Below is my column in The Hill on Kamala Harris and her “bad ideas” podcast. Harris was previously said to favor packing the Supreme Court, but the podcast appears to be part of the effort of many in the Democratic Party to condition voters to an emerging radical agenda on the left.
Here is the column:
On Thursday, former Vice President Kamala Harris posted a livestream on the “Win with Black Women” podcast to call for a “no bad idea brainstorm” for the Democratic Party. She used that pretense to “throw out there” the idea that Democrats should make radical constitutional and political changes as soon as they retake power.
That includes packing the Supreme Court, admitting Puerto Rico and D.C. as states and killing the Electoral College.
All of these items have been previously raised by liberal professors and pundits as a way to circumvent small-D democratic processes in order to guarantee power for the big-D Democrats for years to come.
It was a telling rationalization. The Democratic Party has become a party of moral and political relativism, embodied in the popular “by any means necessary” mantra used by many on the left today.
But there are bad ideas, just as there are bad people who want to win at any cost.
For some, Harris herself showed the existence of truly bad ideas by accepting the position as Biden’s Border Czar as roughly ten million people poured into the country. Another bad idea was her selection of Tim Walz as a running mate before his series of rake-steps.
Indeed, her sudden surprise nomination was a bad idea, one that cost $1.5 billion in just 15 weeks and led to one of her party’s most crushing losses in decades.
The worst idea, however, is to celebrate our 250th anniversary by destroying the very institutions and values that created the most successful and stable democracy in history.
In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss lawyers and law professors who rationalize the trashing of the Constitution and our institutions to achieve their political goals. I debated one Harvard law professor who rattled off a list of Democratic proposals for our system, but then added that the left would need first to take control of the Supreme Court. It was an acknowledgment that the court would likely declare some or all of the proposals unconstitutional.
I previously wrote about the rise of “the new Jacobins” — influential figures who are seeking to dismantle our system after facing judicial and political setbacks. Even the dean of Berkeley Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote a book titled “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
Now, leading Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have declared the Supreme Court “illegitimate” and called for a “massive” overhaul of both state and federal courts to make them submit to Democrats’ demands. This was Jeffries’ reaction to the Virginia Supreme Court’s rejection of Democrats’ effort to wipe out Republican representation in Virginia.
He is not the only one adding bad ideas to Harris’s wish list. Various politicians and pundits called for the sacking and packing of the Virginia Supreme Court. By lowering the mandatory age for retirement to 54, they would simply force out all of the current justices and replace them with rubber-stamp liberal appointees.
If this sack-and-pack scheme is not enough, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, reminded citizens that, under the state constitution, they could scrap the entire Virginia government over the refusal to let Democrats gerrymander the state. (Elias is infamous for his role in the secret funding of the Steele Dossier to launch the debunked Russian collusion scandal).
It did not matter that even a justice appointed by former Democratic governor Mark Warner found the move unconstitutional, or that Democratic figures like Gov. Abigail Spanberger believed that it could be overturned.
The X posting was only the latest effort to throw out some “bad ideas” to an increasingly radical movement on the left.
When I and others flagged Elias’s posting as alarming, he criticized me for taking him to task for merely quoting the state Constitution. It was typical of the “Who, me?” response of establishment figures when confronted for pandering to the most radical political elements in the Democratic Party.
It is like responding to an adverse World Trade Organization trade ruling by invoking Congress’s power to declare war. It is a rather extreme reaction.
Yet, it is all part of the effort to normalize extreme measures and condition American voters to fundamentally changing our system. Harris calls it her “expanded playbook.”
Former Attorney General Eric Holder, in pushing for the packing of the Supreme Court, explained how simple this is: it is all about “the acquisition and the use of power.”
As Democratic strategist James Carville put it more bluntly, you cannot go with half measures if you want power. You just have to say “f–k it … just do it.”
Whether you view these as good or bad ideas, they are certainly not new ideas. These are the same voices that have plagued our system for generations; the siren calls for unleashing forms of direct democracy and removing moderating influences in our system.
The Framers sought to create a system that would avoid the pattern of earlier democracies becoming tyrannies, including Athens. James Madison famously wrote, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”
The Framers rejected more direct democratic systems to blunt the impulses and passions that destroyed other systems. They wanted to avoid democracy becoming what Benjamin Rush called a “mobocracy.”
The American Constitution was a rejection of the “bad ideas” that politicians (called demagogues in Ancient Greece) have historically used to marshal the power of the mob.
They did not want an “expanded playbook” designed to secure and retain power for one party. We were the first true Enlightenment Revolution based on the protections of rights derived not from the government but from God.
Now that was a good idea.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The last line of Prof. Turley’s otherwise perfect pitch defense of constitutionalism needs a little more explanation:
“We were the first true Enlightenment Revolution based on the protections of rights derived not from the government but from God.”
The revolution was an exercise in practical politics of the newfangled UK under a shaky single monarchy, which managed to unify the nations of the British Isles while leaving the American colonies completely in an extralegal limbo, no longer protected by the rights traditionally accorded to Englishmen.
Trump’s $1.8 Billion Grievance Fund
In announcing the fund, which critics say is geared toward benefiting Trump’s political allies with taxpayer dollars, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense lawyer, said the government “should never be weaponized,” and the DOJ is aiming to “make right the wrongs that were previously done.”
The DOJ’s announcement, which said there are no partisan requirements to file a claim, didn’t specify who exactly would get money from the fund.
However, the DOJ made it clear the fund would be heavily controlled by the president and his attorney general.
The attorney general will choose five commissioners to run the fund, one of them “in consultation with congressional leadership.” The president may remove any commissioner he wants, with a replacement chosen the same way the person he dismisses was chosen.
Trump said on May 18 that the five people will be “talented” and “highly respected.”
Asked whether he or his family will personally be seeking money from the fund, Trump left the possibility open.
“It’ll all be dependent on a committee,” Trump said at a press conference held on the White House grounds May 18.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/05/18/donald-trump-drops-irs-lawsuit/90141153007/
…………………………………
KEY PASSAGE ABOVE:
“..acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense lawyer, said..”
****
Blanche is the ‘acting Attorney General’ until he proves he’ll aggressively pursue Trump’s political enemies. Oh and Blanche, like Pam Bondi before him, is Trump’s former defense attorney. So Blanche can appreciate Trump’s grievances. Yes sir, Blanche will be a good steward of this fund.
Amazing how much Spin you left wing nuts can put on something.
The funding settles a 10B lawsuit against the IRS for leaking Trumps; tax return.
Leaking a tax return is a serious crime and there is zero doubt Trump would win that case.
The only question would be the amount of damages awarded.
But the amount likely would have been high.
So Trump is foregoing personally receiving 1.7B in order to compensate OTHERS who were targeted by the government.
Your post seems to claim that the money was conjured out of nowhere.
Is the fund geared towards trump’s political allies – certainly – it is Democrats who weaponized the power of the federal government to go after political enemies.
But if you have an actual democrat who was illegitimately targeted – they are eligable too.
Of course DOJ is not going to say who will get money from the fund – that is not known.
You have to apply and your claim must be reviewed and approved.
All unspent money in the fund will be returned to Treasury.
“However, the DOJ made it clear the fund would be heavily controlled by the president and his attorney general.”
No they did not. Completely the opposite.
Claims will be reviewed by commissioners – this is no different from how the rest of government works
That said – Trump is president – any president can excercise personal control over anything that any part of the executive may legitimately do. None other than Thomas Jefferson personally supervised on a daily basis the unsuccessful political prosecution of a political rival.
Presidents may remove anyone in the federal government they wish – that is constitutional – and SCOTUS has been systematically returning to the original meaning of the constitution on that for several decades Both Obama and Biden won cases restoring their power to fire people in the executive branch.
“Asked whether he or his family will personally be seeking money from the fund, Trump left the possibility open.”
Trump and his family had their oportunity – instead of creating this fund – they could have just settled the case with the IRS for 1.7B paid directly to them.
Trump and the Trump family are FUNDING this commission with Their own money. That is why this does not have to go through congress.
You can not like this – but Trump could have settled for 10B to himself. He could have settled for 1.7B and started a private organization to compensate victims of government political abuse.
In this case the funds remain with the government until a valid claim is adjudicated and any unspent funds are returned to Treasury.
Regardless, the Fund is from Money being paid to Trump and his family to settle a serious claim against the IRS from criminal conduct and resulting damages.
This is a GIFT to other people from the Trump family.
Blanche is acting attorney general until he is confirmed by the senate.
Bondi was NOT a former Trump defense attorney.
Blanche is NOT the steward of the Funds – the committee is.
Absolutely people like John Eastman, Tina Peters, Gen Flynn, Carter Page, George Papadolis and myriads of others that left wing nuts tried to ruin via purely political lawfare should be atleast compensated for the costs they incurred fighting politically weaponized government.
Congress should fund something like this permanently.
Trump can only do this temporarily and only with funds he would otherwise have personally received.
John Say you are WRONG!
Pam Bondi was, indeed, Trump’s attorney. Here’s an A I summary:
……………
Pam Bondi served as the United States Attorney General in the Trump administration from February 2025 until President Trump fired her in April 2026. She previously served as Florida’s Attorney General and acted as a longtime personal attorney to Trump, including defending him during his first impeachment
Bondi was a prominent member of Donald Trump’s defense team during his first Senate impeachment trial in 2020 and supported efforts contesting the 2020 election results.
…………………………
John Say, there are so many other discrepancies in what you wrote, that one scarcely has time address them all.
“ Of course DOJ is not going to say who will get money from the fund – that is not known.
You have to apply and your claim must be reviewed and approved.
All unspent money in the fund will be returned to Treasury.
“However, the DOJ made it clear the fund would be heavily controlled by the president and his attorney general.”
No they did not. Completely the opposite.”
Because you say so?
The Trump DOJ is going to do what Trump wants them to do. The DOJ is not credible or independent enough to be trusted.
Any “approvals” will be mere rubber stamping to maintain the illusion of sticking to procedure.
“ Trump and the Trump family are FUNDING this commission with Their own money. That is why this does not have to go through congress.”
The conflict of interest is massive. Trump is a convicted felon with 34 counts of falsifying documents. He’s a known scammer.
You just have to look at all the scams he runs. Trump’s gold phone? It’s been over a year and the phone is supposed to be made in the USA. It’s made in China.
Making excuses for Trump’s corruption is the now the norm.
What’s even worse is that Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was utter BS–he would lose. It was the job of the DOJ to DEFEND the United States against this lawsuit and to protect our Treasury against unwarranted payouts for frivolous lawsuits. The judge set a deadline of Monday, May 18, to brief the issue of just how Trump wasn’t both the Plaintiff and Defendant. He was the nominal Plaintiff, but he controls the DOJ and has to approve any settlement, so he is also the defacto Defendant. The case was poised to be dismissed on this ground, and Blanche KNEW he couldn’t defend it, so Trump commanded that it be settled before briefing, and Blanche, like the bootlicking syncophant he is, “settled” the case. Even if the issue of Trump v. Trump were to somehow succeed against dismissal, just HOW was Trump damaged to the tune of nearly 1.8 Billion? He got back into office, which he is using to enrich himself. He wasn’t damaged. The case could NOT have been won on the merits, but nothing Trump does is on the merits or in the best interests of the American people. Blanche should lose his law license, as should Bondi. This is utterly disgraceful.
The IRS employee that leaked was convicted of a crime and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The original award was 10 billion. That is not a number the court picked out of thin air, it is a mathematical equation $250,000 per occurrence. (The Taxpayer Data Protection Act increases the maximum fine for unauthorized disclosure of tax information to $250,000 per occurrence).
This Biden clown not only leaked Trump’s taxes but 400 other Trump associates. The people he leaked it to leaked it to others making more occurrences and those added up to the $10 billion.
Trump could have taken the whole $10 billion for himself but he didn’t. He only took 1.776 billion (note the figure is 1776). He will have a fund set up to pay people that were harmed by the Biden administration’s unconstitutional, illegal and criminal activities. Trump himself will get ZERO money. Trump doesn’t even take the Presidential salary other than $1 dollar because by law the president has to be paid. The Democrats are lying and fools like you are buying it.
Learn the truth here.
Revisiting Dems’ endless list of scams and schemes: Carl Higbie
https://youtu.be/3tUHD8CEIpE
TLDR “The Democrats are lying”
No, Anonymous, Trump could NOT have taken all that money himself. No court ever approved that settlement. This was Trump dealing directly with his own Justice Department headed by his former attorney
There was never any AWARD–Trump was both the named Plaintiff and defacto Defendant, a point raised by the Judge, who ordered briefing by Monday, May 18, as to WHY the case shouldn’t be dismissed because Trump was both the Plaintiff and Defendant. So, Trump commanded the settlement to avoid dismissal on the merits.
What you are repeating is pure MAGA spin. The ones who are lying are Trump and MAGA media. AND all of the January 6 prosecutions were valid. Trump fans DID attack police officers and seriously injured some of them, they did break past police barricades, smash doors and windows and trash the Capitol building. Some were convicted, and some pleaded guilty. Should the Biden DOJ just ignore the assaults on police officers and millions of damage they did to the Capitol? The J6 insurrectionists are NOT victims. What they did was wrong, based on a big, fat lie from Trump. For US taxpayer money to be stolen and paid to criminals without Congressional approval and all on the whims of Trump, is beyond unbelievable. Trump has profited plenty by lying his way into office this time, promising no new wars, lower grocery and energy prices. Just look at all of the stock purchases–he is benefitting from the war he decided to launch.
An independent review by legal experts concluded that this lawsuit is a total sham. It has no legal merit whatsoever and would have been dismissed because the judge ordered the government to brief the issue of how Trump wasn’t both the plaintiff and defendant. The brief was due Monday, so Blanche “settled” the case in the nick of time because he KNEW he would lose. That should cost him his law license.
The “settlement” included language that would bar the IRS from going after Trump, his family and companies for tax evasion or any other wrongdoing. Of course, this scam of a lawsuit had nothing to do with Trump cheating on his taxes, so why would that be included as a settlement term other than the fact that Trump demanded it? There is no limit to his grift.
Also, Trump or his alter ego (Blanche) , would appoint a panel to determine how to dole out our money, how much to give out, and there would be no review of their decisions and no published standards. Members of the panel could be removed for any reason or no reason on the whim of Trump or Blanche, without any right of review. Vance refused to rule out that Trump campaign donors could receive some of our tax dollars.
How is this anything other than a taxpayer-funded slush fund Trump can use to reward his fans for committing crimes and incentivizing more crimes, all without any oversight or accountability? He has already pardoned the J6 insurrectionists, which is a slap in the face to the Capitol Police and members of Congress who the Capitol Police protected despite being beaten and battered on orders from Trump.
Blanche, as acting attorney general, has a fiduciary duty to protect our tax dollars from sham claims. He should be disbarred. There is no excuse for failing to fight for the taxpayers.
The Constitution says that Congress solely determines how our tax dollars are spent. Why won’t Republicans stand up to King Donald and do their statutory duty to protect our tax money from being stolen by Trump via a sham lawsuit?
Gee, starting to look like lunatic dems trampling others rights isn’t the panacea they thought it would be.
WHAT RIGHTS? There is no right to break past police barricades, to smash doors and windows or to assault police officers.
Kamalala is brilliant, one must admit.
Was it a bad idea for Kamalala to have relations with Willie Brown?
I mean it was crucial for her “career development,” right?
Yeah, right, loser.
Black woman = slut.
We’d expect nothing more from a Trumper.
She claimed being Indian. ANON=LOSER
Or ANON=SLUT? ha ha ha ha ha
Her mother was an Indian. Her father was Jamaican. Why do you believe and repeat MAGA lies and attacks?
Uh, oh, looks like the facts hit a nerve!
Oh, and Willie was a man married with children, so Kamalala actually pulled a Two-Fer, so to speak.
What FACTS? MAGA lies. And you can try to divert attention away from Trump’s failures and corruption all you want by repeating lies about Kamala Harris but it’s not working. Trump keeps dropping in the polls.
The poster did not say that Kamala was black. In fact until it was beneficial for her politically she identified as indian.
Regardless the poster did NOT make any claims about any groups.
Nor did he actually claim that Kamala was a slut.
But without any doubt at all she was Arm Candy for Willie Brown as well as a long list of other celebrities for decades.
My gut says AOC (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) is a bigger threat than Ex-VP Kamala Harris.
Also getting the feeling that 2028 may have a serious contending 3rd Party Candidate.
Particularly if the Federal Reserve has us all living in economic chains.
Attention J 6 Rioters: Apply Now For Compensation
President Donald Trump and the Justice Department have reached a settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit he filed against the IRS over the leaking of his tax returns, ending a case that both perplexed and outraged critics as the president sought to sue the government he runs.
Under the deal announced Monday, the Justice Department is setting up a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to pay claims to people acting Attorney General Todd Blanche called “victims of lawfare and weaponization.
Blanche did not elaborate on who will be eligible for the compensation, but some people who were convicted of crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot have already sued the government. The fund, to be overseen by a five-person commission, will process claims through mid-December 2028 — about a month before Trump’s term is set to end.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/18/trump-irs-lawsuit-settlement-00925801
…………………………………
Turley has been very adamant about insisting that January 6th was a big riot and ‘not’ a conspiracy (never mind that command center at the Willard Hotel).
In any event, Donald Trump wants to give those rioters at least a million each in taxpayer money. And we’ll probably see commercials on cheapie TV channels inviting the rioters to apply for compensation by sending in the conviction documents. Said commercials might be hosted by that wounded warrior guy.
But hey, our real worry is radical Democrats.
By “radical democrats,” do you mean the communists?
Last time I checked, communism was unconstitutional.
WINNING!
Trumps lawsuit preceeds his presidency. The IRS seriously violated the law and was ultimately going to lose big no matter who was president.
Are you claiming that if one becomes president they must cede the right to receive damages for past harms caused by prior government actions ? Does that apply to senators, representatives, all government employees ?
You claim Trump might give money to J6ers – that likely will occur.
Trump could have done this entirely privately.
He could have settled with the IRS and pocketed the money.
He could have settled and set up a private commission to divy out the funds.
What he has done is personally contribute almost 2B to the federal government for a specific purpose – anyone can do that.
Trump has done that before. Other presidents have done that.
J6 was NOT a big riot – it was a small riot. The riot was far smaller than any “mostly peaceful” BLM protest.
There was no looting, no firearms, no arson, no balistic sheilds, no lasers to blind police, no frozen water bottles to injure them.
You claim this was organized out of the Willard Hotel – while that is nonsense. There were no single groups orchestrating this,
and no coordination between groups and individuals.
But lets assume you are correct – then the organizers clearly did a pi$$ poor job – they forgot all the things that Democrats bring to EVERY riot/protest. No Pu$$y hats – no pallets of bricks delivered the prior evening. No trucks with face masks,
no busloads of paid protestors.
Further your narative – even Turley’s “big riot” narative has fallen apart.
Years ago video revealed that the violence did not start until the CP lobbed a CS Tear Gas grenade into a peaceful law abiding crowd that had not been ordered to disburse – that is an ACTUAL crime – it is assault – possibly agrevated assault.
But more recently we learned that J6 was an actual coup orchestrated by Pelosi in coordination with others in the CP to get rid of Cheif Sund and replace him with someone more favorable to Pelosi – while creating embarrassment for Trump and republicans. Put simply – the CP created a riot on J6 for the dual purpose of creating a fake insurection narative and to get rid of Sund
This has now been documented under oath. OOPS.
Really, heaven help the people of California, there does not seem yo be any cure for the stupid. Please do not move and bring the stupid with you.
The only bad idea the Democrats have ever seen is working for the citizens of the US and protecting their liberty.
https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/cartoons/alg051726dAPR-800×0.jpg
O T – Leftists are not only fanatics, they are also quite funny. Here is an excerpt from a story about Paul Ehrlich, one of the leading “climate scientists”.
“In 1969, Ehrlich told the New York Times that because of overpopulation, food production failure, and pollution: “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
Though Ehrlich predicted complete doom for humanity by 1989, we are still here and thriving.
In 1980, Ehrlich famously bet free market economist Julian Simon $1,000 that the prices of five metals – chromium, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten – would increase due to scarcity during the 1980s. But the price of the basket of metals declined by 43 percent. Wrong again, Ehrlich lost what became known as “The Bet.”
Until the end, Ehrlich insisted that the carrying population of the Earth was as low as 1.5 billion people. Global population is now at 8.28 billion people and growing. Ehrlich was more than 6.75 billion people wrong.
Ehrlich’s bizarre leap from studying butterflies to human population and commodity forecasting led him down a career path to celebrity (he appeared on Johnny Carson’s late-night show 20 times) and academic fame (he was elected to be a member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences).
But none of Ehrlich’s predictions were ever correct. Worse, he never really acknowledged his own non-stop laughable errors.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-failure-shows-the-dangers-of-scientific-alarmism/
Eward (Estovir), Paul Erlich was NOT a climate scientist.
By training, Ehrlich was an entomologist specializing in Lepidoptera (butterflies). He earned a bachelor’s degree in zoology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1953.
But Al Gore has a PhD in climate science.
No one in the 60’s was a climate scientist. James Hansen is a physicist and astronomer.
I quit reading when you got to climate scientist.
Guy McPherson was pretty hilarious https://x.com/mazemoore/status/2055376238345076837/mediaviewer
If Erlich was so wrong, why does Trump aspire to deport millions??? The truth is that Central America had far less people in 1969.
And how about all those migrants flocking to Europe. If Erlich was wrong, that’s not happening (but it is).
Is this what passes for argument from the left ?
No one is arguing that illegal immigrants coming to the US are going to exceed the capacity of the United state to feed them.
Nor does the migration of people from one part of the world to another have anything at all to do with Ehlich’s massive malthusian error.
The current population of Africa is 1.6B – there is very little out migration from Africa – because getting from Africa to wealthier parts of the planet is extremely difficult – crossing oceans or the Sahara Desert.
Migration from central and south america is political and economic – it is people fleeing opressive regimes – sometimes deliberately being driven out and bad economic conditions.
While in fact – according to Simon – who proved right, they would be better off staying and improving their own country.
Migration to Europe from the mideast is driven by politics, economics and war.
Contra Ehrlich – not only does the earth have 8B people – rather than his predicted capacity of 1.7B,
But they are twice as well fed as in 1965.
No one anywhere in the world is starving because we can not produce enough food.
In fact – while some nations choose to import food and produce other goods, there is no nation on earth today that is not capable of feeding its own people. All starvation today is political – it is the consequence of wars and warlords deliberately using food as a weapon and destroying a nations ability to produce food.
Because controling food is power.
You left wing nuts engage in the most shallow and stupid of thinking.
With respect to the US (and Europe) it si actually true – just as it was with mass immigration into the US in the 19th century that mass immigration – legal or otherwise is on NET positive.
But on NET is not the same as TOTALLY positive.
Like many things – there are winners and losers.
There is little doubt that the millions of immigrants who have come to the US are better off for having done so.
Though the improvement is actually less than in the past. illegal immigrants coming to the US already possess smart phones and myriads of other things that were luxuries a few decades ago.
There is also no doubt that the country in agregate will benefit – GDP will rise – more people means more is produced.
But many people in the US currently who have jobs – will lose them to illegal immigrants or will get paid less.
What we have seen in the past decade is those people – who had mostly voted democrat in the past have a great deal of political power and have shifted that power fromt he democratic party to the republican party to thwart illegal immigration.
Does that make the country better off ? No. Does that make THEM better off – yes.
Plan To Loot Treasury Now Official
The Trump administration announced on Monday the establishment of a $1.776 billion fund to compensate people who claim they were targeted by the Biden Justice Department, creating a potential pipeline to funnel taxpayer money to his allies and supporters.
The highly unusual plan — slammed by critics as a political slush fund — came after President Trump withdrew his lawsuit demanding at least $10 billion against the Internal Revenue Service, an apparent effort to skirt oversight by the judge in the case as he moves toward arranging a fund to funnel taxpayer money to his allies and supporters.
The fund, with its symbolic dollar value, is intended “to provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare,” a department spokesman said in statement.
Under the terms of the agreement released by the Justice Department, a group of five people selected by the Attorney General will oversee the $1.776 billion compensation fund. The department said that it plans to tap an account used for settling lawsuits to seed the fund.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/05/18/us/trump-news?
………………………….
Turley writes about the ‘radical’ Democratic agenda on the day this scheme is announced. Even a mobbed-up city government would be more discreet than this plot.
WINNING!
Trump was awarded that money from a lawsuit that the government leaked his taxes causing him harm. That was found to be true, the leaker was convicted of the crime. The judge awarded Trump the settlement. Trump could just keep that money it is his. Instead he is being altruistic and giving people WRONGLY harmed by the Biden IRS his money. It is in no way raiding the Treasury. Quit lying.
You made that up. There was no award by a judge. In fact they are bypassing the judge completely. And none of this money is Trump’s, it all comes from taxpayers.
You’re correct, Sally. Trump is attempting an end-run around the judge.
ANON=LOSER
Trump settles $10 billion lawsuit against IRS over tax returns, sets up $1.7 billion fund for claims of “weaponization”
By Jacob Rosen
Updated on: May 18, 2026 / 6:03 PM EDT / CBS News
Add CBS News on Google
President Trump and the Justice Department reached a $1.7 billion settlement in the president’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department over the leak of his tax returns,
READ AND WEAP SALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WEEP SALLY!!!
No link on that alleged CBS story. No reference to any judge.
Turley is nothing short of amazing in his capacity to attack Democrats and women–and, in this case, a Democrat woman who is also part black. Harris, Pelosi and Hillary Clinton always evoke criticism in MAGA world, so he uses them often as a diversion away from Trump’s utter failures and Republicans’ unpopularity, as does MAGA media. He criticizes Harris for wanting to pack the SCOTUS, admit Puerto Rico and DC as states and to kill the Electoral College. Each of these things would dilute the Project 2025 abuses and the packing of the SCOTUS by the radical right-wing Federalist Society, who are responsible for choosing Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch to be nominated to the SCOTUS. Each of these things would be good for democracy, which is why MAGA world opposes them. If we have true democracy in America, Republicans would lose, and they know it. They are so toxic and unpopular, they have to keep coming up with ways to pack the House of Representatives by gerrymandering away Democrat districts and they are threatening to send Trump’s private army of ICE agents to polls in November to intimidate voters.
According to Turley, having additional SCOTUS justices would be a bad thing–but not according to most Americans, who view the SCOTUS as being highly politicized and far right of the values most Americans cherish–like the right to abortion, like gerrymandering for racist reasons. All three of the most-recent SCOTUS picks lied about Roe v. Wade being “settled law” and they affirmed their adherence to the principle of stare decisis, only to overturn Roe when they got the chance. Obama was massively more popular than Trump, but was denied a SCOTUS pick by Mitch McConnell when Scalia died, allegedly because of the proximity of the election. However, when Ginsberg died, that rule was totally ignored. Anything to get and keep power, if MAGA and Project 2025 are involved, but if Harris suggests more SCOTUS justices to achieve a balance that most Americans want–well, that’s a bad thing. The fact is, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring any certain number of SCOTUS justices. In fact, there have been varying numbers over the years. The Federalist Society packed the SCOTUS–why shouldn’t Democrats do so if they win the majority in November?
The Electoral College serves to deprive Americans of a voice in their choice of President, and for that reason, is anti-democratic. Here’s what the “History Channel” says about the REASON for the Electoral College:
“In 1787, roughly 40 percent of people living in the Southern states were enslaved Black people, who couldn’t vote. James Madison from Virginia—where enslaved people accounted for 60 percent of the population—knew that either a direct presidential election, or one with electors divvied up according to free white residents only, wouldn’t fly in the South.
“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States,” said Madison, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which three-fifths of the enslaved Black population would be counted toward allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46).”
The reason for the Electoral College no longer exists, but it benefits the party in power, and that’s why MAGAs try to defend it. Anything that denies the American people their choice of POTUS should be banned according to them because they KNOW they can’t win any other way. THAT is autocracy and hegemony.
As to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia–why SHOULDN’T they be added as states? Persons living there are US citizens, they pay taxes, so why shouldn’t residents there have the same voice as the rest of America? The SOLE reason MAGA world opposes citizenship is the belief that Democrats would benefit if both places became states. Instead, Trump has threatened Venezuela and Canada by implying he will force them to become US states. Does that even make sense?
There is no logical reason why Harris’ suggestions should not become law–most Americans support them–the sole reason is that these measures would dilute Republican hegemony.
Why are even rank-and-file file Democrats willing to embrace hysterical and violent rhetoric? The main reason is the evident contrast between R Nation and D Nation. The former us in the ascent and the former us in decline. Democrats hope that control of the federal government can slow this process.
edwardmahl,
Based off my observations, the Democrat party has been mostly taken over by the far leftists and pushed the ultra-progressive narrative/policies that your sane and normal American voter, to include moderate Democrats, would abhor.
A few, Bill Maher comes to mind, have said the quite part out loud: “This is stupid and crazy!”
But, as a whole, the Democrat party cannot or will not admit that. It would be admitting they allowed themselves to be taken over by the stupid and crazy and that in turn would make them look bad. Aka failed policies.
What do they have going for them? Continue to run on the failed progressive policies? Run on “We are NOT Trump?” Affordability? Both sides can run on that one, but Democrats do not have a great track record, looking at NY, NYC, Seattle, the failed state of CA, IL, the mass exodus of people and companies from various Blue ran cities and states.
VA attempt and failure to gerrymander did not go well for them. And their “solutions” to that failure are not much better. Those “solutions” only highlight the lengths of “by any means necessary!” they are willing to go. If they could. But that pesky Constitution both at the federal and state level keeps getting in their way.
And that is why they are entertaining some really wild, stupid and crazy ideas that just might get us into a real shooting civil war.
Moderate, traditional Democrats, you need to reject the progressive, or DSA/antifa/dark money NGOs with China ties, from your party.
You need to get back to sane and normal.
A prime example: Dems actually think it’s okay for men to compete against women and deprive them of their honors, awards, medals, and scholarships that the women have worked their whole lives for. This is still happening, and blessed by California Gov. Newsom.
https://www.foxnews.com/outkick-sports/california-trans-athlete-podium-controversy-ignites-outrage-among-politicians-activists
A raft of constitutional amendments are needed to prevent this type of revolution from happening.
I can think of a few off the top of my head: a Keep-9 amendment, a cede-DC-to-Maryland amendment, and an amendment to keep the Electoral College and disqualify the so-called popular vote compact.
Amending the Constitution is cumbersome and slow, but this is an existential emergency because one of the two major political parties, with the support of nearly half the population, has now essentially stated that if they ever get power again, they are going to take actions tantamount to scrapping the Constitution and starting over from a Marxist blueprint.
Repealing the 17thA might be a good place to start.
-g
Actually ceding DC to Maryland can be done with just legislation, so a constitutional amendment is not needed, right?
I believe that DC is made up of land originally in Maryland and Virginia, not that that would stop what you are suggesting. The Constitution merely approves the establishment of a capitol up to 10 miles square, but does not say where it must be located. Ceding the suburban areas of DC, without federal structures on them, formerly located in Maryland and Virginia back to the respective states is likely fairly straight forward. The rub would come with the effort to carve out and retain the disparate areas where federal buildings are located from the ceding process. A patchwork of isolated plots of land would leave open the argument that the attempt to retain non-contiguous plots of land did not meet the requirement that the capitol must comprise a (presumably contiguous) plot of land up to 10 miles square and therefore the re-gifting failed.
What seems clear is that the intent of Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S. Const. is that the federal government is not to be beholden to any state for its protection and safety. Maybe a simpler solution is to declare the residents of the DC area citizens of either Maryland or Virginia depending on where they live.
The southern portion of DC was ceded back to Virginia in the 1840s. I believe it would not be overly difficult to carve out a small contiguous section to be federally controlled, while the rest went back to Maryland.
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Correction: A raft of constitutional amendments is needed to prevent this type of revolution from happening.
It is always frustrating listening to people object to Supreme Court opinions. Most have no clue what they are talking about. But you would think members of congress and politicians in general would have some sense of how the system works. I’m usually waiting in vain to hear their analysis as to which part of the opinion they believe the Court got wrong and what evidence they have to support their disagreement. I won’t take time to repeat all the nonsense they spout about the Court and its opinions, but their reactions are indicative as to why the government is so incompetent. Few in government are very knowledgeable, can analyze anything, or know how to solve a problem. You have to admire a business person like Donald Trump willing to deal with all the craziness, when he could be in charge of a business staffed with competent people.
So, the Democrats don’t object to gerrymandering for decades in ways that limited Republican representation but object so intensely when Republicans gerrymander, that they are willing to destroy the constitution and the country. It’s almost comical. Except being from Detroit (once the wealthiest city in the U.S. and one of the richest in the world) I learned what bad management can do to a great city. Reading Turley’s piece, I can see what Franklin meant when he answered “a republic, if you can keep it”. Our system is dependent on honesty, civility, and good management. Once you chase out the taxpayers with either crime or increased taxes, and more and more taxes go to criminal justice and corruption instead of picking up the garbage, it’s reached a tipping point. It’s the same reason you can’t open the borders to millions of people without complaint, but then insist they should all get due process. There will be no money left to pick up the garbage.
I am saddened that like Detroit, so many of the democrat-run cities have destroyed the neighborhoods, homes, buildings, and businesses that our parents’ and grandparents’ generation built. Their policies will do the same in New York, where Kamala and the others hope to do the same to the country with their ‘ideas’. Very scary.
I love it when Kamalala Harris comes on TV. It’s like the Three Stooges all wrapped up in one, and “My mama always said, ‘Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.'”
The 3 stooges I can abide (just barely). Word Salad Cackling Carmela, not so much.
FYI,
“14,000,000 total unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.”
– Gemini
14M is probably an extreme underestimate. I wish my President would work on our problems instead of Israel’s problems.
If Iran could get a nuke, that would be our problem, and a bigger problem than anything else you can think of.
I thought we neutered Iran’s nuclear program with the first round of bombings?
That has been the go-to line for many years. A line now attached to Trump’s nose ring. If they were determined to have a nuclear weapon they would already have one.
Doesn’t Israel’s nuclear program make any and all foreign aid to them illegal under US law?
I know, let’s trade Israel’s nuke program for a robust, international inspection treaty with all of the gulf states. 🤔
Meanwhile, in a weak attempt to get on topic, I have to say the I have not seen a good idea from the Democrats since, well, maybe the Church Commitee. Wow! That’s 51 years ago. Hey Dems, you’ve come a long way baby!
I think what happened was that Operation Midnight Hammer did major damage, but since then two things have happened. Iran has not sit on their hands, and new intel has come to light about how much enriched uraniam they have. It’s not disputed that when IRGC officials met with Kushner and Witkoff they admitted they still had enough for 11 nukes. Since then, as well, they have demonstrated sufficient ballistic missile range to hit almost all major capital cities in Europe. Their range improves over time. It’s not something I’d want to take a chance with, just to make a political point that perhaps Trump exaggerated.
IRGC and Israel are a different as night and day. It’s pretty certain Israel has a nuke, but its doctrine is not to use it except if its very existence is in danger. IRGC, by contrast, is controlled by the Twelver Cult, whose doctrine is to use a nuke offensively at the first opportunity to create a world war and cause the emergence of the Mahdi.
So true, that of the mind of a brilliant military tactician.
We need boots on the ground, and we needed them yesterday!
Look on every corner and you’ll see a steeple.
While I am not impressed by Kamala Harris or her ideas, she does seem to have the right concept of brainstorming. The first step is to have everyone just throw out ideas (mild to wild) with no criticism but allow others to build on those ideas. It is in the second stage that bad ideas should get filtered out allowing the good ideas to be further developed and evaluated. I suspect, and this is probably the instinct of many sensible people opposing these bad ideas, that Kamala Harris (or those in her party) won’t have a second stage to filter out the bad ideas particularly given that she has demonstrated a paucity of good ideas.
Arnold, it could be more deceptive. These ideas didn’t just spring up that day. They know they are tantamount to revolution, so they seek to give it a patina of legitimacy and blunt criticism by framing it as mere brainstorming and spontaneous hare-brained schemes. I mean, I don’t know this for sure, but their intentions have never been good, and I don’t trust them with the levers of power any more than I would trust a highly intoxicated driver to give a ride to a family member. So I remain skeptical.
Maya Harris
Tony West
Doug Emhoff
Julie Chávez Rodríguez
Jen O’Malley Dillon
David Plouffe
Sean Clegg
Ace Smith
Ron Klain
Anita Dunn
Mike Donilon
Karl Marx’s inner circle.
Arnold Nordsieck,
From a Program Management stand point, I would agree with you.
However, in public they are saying some pretty wild ideas and not hiding it. Some of it seems to be almost inciting a real shooting civil war.
What would they say behind closed doors?
What would they throw out some ideas as too wild? Or somehow justify it?
They keep upping the rage rhetoric. It is not lost on me polling shows more and more people think real violence as a means to achieve one’s political goals or defeat their political opponents.
I find that highly concerning.
Arnold, What you describe is a rational approach to discovering hitherto overlooked ideas. The problem is that people who think that words they disagree with are the same as physical violence, who think that pushing bizarre gender bender ideas on young children without the parents’ consent is OK, who think surgical mutilation of children is OK, who think shooting an insurance CEO in the street is OK, who cheer the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempts on Trump, are people who will not produce anything of value to society. They have expended all goodwill that compels us to even listen to what they have to say just in case they say something of value. They have, in fact, shown that they are nothing but dangerous.
The Democrats solutions to a more “Democratic” process is to remove the Judiciary by force. Enact the a mandatory retirement at the age of 54 years, not just for the States but for the SCOTUS (Federal judges with lifetime appointments are those appointed under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which include Supreme Court Justices, appellate court judges, district court judges, and Court of International Trade judges. They serve “during good behaviour,” meaning they hold their seats for life, until they resign, retire, or are removed via impeachment). Then the Dems pack the Courts with Democrat stooges who will do the Dems bidding. The Dems have long awaited the time to go after the US Constitution, and Kamala and others believe this is the time to strike. They don’t only want to eliminate the Electoral College, they have decided there is no more use for the Constitution. The plan is to tear the entire document down, open the Borders, eliminate state boundaries, citizenship and state sovereignty. They don’t care about “Democracy”, they only care about getting power back and making sure they don’t lose it. They are talking about overturning our entire form of government in good ole Soviet style expansion of power. What makes their actions any different that Xi Jinping’s or Vladimir Putin’s, or the IRGC and the Mullahs of Iran? What makes them any different than Stalin, or Hitler? Burn down the Republic and take complete control over every aspect of “government”. They all follow the same Communist playbook. If the Democrats are successful it will be the end of America and the United States and the beginning of the United Communist Dynasty.
IMHO, the District of Columbia should be ceded back to Maryland. Making it a state is absurd.
OTOH, making Puerto Rico the 51st state does have some appeal.
And as someone who lived and worked in Puerto Rico, I think the Democrats will be disappointed when they find that what Puerto Ricans call Democrats are quite a bit different than what mainland Democrats are becoming.
And the compelling contribution of Puerto Rico is?
As you said most of DC should be returned to the states it came from. The federal govenrment has no business trying to run a city. The government areas of the Capital district and the memorials areas and any unused land in the capital area can remain with the federal government.
As to Puerto Rico – NO.
The people of puerto Rico are split 3 ways
1/3 for statehood, 1/3 for the status quo, and 1/3 for independence.
I would give them independence before statehood.
Watch them freak out when they have to pay federal taxes.
Puerto Ricans already pay federal FICA taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
They do not pay Federal income taxes, but they do pay personal income taxes to the local government.
And the income tax burden imposed by the local government is significantly greater than the federal government. For instance someone who earns over $62,500 in Puerto Rico hits the 33% bracket, while the federal taxes are only 22%. On the mainland, taxpayers do not hit the 32% bracket until $201,775
On top of that the standard deductions are much lower in Puerto Rico.
So you see, the Perto Ricans would be quite happy to pay Federal taxes instead of their much higher local taxes,
I personall like the idea. But not everybody feels the same way, it appears. If not PR, then Alberta? Greenland? Cuba (!) ?
Google says: National Security & Trade: Puerto Rico is a vital strategic outpost in the Caribbean. Statehood guarantees permanent U.S. integration into its military, counter-narcotics, and economic operations, securing supply chains and regional defense. It cites to the Government Accountability Office:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-31
Social Security and Medicare are immutably unconstitutional.
Top 1% of earners pay 42% of all federal income taxes.
Top 10% of earners pay 76% of all federal income taxes.
Top 50% of earners pay 98% of all federal income taxes.
Bottom 50% of earners pay 2% of all federal income taxes.
40% of all households owe $0 in net federal income tax.
Of course the stupidity of this comment is plainly obvious.
The federal income tax system is designed to tax INCOME as its title plainly states.
It is not designed to tax INDIVIDUALS.
If you make more INCOME, you pay proportionally more tax than someone who makes less income.
It’s not that stupid. The numbers cited are quite lopsided. This is because lower-income people pay either zero or a small percentage of income, whereas the top earners pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. That’s the whole point of so-called progressive taxation: the more your income goes up, not only the more taxes you pay, but the higher percentage of your income you pay in taxes.
Progressive taxation is a flagrant violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment that illicitly and antithetically satisfies the tenet of communism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
One man’s reasonable classifications is another man’s flagrant violation. The first man is Scotus.
Regardless, a tax-uniformity amendment would be a good idea, since 14A clearly isn’t enough. The TUA would say that the effective tax rate on a thing cannot depend on the quantity of the thing being taxed. This would in effect implement flat taxation, which in turn would promote job creation and economic growth, and additionally save blue states and cities from the temptation to drive capital away through leftist taxation schemes – a temptation to which they have been infamously succumbing as of late.
The original data is not stupid because it answers a specific, critical question: Who actually funds the federal government?
While the system is designed to tax dollars, the government still requires a specific amount of revenue to function. Tracking where those dollars come from across different income groups provides vital information for three reasons:
Budgeting reality: It shows that federal funding relies almost entirely on high earners.
Policy planning: It helps lawmakers understand how changing tax brackets will impact total government revenue.
Economic tracking: It measures the actual distribution of wealth and tax burdens across the population.
The data shows the outcome, while your point explains the mechanism. Both are necessary to understand the system.
Professor Turley notes, “That includes packing the Supreme Court, admitting Puerto Rico and D.C. as states and killing the Electoral College.”
There is no question in my mind that if Puerto Rico and D.C. were primarily occupied by Whites/Caucasians, there would be no such effort. And do we think that a new Democrat president would likely be adding a White justice to SCOTUS?
I used to laugh at “Replacement Theory” claims and other strategies to reduce the White population (immigration being the main one). Now I see it happening before my very eyes. A left-wing Sesame Street approach to America.
Yes you are racist.
What’s wrong with being a racist? Were the American Founders racist? May I love the Georgia Bulldogs and HATE the Indiana Hoosiers, or is that NCAAFism? It’s prolly OK; they’re both RED, right?
Because what ?
So this is a new entry to the leftist dictionary:
No bad ideas means all bad ideas.
OldManFromKS,
The way I am reading this i.e. Harris and others, they are going to entertain any and all ideas to ensure no other party wins an election again, except theirs. That would also include totally anti-Constitutional means, possible coup or a real insurrection.
Put the shoe on the other foot: What if the Republican party said the same or similar things?
Upstate – letting in 10-20 million unvetted is small potatoes compared to the fundamental structural changes they are seeking to make to America.
No good ideas
The nomenclature department has to demonstrate some form of productivity or have its budget slashed.