage fraud claims against James, Cook and Schiff – most such claims are never prosecuted – what DOES happen is that large fines and back taxes and penalties are paid and the whole thing goes away quietly. The government wants MONEY from people who commit these types of fraud – and they usually get 10 times the amount of the actual fraud when they catch you.
They only send people to jail when they do not respond by paying up.
But YES people go to jail for exactly this type of mortgage fraud.
In what world do you think anyone beleives you ?
Having done some further research – the Indictment against James is NOT for claiming her VA property as her primary residence – it is for claiming a Rental Property as a residence to get a lower mortgage.
While she did lie on the federal form claiming that the property was a primary residence.
She also lied claiming it was a RESIDENCE.
This is an even more significant issue. The down payment required for a residence is much lower than for a rental property, The tax treatment of a residential mortgage is different from a residential mortgage.
While the evidence is that she lied on various forms – the CRIME is BANK FRAUD.
On her income taxes she reported this property as a rental property.
But she asked for and received a residential not commercial mortgage on the property.
the allowed LTV on a residential property is higher and the interest rate is lower – because people default on commercial properties more frequently than primary residences.
I would further not to those claiming Halligan is incompetent – while she is not likely to be there when this is finally prosecuted, she is an insurance lawyer – this is right up her alley. She is likely more qualified to make judgements on this case than other DOJ attorney’s.
“The tax treatment of a residential mortgage is different from a residential mortgage.”
“than other DOJ attorney’s.”
Increasingly unhinged.
Where is that commenter who did limericks here? What’s her name, geeesh I am getting old. Anyway, so I tried my hand at a limerick, again:
Po-Sewer???
There once was a dude named Hakeem,
Whose sombrero turned into a meme-
But under the hat,
He was all full of scat –
Just a poseur and cad, it would seem.
His end would be this
come from that…
Dear Prof Turley,
Correct me If I’m wrong. Other than in passing, I haven’t noticed any articles or media appearances where you have been critical of Trump’s numerous, explicit promises of ‘political purges’ .. . and other ‘unforced errors’?
>”I have been critical of some of these cases, which followed a social media posting in which Trump chastised the Justice Department for not indicting a list of political opponents. Within days, Comey and James were indicted.” ~ Turley
Do tell. I’m also particularly concerned about Trump’s use of the military to enforce domestic ‘criminal law’ .. . and foreign ‘rules of engagement’, such as they are.
Presently, Jefferies et al do not control any of the levers of U.S. power. Moreover, their veracity and competence with ‘political purges’ in the past, when they did control the power of government .. . is quite obviously flawed.
*After all .. . “WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.” ~ story
“I haven’t noticed any articles or media appearances where you have been critical of Trump’s numerous, explicit promises of ‘political purges’ .. . and other ‘unforced errors’?”
Dear dgsnowden/Karen: there’s more than a few people who roll their eyes when Trump just has to deviate from winning on so many election platform agenda items to take the time to run his mouth and give the Democrats who have nothing something they can cry in fear of. In the real world, there is an enormous difference between what somebody says to troll Democrats, the media (and Karens) and what they actually do or don’t do.
Now, if you have actual evidence of a political purge going on, where there was no criminality occurring that justifies a Grand Jury agreeing to indict – like Comey’s repeated felonies of perjuring himself under oath or James’ falsifying mortgage documents – be good enough to share your evidence of what is happening to have you so desperately clutching your Karen pearls.
Nothing?
Well then, as you are apparently stricken with horror at supposedly seeing the military engaged in criminal law enforcement activities: give us a round number on how many Illegal Aliens the military has hunted down and arrested while enforcing existing immigration laws.
You DO know the difference between guarding and protecting federal property and employees there, versus going out to find criminals and arrest them, don’t you?
Trump has not been winning.
The billionaires behind Project 2025 who use Trump as their puppet have been winning.
Anyway, just fired 1000 researchers from CDC. He did a smaller purge the first time to cut down on US observers in Wuhan and eliminate the White House Pandemic management team, just before Covid was allowed to kill around 1 million Americans at a rate that was far higher than almost every country in the world.
There appears to be a plan to illegally divert funds from the DoD R&D budget to pay military personnel, a move that could be avoided by a quick band-aid in Congress; the ones responsible for the purse string. However to do that Johnson would need to bring the House into session, which would mean swearing in the Rep who is going to cast the deciding vote leading to the full publishing of the Epstein files. Trump would rather go and do something fully unconstitutional and illegal than allow that replacement Rep to be sworn in.
Turley is not paid to be critical of Trump.
It’s long been proven by Game Theory that the only effective strategy against opponents who cheat is Tit For Tat. When they cheat, then we do the same. When they behave honestly, then we do the same.
The Democrats for ten straight years have cheated in every way against Trump and his supporters. Now that we have the proof of their crimes, is Turley joining the Dems in arguing that prosecuting those crimes is somehow wrong behavior, because they are of the opposing Party?
Dems fabricated a mortgage fraud indictment against Trump for what is not a crime; now that there is proof of multiple mortgage fraud crimes by James, Tit For Tat is only fair.
I wish Turley would make clear his opinion of prosecuting all the perpetrators of the Russia hoax; of the weaponization of the Justice and Intelligence departments; of those who spied without warrants on citizens and office holders, and then lied to Congress about it. Come on, Turley, where do you really stand?
Republicans aren’t cheating. They are enforcing the law.
How much money did DJT borrow using Mar a lago as collateral? Do you know?
>”They are enforcing the law”
There have been approximately 420 federal lawsuits against the Trump administration so far, and they’ve only been in power for 9 months.
92 of those lawsuits, iirc, have been adjudicated and are awaiting appeal.
Afaict, the SCOTUS will be the final arbitrator on whether, or not, Trump/Republicans are ‘enforcing the law’.
*special note. criticism of President Trump is not the same thing as support for past presidents.
“There have been approximately 420 federal lawsuits against the Trump administration so far, and they’ve only been in power for 9 months.”
WELL THEN! That many lawsuits carefully brought before carefully selected Democrat controlled judges must be proof! Of something…
Maybe the desperate thrashing of defeated Democrats hoping the courts are willing to let them handcuff the Trump administration with BullSchiff as they did during his first term? I.e. “the Russia Dossier”?
Odd that with all the outrage towards Obama over Obamacare and his race baiting policies that just a fraction of that number of Republicans and Republican groups rushed to the courtrooms with lawsuits.
Republicans aren’t as easily outraged as Democrats?
Or perhaps they don’t believe in using corrupt judges to try and stop a presidency as Democrats are doing, now that they can’t try another ‘Russia Dossier’ to try sinking Trump’s presidency as they did the last time.
A sentient normal American would find it incredibly suspicious that, since the vast majority of Trump’s actions these relate to are in force nationwide, it smells of judicial corruption that the vast majority of these hundreds of federal lawsuits are brought in just a handful of specifically selected courtrooms in specific cities.
A sentient normal American would ask themselves why is there not a random distribution of these lawsuits throughout all the approximately 200 circuit court judges distributed throughout the 13 circuits if there is actual harm being done to all Americans. Rather than the vast majority being brought to specifically chosen courtrooms. Judge Boasberg for example, of FISA fame, where he repeatedly allowed FBI Directors and Obama Attorney Generals to repeatedly perjure themselves in his courtroom without penalty – but instead to be rewarded with fraudulent spy warrants.
Do you see a glimmer of a historical pattern here in these Democrat lawsuits and the carefully chosen judges they bring them to?
In fact, Karen, a sentient normal American might think that this rush to bring hundreds of federal lawsuits to carefully selected courts where the overwhelming number of judges are appointees of Obama and Biden, is indicative of these lawyers using corrupt Democrat judges willing to use their courtrooms as a venue for judicial insurrection.
*special note: going into willfully blind hysterics does not pass muster as impartial criticism.
dgsnowden – of the lawsuits against Trump several very large handfuls have been won at the lower court level.
That is not common – there is excellent efforts at venue shopping and judge shopping going on.
But even the DC court of appeals has thrown out a bit less than half the cases it has gotten against Trump actions.
At the Supreme court – Trump now has 21 consequitive victories – some are 6-2 but many are 7-2, or 8-1 or 9-0.
Further many of these cases result dozens of lower court cases. SCOTUS has made it much harder for lower courts to issue nationwide TROs – I beleive all or nearly all of those are gone now.
Most of the illegal immigration cases have been kicked back to habeus claims in the district where the illegal alien is being detained. The burden of proof in a habeaus claim is on the illegal alien – not the government.
The government merely comes in and provides the deportation order and the proof that the plantiff (in a habeaus motion the govenrment is the defendant), is the person named in the order. Most deportation habeaus cases do not even involve a hearing.
I would further note that Trump is not using the military to enforce criminal law – he is using the National Guard – which is State Militia’s not Federal Military, to provide ICE/CBP protection from violence or to protect federal property. This is much the same as the NG was called in to Little Rock to allow Black Children to attend white public schools. Their role was not law enforcement but the protection of people and proprty.
That isn’t how my dad taught me. After applying geometric logic to prove I’d cheated, he spilled the board game pieces back into the box and walked away. That was no fun, so I didn’t do that again.
Here is my nominee for the Golden FAFO Award of 2025:
Sooo, this German lady, the mayor of a small town, adopted a girl and a boy from Africa – and:
On Oct. 7, at 12:05 p.m., Stalzer’s daughter called emergency services saying her mother had been attacked by several men, was severely injured and was barely conscious.
A witness off the street found the politician bleeding in her armchair in the living room. Later, the adopted daughter told police that was also how she found her mother.
However, despite claims of “several men” torturing the mother, it turns out this was reportedly an orchestrated lie to cover up the horror that had occurred inside the house. Police have since learned that the mother was subjected to grueling torture for hours in the basement of the house.
The suspect attacked Stalzer with deodorant spray and a lighter, trying to set her hair and clothes on fire. The adopted daughter said she wanted revenge; however, it is still remains unclear what she wanted to take revenge for.
The adopted daughter also had two kitchen knives, which she used to stab and slice the politician’s body. Stazler faced critical injuries, including 13 stab wounds.
One of the bloody knives was also found in the 15-year-old adopted son’s backpack, along with bloody clothing from the daughter. The other knife was also found in his room.
Police investigators also found that large traces of blood were scrubbed from the scene, which were later revealed by the police forensics team.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/german-mayor-tortured-hours-basement-her-own-adopted-daughter-leaked-police-docs-show
more from the link:
Bild wrote that police sources believe the mother was sitting in her armchair for a long time, bleeding out, while the two alleged suspects cleaned the house of crime scene evidence.
Numerous German media outlets, including Spiegel, also reported that police were called to the house not so long before this latest attack during the summer. In that case, the daughter was accused of domestic violence and threatening the mother with a knife.
The case is not only unbelievable due to the details, but also due to the prosecutor’s response to the entire affair.
Instead of an attempted murder charge or charges for evidence tampering or even torture, which is also illegal in Germany, there is no arrest warrant being issued at all.
The prosecutor alleges that because the daughter called the police, it is clear that she did not want to commit murder. Instead, they are only investigating the case as “bodily harm.”
Across X, commentators, influencers, and users are speculating about the case, pointing out the extreme double standard in modern Germany. Austrian right-wing political activist Martin Sellner wrote that Germans are being imprisoned for memes, while the daughter in this case will never appear before a court for her alleged heinous crimes. He wrote that it is clearly a case of “two-tier” justice.
I think it was Young, here, who called the Nobel a bauble – Just FWIW, remember when Barack Obomba won the Nobel???
Many were critical of the Nobel Committee. A Wall Street Journal editorial, noting Obama’s comment that the world’s problems “can’t be met by any one leader or any one nation”, opined, “What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called ‘American exceptionalism’. This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary. Put in this context, we wonder if most Americans will count this peace-of-the-future prize as a compliment.”[23]
The Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson wrote that the committee members “have forfeited any claim to seriousness. Peace—the kind of peace that keeps people from being killed and oppressed—is an achievement, not a sentiment. … Intending to honor Obama, the committee has actually embarrassed him.”[29] Commentary magazine’s Peter Wehner wrote that the award, with past awards that seemed aimed at criticizing the Bush administration, showed the Nobel Committee “long ago ceased to be a serious entity; this choice merely confirms that judgment.”[30]
According to The Washington Post news analyst Dan Balz, “[E]ven among his supporters there was a sense of surprise and even shock on Friday [the day of the announcement], a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability.”[31] An editorial in The Washington Post began, “It’s an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree”, and compared the Nobel Committee’s statement that Obama had “created a new climate in international politics” to a recent satirical skit on television.[24] A Los Angeles Times editorial said the committee “didn’t just embarrass Obama, it diminished the credibility of the prize itself”.[22] Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times wrote, “It dismays me that the most important prize in the world has been devalued in this way”.[25]
Much of the commentary across the political spectrum involved describing the award as something risible, with the humor focusing on Obama’s getting the award without having accomplished much. According to an analysis in The New York Times, “it … [is] striking how so many people seemed to greet the Nobel news with shock followed by laughter”.[32] On the morning of the announcement, several of The Washington Post’s opinion-page columnists, posting at the newspaper’s “Post Partisan” blog, characterized the award as laughable or directly satirized it, including such supportive columnists as Ruth Marcus (“ridiculous—embarrassing, even”),[33] Richard Cohen (who satirized the award),[34] and foreign-affairs columnist David Ignatius (“goofy” and “weird”),[35] and Michael Kinsley (whose satirical response came the next day).[36] Other prominent commentators who often supported Obama but responded with ridicule included Peter Beinart[37] and Ann Althouse.[38]
James Taranto wrote in The Wall Street Journal an article summarising various opinions on the Internet, concluding how the award was embarrassing for Obama. He said the award was a “staggeringly premature honor – the equivalent of a lifetime-achievement Oscar for a child star” and that it “makes yesterday’s satire into today’s news”.[39] Fred Greenstein, presidential historian and author and professor of politics emeritus at Princeton University, told Fox News that giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is a “premature canonization” and an “embarrassment to the Nobel process”.[40] Slate magazine blogger Mickey Kaus,[41] The New York Times columnist David Brooks[42] and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton[43] amongst others, called for Obama to not accept the award; pundit Michael Crowley argued that it was a “mixed blessing”.[44]
Subsequent to the award many Americans now consider that Obama did not deserve it in the light of following events.[20][45] Opponents of the award cite the expansion of the War on Terror and the large increase in the number of drone strikes carried out under Obama, specifically in Pakistan.[46][47] There have been a number of calls for Obama to either return the award or to have the Nobel Committee recall it, most recently in 2013.[48] In April 2013 a petition was begun asking the Nobel Committee to rescind the Peace Prize. The petition garnered 10,000 signatures in its first day and nearly 20,000 by the end of its first week.[48][49]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize#Selection_and_announcement
Political purges are nothing new in this country. IMO Holder and Jack Smith went after Bob McDonald to keep him from running for the Senate against an incumbent Democrat.
It simply defies logic what the greedy D branders of the senate are trying to push . They wont vote for a Clean CR until they get their grift for their most devout lot. The failed ACA subsidies were temporary…time to stop kicking that failed can down the road. And that the D branders even dare to commit more healthcare slush fund bucks to cover the schemes that pay for illegals free care is just the nail in the coffin. Trump warned them this was a no go , he also warned them he can and will axe federal employees permanently if they persist in this grift. And here we are my friends , Russ Vought is taking heads and shrinking the bloated fed farce. They were warned and now they reap the poop schumer whirlwind !.
@PHERGUS berger: To clarify your statement with a little more accuracy, “They wont vote for a Clean CR”; the CR is being held from the floor of the US Senate by the Democrat Senators with a “filibuster” using the administrative Rules of the Senate (roughly equivalent of that organization’s “Roberts Rules of Order”) where 60 votes may be required to allow an action to be SEEN on the floor. Currently, this procedural “filibuster” is not allowing even discussion, much less votes. Right now, it has nothing to do with “wont vote”, it is raising a barrier to legislative democracy.
PaulPindar,
the Dems and what they want in order to advance this CR is something like this:
You and your spouse go into your bank to ask for an extension on your mortgage. while you’re there, your spouse chimes in with, “Oh, and can we get aloan to buy a car too?”
Would any reputable bank actually agree to that? I think not.
The reason for this extension is because the Republicans effectively quit their job. They decided that the wealthy individuals should not pay for the National Defense that disproportionately defends their businesses overseas. Return the tax rates to the 1955 rates when America was an economic steam roller with 80-90% on the top segments and one will find more than enough to pay for healthcare because it also included industry-building tax exemptions. Instead the Republicans gave billionaires and big corporations tax breaks, allowing them to invest in building production in China.
Wait until you notice that Mike Johnson has refused to bring many bills to the House floor for a vote, ones with bipartisan support, because he is afraid of exposing which Republicans are against helping Red state voters. Recall that McConnell held off bringing any Supreme Court nominee to the Senate for nearly 1/4th of Obama’s second term because “the election is too close” but then did a fast-forward on the next one for Trump.
Yet we thought the filibuster was great when we used it. What children the right has become…
What children the right has (sic) become…
your English grammar is like that of a 4th grader