Below is my column on Rep. Dan Goldman struggling to overcome a challenge from Mamdani-backed Brad Lander. Goldman is sticking to his impeachment-heavy campaign pitch as Lander pushes bread-and-butter issues. He is reportedly over 20 points behind the popular housing advocate.
Here is the column:
Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.) is fast becoming the Marie Antoinette of New York politics. As Democratic socialists rage against the privileged elite and promise sweeping welfare programs, Goldman is doubling down on promises of more impeachments and investigations. The ultimate establishment candidate is floundering. He is reportedly over 20 points behind his Mamdini-endorsed opponent, housing advocate and former Comptroller Bret Lander. It appears that the “let-them-eat impeachments” is not resonating with his constituents.
While Goldman is trying to fight off the challenge from the left with some pocket-book pitches, he is sticking to the narrative that got him elected a few years ago. In an “age of rage,” Goldman has excelled, pushing unstepped on, unadulterated rage. Since his entry into politics, he has run on what was viewed as the sure winner in New York politics: obsessive, unending attacks on Trump. Goldman made sure that no one was more enraged at all things Trump, all the time.
In this campaign, Goldman has returned to the same theme of promising new investigations and impeachments.
Goldman claimed recently on MSNOW that he will lead any impeachment of Trump. (“Jamie Raskin and I will be leading investigations into Trump’s corruption and all cabinet officials”).
Even as his polls showed him trailing Lander, he was promising this week that he had yet another basis to impeach Trump over his $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” a settlement fund that is expected to go to people investigated and prosecuted over the Jan. 6th riot.
Some of us have criticized the creation of the fund as irregular and lacking congressional consultation. That is not to say that Trump is not right about the violation over the leaking of his taxes or the abuses that occurred after January 6th.
In an interview with CBS News, Justice Department official Michael Sherwin declared that they wanted to send a message with the harsh treatment of defendants “to ensure that there was shock and awe.” The result was excessive measures against some who were simply present at the protest or did not engage in any violence.
Despite my objections to how the fund was created, it is neither illegal nor impeachable in my view. These settlement funds have long been left to the discretion of the Justice Department and past Administrations have made generous settlements with politically aligned groups.
However, the race in the 10th District may answer a more important question than another impeachment frenzy in Congress.
The question is whether Goldman and other candidates can secure another term on rage alone. We will soon know whether Goldman’s “let them eat impeachments” pitch can override the bread-and-butter policies of Lander or Mamdani.
It is not that anger has lost its cache, but the subject has changed as socialism sweeps over the Democratic Party, particularly in New York.
In this “eat-the-rich” environment, Goldman is hardly a natural fit in modern Democratic politics. He is no “one percenter,” mind you. He is the guy the one percenter looks on as privileged and entitled.
As emphasized by Lander in his campaign, Goldman inherited his vast wealth as heir to the Levi Strauss family and is worth more than $200 million. He reportedly has at least three luxury homes in Atlantic Beach on Long Island, Manhattan, and Water Mill in the Hamptons.
He seems to be the perfect example of the super-wealthy denounced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she insisted that “you just can’t earn” a billion dollars. In Goldman’s case, he was born into such wealth. Goldman is not the antagonist, but the embodiment, of the socialist scourge.
To be fair to Goldman, he hasn’t focused on being an average Joe with shared life experiences. He has made himself known to the establishment as someone willing to enthusiastically do those things that repel others.
When attacks on ICE personnel increased exponentially (including attacks shown on television), Goldman denied seeing examples of such increasing attacks.
When evidence mounted of Biden influence peddling, it was Goldman who denied the corruption, insisting that they were just honest businessmen making money.
When evidence mounted of the Biden Administration coordinating a massive censorship system, it was Goldman who dismissed such concerns.
When other Democrats decried the Biden Administration’s seizure of members of Congress’ phone records, Goldman ran out to downplay the attack on the legislative branch.
When the Administration sought to investigate those burning Teslas and dealerships by protesters, Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.) denounced it as a “political weaponization” of the legal system.
Lander continues to attack Goldman over his inherited wealth and for pouring huge amounts of his own money into the race, despite Lander outspending him on campaign money.
It is shaping up as the ultimate race of the socialist wing of Mamdani and Bernie Sanders with Lander versus the Establishment with Goldman.
Nevertheless, Goldman is an example of how the impeachment frenzy is likely to continue as members search for new targets to curry favor with voters. This week, Rep. Steve Cohen has announced that he will file frivolous articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts “for compromising the credibility of the court.”
That may not be enough for Dan Goldman, who could find himself the latest establishment casualty of the very mob that they hoped would keep them in power.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Democrats are the opposite of the French Revolution. They are the rich who want to prosecute everyone for them to TAKE POWER!
LOL! I guess someone is paying attention now. Article was corrected just now to BRAD instead of Bret and $1.776 instead of $1,776.
Good job professor. Atta boy.
Turley argues that creating a taxpayer-funded settlement pool for individuals prosecuted by the government is “neither illegal nor impeachable” because past administrations made “generous settlements with politically aligned groups.”
Oops, seems the professor forgot we have a Congress.
Using executive power to bypass Congress and financially reward convicted rioters raises unprecedented constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause, which Turley minimizes as standard administrative discretion.
This is why so many Republicans are opposed to this slush fund to ‘compensate’ the “victims” of the Jan 6 prosecutions. Many who were literally filmed committing crimes and assaulting police officers. Strangely, even James Comey, and Letitia James would qualify for these payments.
Also, Turley uses a quote from former DOJ official Michael Sherwin to claim the government used “excessive measures against some who were simply present at the protest.
Turley omits the actual context of Sherwin’s March 2021 60 Minutes interview. Sherwin used the term “shock and awe” to describe the scale and speed of filing federal charges to arrest hundreds of individuals who breached the Capitol, explicitly aimed at stopping ongoing violence and securing the building. It was not a confession of targeting peaceful protesters, as federal prosecutors overwhelmingly focused charges on individuals who illegally entered restricted grounds, destroyed property, or assaulted police.
“ Even as his polls showed him trailing Lander, he was promising this week that he had yet another basis to impeach Trump over his $1,776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,”
Huh? A $1,776 Billion? Turley’s math must be as bad as Trump’s. $1,776 Billion is literally $1.776 Trillion.
So many errors in Turley’s article today. It’s’ Brad Landers, not Bret Landers. At least get your candidates names right professor.
It seems Turley is not paying attention to what he writes.
X wakes up, reads Turley’s column, attacks Turley over minor typos and decimal errors and then waits to comment 100 more times over his obsession of being against to every single thing Professor Turley writes about and believes.
Meanwhile on planet earth and in X’s preferred political party we have an avowed socialist running against a very wealthy poseur who has been as far to the left as was previously possible in today’s typical Democrat primary. This is the party today and people like X cannot defend such radicalization and therefore they attack common sense and reasonableness.
Those are not ‘minor’ typos. They are amateurish typos that a college professor shouldn’t be making, especially one using Grammarly to prevent such typos in the first place.
As I always say, Turley is fair game when it comes to criticism. Typos and all. Being critical of Turley, especially when he messes up a candidate’s name and can’t seem to figure out how to write $1.776 Billion or just round it off to $1.8 billion instead of claiming $1,776 Billion which is literally $1.776 Trillion. That’s a couple of big embarrassing screwups while trying to criticize someone as an esteemed college professor.
On planet earth that kind of screwup is reserved for college students, not college professors intent on criticizing someone. At a minimum whoever wrote the column should have made a note pointing out the correction instead of sheepishly changing the error without a mention. A true professional would make the admission at the end of the column showing the correction like a true journalist.
Poor Dan Goldman, the nepobaby who bought his way into power. He can go speak to Jelly Belly Pritzker about a job, when he loses.
The left is eating its own?
It does appear to be so. And it will not end with him
Marie Antoinette never ever said “Let them eat cake.” That was a lie contrived by her opposition to justify what they done, when things actually got worse under their rule. Marie’s financial book ledger was released by her staff, which proved she had given much to feed the poor.
And no, it doesn’t mean I like Dan Goldman. It just means political lies often are accepted as historical facts.
Are you saying you were there when she allegedly said that? Hogwash anon. All hogwash.
Sure would like to see your source.
https://www.britannica.com/story/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake
Nice column. The choice in New York has come down to a contest between hatred for Trump and the fantastical hope that socialism will make their lives better. I am not worried. New Yorkers will select the candidate who is absolutely the worst for them out of the two choices.
There is one more hopeful conclusion. It is that Professor Turley et al. have focused on the flat-out destructive nature of rage for so long now that it may be going out of style.