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 the dismal polling, Goldman has outspent Lander in the campaign, vowing to match every donated dollar with his own 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.”
Come On Man! The only thing a Democrat Straight White Man has in that party is FAUX OUTRAGE at something! Easy to focus on ORANGE MAN BAD!! Haha.
At some point, safe blue districts stop functioning like serious representative government and start looking like political performance art. The Democratic Party increasingly feels less like a governing coalition and more like a three-ring circus, with districts like Goldman’s operating as carnival sideshows competing to see who can generate the loudest outrage and the least self-awareness.
Congressional oversight is a foundational constitutional duty, not a “sideshow.” Rep. Dan Goldman’s background as a federal prosecutor means his focus on legal accountability, constitutional boundaries, and the rule of law is exactly what his constituents elected him to do. When an administration proposes unprecedented executive actions—like creating a massive fund to reward individuals convicted of federal crimes—investigating those actions is the literal definition of checks and balances, not empty outrage.
The fierce primary battle in New York’s 10th District between Goldman and Brad Lander proves the exact opposite. If a district were broken or a mere “carnival sideshow,” voters would passively rubber-stamp the incumbent. Instead, NY-10 features a highly competitive debate between two distinct governing philosophies: one focused on national constitutional oversight (Goldman) and one focused on local, bread-and-butter economic issues (Lander). This intense competition is local democracy functioning exactly as intended.
X, this is already your 10th comment and it is not even 9:00AM yet. Get a life.
So? This is your 4th. What’s your point? Why are YOU still commenting. Don’t you have anything else to do besides keep track of my comments?
OLLY,
Exactly.
But what else do they have to run on other than the hate and rage and “We are not Trump!!!”? Open borders? Tax the rich (or in Goldman’s case, “Tax Myself!!!!”) (see how well that is working for them, i.e. mass exodus of wealth from NY, CA etc.)? Pro-Trans/anti-biological women? Voter ID (which some 80% of Americans agree with to include Democrats)? Prevent fraud?
Seems “Get Trump!” is all they have.
Meanwhile Lander and other socialists are gaining ground. The establishment DNC really needs to get a better game plan or they are going to find themselves pushed out by the DSA.
That is a terrifying thought.
U.S. House Representative Daniel Sachs Goldman is the political “Love Child” of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, and Godmother Hillary Clinton.
“born with a silver spoon in his mouth”, Goldman fear not failure in this race, should he loose this race, He will then team up with Gavin Newsom in 2028 to become a new Swamp Creature.
‘Seed of Chucky’ Schumer
The Dem platform is a two legged stool: “I will fight Trump” and “I will protect every woman’s right to kill her child”. And the stool falls over. . .
Who knew the TDS virus would take down the democrats so the marxist could take over the party?
Andrew Cuomo rips Democrats’ autopsy report as ‘disingenuous’
“[Biden] got on the debate stage, and it was obvious to everyone. You didn’t have to be a psychiatric or a medical professional to realize he was not up to the job,” Cuomo said on WABC radio’s “The Pulse of the People” show.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/andrew-cuomo-rips-democrats-autopsy-report-disingenuous?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Seems the DNC does not want to admit or even pay attention to not only what their voters think, but what their own so-called ‘autopsy’ says.
Gotta wonder how much did former Bill Clinton strategist Paul Rivera get paid for that hot mess of a ‘autopsy.’
It’s a good thing the professor corrected his “minor” typos this morning, because if he left them in place they would have undermined the entire narrative of his column. Two ‘typos’ can do a lot of damage. Maybe his rage against Goldman got in the way of proof reading before publishing.
Why shouldn’t candidates run on impeachment? It is a core power of Congress. Trumps slush fund and the Iran war are very obvious and clear impeachable acts.
Many other countries hold their presidents accountable for their misconduct. Why can’t the US?
Why yes Sally! I agree, they should spend every waking moment on it.🤣
Definitely a winning recipe for the Bolsheviks in Congress, by all means keep it up!
YES! continue being the anti-Trump party instead of doing any sort of governing. Leftys finally found something they are good at.
So did you support the impeachment of Clinton? Mayorkas? If not why not?
Well, even Democrats expect results and if you don’t deliver why should your constituents keep you. New York obviously has some problems and many , if not most, are self induced. Bread and butter issues means Mr. Lander is likely more closely listening to his possible constituents than Mr. Goldman. I may disagree with the approach Mr. Lander is taking but then I don’t vote there and have nothing more than a tourist’s understanding of New York.
Time will tell as they say.
The same seems to have occurred in the Republican Party with Mr. Massie (R-Ky) and Senator Cassidy (R- Louisiana) getting turned out because they also failed to keep the fingers on the pulse of their state. You might say the same thing about Sen Thillis (R-NC) who tried to ignore his president and then left in a snit. And we will watch what happens in Texas to Sen Cornyn. You have to deal with the bread and butter issues but you have to also remember that the Senate and House of Representatives require team play. You have to play both sides of your job, Washington and local or you’re gone.
It’s a tough balancing act but nobody gets drafted into those jobs and if you want to play then you have to remember the rules. We had an excellent Senator in Indiana with Senator Lugar but he lost track of his state and did not even show up for campaigns towards the end of his career and he lost a primary , which he should never have lost, to an upstart who then lost the seat to a Democrat. But it was Lugar’s negligence that, in effect lost the seat for 6 years.
“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.”
Such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?
This is actually fun to watch. We have an elitist who is nearly the poster child for everything the Democrat party has been screaming about, wealth, privilege, white male (is he straight?).
Then we have the socialist candidate who is some 20 points ahead of the rich, Democrat establishment candidate.
Lander wins, it is going to send a message to the Democrat establishment.
HA! Good times!!!
I hope Lander wins!
He’s a Jew also but not sure if he’s a Zionist pro Israel Jew or not. If he’s a NY Democrat it’s probably the or not…
Crazy huh?!
Calling names, lying, bickering, destroying history, embezzling public funds… not the way to build a nation. Nobody likes to work anymore.
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.
Big win for the day X!
If you can’t make political points here, get a win for the English teachers coalition, I guess.
Rest easy, your work here is done!
I bet from now on you will scrutinize and obsess over your own grammar eh? Might make you crazy!
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.
And when future Senator Raphael Warnock conducted an illegal protest in the Capitol Rotunda, he qas detained for a few hours, fined $50, and released.
Surely some of tbe J-6 protesters deserved the same lenient treatment. None received it.
Many did. Most got charged with trespassing, fined and released. Those who committed more serious crimes like assaulting police officers and filming themselves committing vandalism received harsher punishment according to the law.
“individuals prosecuted by the government is “neither illegal nor impeachable” George, you failed to address the Rep senators who took the $500k as victims” money for being spied on by Biden.
“At his first Cabinet meeting of 2014, (President Barack) Obama stated, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” coining a phrase and a pathway that has had deleterious implications for the presidency, and for the nation.
This was no mere rhetorical flourish. Obama was engaging in a sea-change in how to pursue his policy agenda.
By explicitly saying he’d pursue his policy agenda via executive action, Obama was rejecting the idea that his role was executing legislation duly passed by Congress.
He would skip the practice of reaching out to Congress to pass legislation he sought.
Obama’s approach was an effort to end-run the separation of powers, and presented an unfortunate model for a unilateral presidency that lingers today” Tevi Troy
You opened with a curly quote before “excessive” but never closed it.
“Many who were literally filmed committing crimes and assaulting police officers.” This is a fragment.
There should NOT be a comma after “Comey.”
“…simply present at the protest. <Again, missing ending quote.
“ 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.
Nitpicking on SOMETHING is the hallmark of the TDS infected, there has to be some criticism that rolls your eyes with it’s reach for relevance.
Everyone knows X’s whole point of being here is to find fault, here’s his just from one post:
1. The sentence fragment beginning with:
> “Being critical of Turley…”
2. Missing comma:
> “At a minimum, whoever…”
3. Missing comma before:
> “which is literally…”
4. Incorrect capitalization of:
> “Billion” / “Trillion”
“fair game”
Nitpicking matters when the typos literally undermine the whole narrative. Because Bret and Brad are two different names. And $1,776 Billion is a lot different than $1.776 Billion. One means a trillion dollars. A drastically different amount.
please feel free to continue to nitpick as the left drowns in their own insincere rhetoric.
HullBobby,
George is nothing but regurgitating AI garbage. Not worth reading.
https://files.zhedge.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1920,quality=75,format=auto/https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/HJKrGVlasAAk8Gh.jpg
Upstate, none of that was AI. Turley does seem to have a long-running grievance against Goldman for past conflicts during congressional hearings. The sloppy nature of the post and misnaming the candidate against Goldman and stating Trump’s slush fund as a $1.776 trillion fund shows he was not thinking clearly when he was writing this column.
At the very least he corrected it. Otherwise it would have been an embarrassing column showing two very glaring errors while trying to criticize Goldman. It is absolutely fair game to point out Turley’s amateurish mistakes. You didn’t need AI to figure them out.
“Trump’s slush fund as a $1.776 trillion fund”
Technically understandable, but repetitive:
“fund … fund”
Subject-verb agreement / parallelism issue
This sentence is slightly awkward structurally:
“The sloppy nature of the post and misnaming the candidate against Goldman and stating Trump’s slush fund as a $1.776 trillion fund shows…”
The subject is overloaded and not parallel.
“At the very least he corrected it.”
Missing comma after introductory phrase.
Correct:
“At the very least, he corrected it.”
Amateurish indeed.
upsatefarmer you regurgitate everything hullbooby comments. Not worth reading.
hullbobby wakes up, reads X’s comments, attacks X over minor typos and decimal errors and then waits to comment 100 more times over his obsession of being against to every single thing X writes about and believes.
Anyone notice a timewarp?
Hullboby, I would point out while Turley talks about ‘rage’ and the politics of using it to gain an advantage, it also showed Turley’s mistakes this morning can be attributed to his own ‘rage’ over Goldman who seems to have deeply embarrassed the professor during congressional hearings a few years ago. Holding a grudge this long is not healthy, even for someone like professor Turley.
Yes whemeber Ib maked mistaked i’t cause Im mad at somenoe I’m typin @.
I’ve always been skeptical that someone is paid to comment to effectively be a troll. But it’s hard to imagine X and Natacha/Gigi spending so much time reading and commenting on the blog of someone they obviously despise unless they are somehow being compensated to do so.
I very well may be wrong. Maybe it’s just weird hobby.
The same could be said about you. There are plenty of regular commenters here. By your logic everyone is being paid to be here, either to support or oppose the professor’s views or positions on the topics he brings up. Or….it would be just your normal everyday discourse of regular commenters. Which do you think makes the most sense?
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
Brioche anyone?
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.
Re: “Nice column “. It was 22% of the entire eligible registered voter population of NYC who voted in the Mayoralty and selected the worst. Ben Franklin hit the nail squarely.
It seems Professor Turley now makes his living alternately stoking rage by pointing out daily the acts of an individual or a few and projecting it onto the whole Democratic Party and feeding it to the masses with a smile. His other job is to claim nothing Trump does is impeachable or criminal, though he would have done it differently or wouldn’t have used those words.
You could not be more wrong. How is it the good professor’s fault the Democrat party has embraced the stupid and crazy? Bill Maher has been saying it for years now.
Enigma, name 5 moderate Democrats or any moderate Democrat that is either in leadership or has a big platform.