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 Brad 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 cachet, 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.”
This column appeared on Fox.com
Marie Antoinette didn’t say “let them eat cake”; that was a slander on her character imputed by the leftist French revolutionaries. Why do supposedly intelligent and conservative people keep repeating this stupid, ahistorical claim?
The Actual History of the Quote
For clarity, the phrase has been thoroughly debunked by modern historians:
The Translation The original French phrase is “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” (Let them eat brioche). Brioche is a rich, egg-and-butter bread, not a frosted dessert cake.
The Origin The phrase first appeared in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s autobiographical Confessions around 1765. He attributed it vaguely to a “great princess”.
The Timeline When Rousseau wrote that passage, Marie Antoinette was roughly nine years old and living in Austria; she had not even arrived in France.
The Retrospect The phrase was an “old chestnut” used to slander various foreign royal women. It wasn’t explicitly pinned to Marie Antoinette until 1843—fifty years after her execution—by journalist Alphonse Karr.
Ultimately, intelligent commentators continue to use the phrase because they are fighting modern political battles, not hosting historical seminars. The utility of the metaphor outweighs the nuisance of the historical error.
In other words, they have nothing better to say than something that is incorrect.
Great clarification on that part.
Also, that attribution is not a metaphor, but in character as also being incorrect.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the line to “a great princess” in his 1765 autobiographical novel Confessions, writing that upon being told the peasants had no bread she replied, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.” Rousseau did not claim authorship; he reported it as an anecdote he’d heard and later retracted, and modern historians treat the attribution as apocryphal. The phrase appears in earlier sources and was a circulating rumor used to illustrate aristocratic indifference rather than a documented quote from any specific person.
ATS – how does this add clarity ?
It does not matter is NO ONE said “let them eat Cake”
The quote exists to demonstrate the cluelessness of the aristocracy immediately prior to the french revolution.
The quote CORRECTLY reflects that cluelessness.
Not the point
Most historical quotes were not made by those they are attributed to.
That does not change the quote itself, or its significance.
Further in most instances – most people beleive the person attributed actually said the quote, usually because it is consistent with other things they have said.
Put more clearly – you are being stupidly pedantic over something that does not matter.
Professor Turley,
You shrug off any actual discussion about whether the slush fund is impeachable without any analysis. Why?
In 2019, you noted that the Framers explicitly worried about “peculation” (the misuse or theft of public funds for personal/political gain) and “perfidy” (breach of trust or political self-dealing)?
TURLEY: “In the end, the framers would reject various prior standards including “corruption,” “obtaining office by improper means,” betraying his trust to a foreign power, “negligence,” “perfidy,” “peculation” and “oppression.” Perfidy (or lying) and peculation (self-dealing) are particularly interesting in the current controversy given similar accusations against President Trump in his Ukrainian comments and conduct.”
If you remember, you acknowledged under oath that using military aid as a quid pro quo to investigate a political rival would be an impeachable offense if proven, but you did not believe the legal and historical record was sufficient in that case.
Here, the stakes are much clearer. There is no question that peculation (Trump and his family get to avoid tax audits!) and perfidy (government handouts to Trump supporters!) are involved.
Those specific evidentiary and procedural gaps do not exist.
The entire mechanism is laid out in a concrete, public legal settlement brokered between Donald Trump and the Department of Justice. The explicit terms—using the Treasury’s Judgment Fund to bypass Congress, shielding the Trump family from IRS audits, and establishing a payout pool for political allies—are written directly into the document. Congress does not need to guess his intent; the text of the deal provides the objective proof.
You have previously warned that “abuse of power” must be anchored to strict standards. Here, the issue directly collides with an explicit, unyielding clause of the Constitution: Article I, Section 9, which states that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except by an appropriation made by law. Using an executive branch settlement to unilaterally redirect $1.776 billion for an all-purpose political compensation program is an objective, systemic overreach. It moves past “subjective bad behavior” into a structural violation of the separation of powers.
As you have stated before, a president can be impeached for severe, non-criminal “perfidy” and subversion of the public trust. Hiding a massive political apparatus inside a legal loophole (at best) is exactly the kind of structural overreach the framers expected Congress to punish.
Perhaps instead of summarily saying it is not impeachable, you could offer… I dunno… legal analysis on your legal blog?
WTH are you even talking about? Trump, as litigant, can spend his settlement money any way he wants. Maybe Biden appointees and administrative staff will think twice before THEY again make taxpayers pay for their partisan sins.
It is not HIS settlement money.
This is not a standard civil payout; it is an unprecedented use of executive branch powers to shield a specific family and its businesses from the rule of law.
The Judgment Fund Act is strictly legally limited to payouts for individuals who have actual pending or imminent legal judgments or settlements against the United States.
And before you yell “WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?” – perhaps you should look up the meaning of the “cy-pres doctrine.” Hint: distributing money to third party nonprofits serving the exact same demographic of Native American farmers who brought the suit is a completely different legal structure than the Trump slush fund panel Trump himself controls.)
Praytell, did Fox News not discuss the cy pres doctrine? (Because we know its legal expert Turley certainly hasn’t on his own blog)
It is clearly illegal; Trump is just banking on the lack of anyone having standing to sue. However, that is irrelevant to a discussion regarding merits for impeachment.
“It is not HIS settlement money.”
Actually it is. The IRS settled with Trump.
Trump chose to donate the money back to the govenrment to create a fund to compensate those who YOU weaponized govenrment against.
He could have kept the money and done so privately – and you would STILL be ranting about impeachment.
You seem to beleive that the IRS is allowed to get away with a criminal leak of a tax return – so long as the leak is of Trump’s tax return.
Criminal acts have consequences.
The ONLY question with respect to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was how big an award would he recieve.
“This is not a standard civil payout;”
Correct – the conduct of the IRS was CRIMINAL.
This is a payout to a crime victim for government criminal conduct.
Further – Trump is generously foregoing the money to allow OTHER people who were criminally abused by the govenrment to get compensation.
” it is an unprecedented use of executive branch powers to shield a specific family and its businesses from the rule of law.”
Trump and the Trump family are not “sheilded” in any way.
They Sued the IRS – there is zero doubt they would win.
Leaking a tax return is a crime.
The only question EVER was the size of the award.
“The Judgment Fund Act is strictly legally limited to payouts for individuals who have actual pending or imminent legal judgments or settlements against the United States.”
If that is actually true – then it is unconstitutional – read the 7th amendment.
“And before you yell “WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?” – perhaps you should look up the meaning of the “cy-pres doctrine.” Hint: distributing money to third party nonprofits serving the exact same demographic of Native American farmers who brought the suit is a completely different legal structure than the Trump slush fund panel Trump himself controls.)”
Not at all relevant.
YOUR argument is personal benefit – there is NONE.
Trump is not getting any money.
YOUR argument is political benefit – EVERYTHING that Government does confers a political benefit.
BTW laundering money through non-profits does not change anything.
Obama/Biden tried that with their unconstitutional censorshiop regimes.
The govenrment MAY NOT through a third party do what it is prohibited from doing directly. Can we can the stupid “laundering money through non-profits” nonsense.
“Praytell, did Fox News not discuss the cy pres doctrine? (Because we know its legal expert Turley certainly hasn’t on his own blog)”
Praytell -I have you read the 7th amendment ?
The federal govenrment CAN NOT make itself immune from lawsuits for its misconduct.
“It is clearly illegal; ”
ROFL
“Trump is just banking on the lack of anyone having standing to sue.”
Presuming that is true – then it is clearly legal.
Regardless, someone ALWAYS has standing to sue.
SCOTUS recently corrected the unconstitutional efforts to use standing as a means of precluding election lawsuits – unfortunately it was silent on this when it mattered in 2020.
“However, that is irrelevant to a discussion regarding merits for impeachment.”
Correct – as the prior impeachments of Trump established – the house can impeach for any stupid reason it wishes.
While Turley is correct as to what constitutes a High Crime or misdemeanor.
The constitution included no review mechanism form that clause in the text.
They left it up to the house alone to decide what is a high crime or misdemeanor.
You can impeach the president for the color of his tie.
If Democrats take the house
I HOPE they waste all their time with this nonsense.
Republicans are often their own worst enemy.
But Democrats are constantly making absolutely certain that they prove themselves far worse than republicans.
Trump is both plaintiff and defendant with access to other people’s money to settle the score he is responsible for.
“Trump is both plaintiff and defendant with access to other people’s money to settle the score he is responsible for.”
Loosely correct. He is the defendant because the people elected him president.
HOWEVER Trump did not leak his own Tax Return. That was a crime committed by others.
You can try to spin this all you want – but inarguably he was going to win.
The only question regarding this case would be the size of the award.
Trump did not decide that he should win this case – the LAW did.
The FACTS did. Leaking a tax return is a federal crime, and if the government does so, it owes the defendant – compensatory and punative damages.
“(Trump and his family get to avoid tax audits!)”
You’re either ignorant or are lying. There is no such agreement.
The no audits provision applies *only* to those tax years cited in Trump’s complaint. That provision does not apply to future tax years. And that provision is a trade for Trump agreeing to drop his suit and for agreeing to *never* seek damages for those prior tax years.
That strikes me as a pretty generous agreement — by Trump.
That isn’t true. The scope of tax immunity actually goes far beyond the specific years cited in Trump’s original legal complaint. The addendum explicitly blocks the IRS from examining, challenging, or prosecuting tax returns filed before May 19, 2026.
The original complaint targeted specific tax years, 2005-2008, 2015-2017, and 2018.
Sam, does Trump have immunity from audits only in those years?
Further, can you point to the section of the complaint that covered his son, Baron Trump? Oh wait, he wasn’t, yet he now has tax immunity.
So, do you want to revise your statement that the audits only apply to tax years in Trump’s complaint?
“That isn’t true.”
That is not relevant.
The LAW said the IRS can not leak tax returns – they did.
Nothing in this settlement precludes the IRS from violating the settlement.
That is literally impossible.
” The scope of tax immunity actually goes far beyond the specific years cited in Trump’s original legal complaint. The addendum explicitly blocks the IRS from examining, challenging, or prosecuting tax returns filed before May 19, 2026.”
Presuming that it actually says as you claim – that will hold up for about 5 seconds.
Absent a pardon, or a settlement of a criminal case any such clause would be meaningless as well as in this case unnecessary. Trump can simply order the IRS not to audit him while president. Further the existing Supreme court precident likely precludes the IRS from auditing him while president.
In Jan. 2029 whoever is president is free to follow existing federal tax and criminal law and go after Trump.
Separately – when it is CLEAR that a defendant has engaged in criminal conduct,
it is perfectly reasonable to preclude them from even the oportunity for further criminal conduct.
The best solution for this would be for IRS audits of a political nature to be subject to public disclosuire of their basis and court review Prior to starting.
But that would require congress to act.
Before Obama we did not have to address issues like the weaponization fo the IRS against political enemies, or leaking tax returns.
There MUST be a price to pay for that or it will continue.
The president who SHGOULD have been impeached for using the power of the executive to unjustifiably go after political enemies would be Obama and Biden.
This kind of conduct by the executive was unheard of before Obama.
“The original complaint targeted specific tax years, 2005-2008, 2015-2017, and 2018.” All of those years are outside the IRS’s purview because they are past the criminal statute of limitations.
“Sam, does Trump have immunity from audits only in those years?”
Regardless of any agreement he can not be audited for those years.
“Further, can you point to the section of the complaint that covered his son, Baron Trump? Oh wait, he wasn’t, yet he now has tax immunity.”
If we did not have a massive number of politically corrupt democrat government employees – none of this would be needed.
Prior to Obama it was not needed.
We did not see this kind of use of the institutions of govenrment to go after political enemies – large and small before this.
Separately – this settlement does not and can not convey criminal immunity.
“So, do you want to revise your statement that the audits only apply to tax years in Trump’s complaint?”
Nope.
The IRS is politically corrupt. I was hoping that Trump’s proposed trade of no income tax on people earning less than 250K in return for Tariffs would have turned into law. But congress has not taken it up. We could fire 90% of the IRS.
The US federal government operated exclusively on revenue from Tariffs and excise taxes for more than 1/2 our history. That imposed a meaningful constraint on federal spending. And it precluded this kind of weaponized political nonsense.
This is the key point — the one that the Left keeps misrepresenting:
“That provision does not apply to future tax years.”
“You shrug off any actual discussion about whether the slush fund is impeachable without any analysis. Why?”
Because democrats are going to impeach Trump without any basis if they retake the house no matter what.
Is the fund impeachable – absolutely. As was demonstrated by the last two bogus democrat impeachments, there is no review process for impeachment.
The president can not challenge and impeachment in court.
If the house votes to impeach a president for wearing a red tie on monday – he is impeached – Period.
Does that violate the constitution ? Absolutely. But the constitution created no remedy.
If republicans hold the senate – all these idiotic democrat impeachments will quietly die without a trial.
If Democrats gain the senate – then the senate will waste lots of time hearing the house managers shill bogus nonsense
Regardless, few will pay attention or care.
And all you will have accomplished is made impeachment even more political and meaningless.
That said – the Settlement and the fund created are perfectly constitutional.
Or do you wish to unravel every govenrment settlement ever ?
“In 2019, you noted that the Framers explicitly worried about “peculation” (the misuse or theft of public funds for personal/political gain) and “perfidy” (breach of trust or political self-dealing)?”
There is no self dealing – there is no personal gain – in fact the settlement AVOIDS a legitimate personal gain. There is also no misuse of funds – or do you believe the tobacco settlement was unconstitutional ?
Political gain is NOT peculation or perfidity – evertything a president does has political consequences.
“If you remember, you acknowledged under oath that using military aid as a quid pro quo to investigate a political rival would be an impeachable offense if proven, but you did not believe the legal and historical record was sufficient in that case.”
Complex nonsense. First – regardless of what Turley has said – the house can impeach for any reason at all. The constitutional framework of “high crimes and misdemeanors” died when democrats violated it and we all learned – there is no remedy for a bogus impeachment. The analysis now is trivial – the house has the power to impeach for any reason they wish.
With respect to your claim above – no using military aide to leverage and investigation of a political rival would not be a “high crime or misdemeanor” – UNLESS there was not reasonable suspicion of misconduct by the “political rival”
The impeachment over Vice President Biden’s actual bribery in Ukriane was democrat stupidity. There was not merely reasonable suspicion – there was probable cause that a crime was committed – today we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The claim that you can not use public power to seek the investigation of a political rival under any circumstances would mean that political rivals of the president could commit crimes with impunity. Which is an absurdly stupid claim.
I would further not that none other than Jefferson directed the AG to prosecute his political rival while president.
“Here, the stakes are much clearer. There is no question that peculation (Trump and his family get to avoid tax audits!)”
How so ? Billionaires are pretty close to 100% guaranteed to get audited.
At the same time – Trump might werll be immune from Audit for the rest of his life.
Not because of the settlement – but because of the crime of leaking he tax return and the lawsuit. Trump can trivially argue any Audit is IRS retaliation.
Further Trump will be president for 2 1/2 more years. The IRS can audit the past 3 years of taxes for any reason, and the past 7 years if it alleges criminal conduct.
Your the Trump family gets to avoid tax audits is just made up nonsense.
Win the presidency in 2028 and you can audit the crap out of the Trumps and face the lawsuits.
“and perfidy (government handouts to Trump supporters!) are involved.”
Wasn’t the attempt – to a small extent even successful to cancel student loans a government hand out to Democrat supporters ?
Isn’t every single govenrment program doling out money trivially arguable has government handouts to supporters ?
Everything that government does benefits SOMEONE.
Much of the time they are political supporters.
What of Obama’s funding of Solyandra – now bankrupt ?
I can go on and on.
If you are going to make a claim that something is political “perfidity” probably you should check and see if far worse is not being done by democrats all the time.
“Those specific evidentiary and procedural gaps do not exist.”
Of course they do – at testimony in the house, Democrats could not get a single person top testify that Trump required a Quid Pro Quo of a Biden investigation to release the funds.
“The entire mechanism is laid out in a concrete, public legal settlement brokered between Donald Trump and the Department of Justice. The explicit terms—using the Treasury’s Judgment Fund to bypass Congress, shielding the Trump family from IRS audits, and establishing a payout pool for political allies—are written directly into the document. Congress does not need to guess his intent; the text of the deal provides the objective proof.”
Absolutely Trump is going to divy out this money to various people that Biden and Democrats weaponized the government to go after.
That is EXACTLY what any president should do.
If you beleive the Biden’s conduct in Ukraine was not corrupt – they too can apply for funds. ROFL
The INTENT of this fund is to compensate people who were improperly targeted for their politics by democrats under Biden.
“Here, the issue directly collides with an explicit, unyielding clause of the Constitution: Article I, Section 9, which states that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except by an appropriation made by law. Using an executive branch settlement to unilaterally redirect $1.776 billion for an all-purpose political compensation program is an objective, systemic overreach. It moves past “subjective bad behavior” into a structural violation of the separation of powers.”
And yet, the federal government settles disputes all the time – without laws passed by congress. It has been doing so for the entire history of the United States.
Further the executive branch has been rewarding political friends – with far less justification than this, and punishing political enemies – again for the entire history of the country.
If you wish to prohibit the executive branch from doing any of this – figure out how to change the law and constitution to do so – though as a practical matter YOU CANT.
Everything that govenrment does can be claimed to have a political motive.
Contra your claims above – proving that there is a political element to an executive branch action does NOT establish corruption.
There was reasonable suspicion that the Biden family had engaged in criminal conduct when Biden was VP in Ukraine. That is all that is required for the president to demand an investigation – by DOJ and/or a foreign power.
Using executive branch leverage to get other countries to do what our president wants – is common, legal and constitutional – need we list all the myriads of times democrats have done so.
The govenrment settles lawsuits all the time.
Compensating people that it has screwed over happens all the time.
I would note that even without settling with the IRS Trump could have directed that DOJ settle any claims made by those persecuted by democrats during Biden’s tenure.
If you think there is actual criminal conduct – file a lawsuit and watch the courts laugh you out of the courtroom.
This is meritless nonsense.
” Hiding a massive political apparatus inside a legal loophole (at best) is exactly the kind of structural overreach the framers expected Congress to punish.”
Nothing hidden at all.
“Perhaps instead of summarily saying it is not impeachable, you could offer… I dunno… legal analysis on your legal blog?”
All you have done with your post is prove there is no misconduct.
Because the claims you have made could be made of any prior president.
Do not confuse TDS with the law and constitution.,
Jonathan, please stop using the term socialist. The dems of today are full blown communists.
The Whole F—— Place Is Communist!
The Entire Communist American Welfare State Is Unconstitutional.
The Singular American Failure Is The Communist Judicial Branch, With Emphasis On The Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
_________________________
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
_________________________________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“I am not and never have been a member of the Communist Party.”
– Alger Hiss, After Conviction Of Perjury For Denying Document Transmission To And Denying Meetings With Communists
Turley Writes:
“Despite my objections to how the fund was created, it is neither illegal nor impeachable in my view.”
……………………………………
The fund is illegal and totally inappropriate. No court has approved the ‘settlement’ and Congress had no say. It only become ‘legal’ if Congress says nothing. But already there are numerous challenges. Anyone trying to excuse the fund should lose whatever position they have.
Anon-ny….you, as usual, are 100% wrong.
The anonymous you responded to is not a human, but a CCP bot programmed to show up here every day with commie talking points. You can always tell from this:
………………………………..
The CCP has not yet caught on that that leaves a tell-tale mark of the commie talking point’s non-human origins.
Massive TDS.
Of course it is legal.
Courts have very little say in Settlements.
If two parties agree to a settlement – the court has pretty much no role.
As to Congress – as Goldman notes – The house can impeach over this, or the color of the tie Trump wears – with equal merit.
As to lawsuits – congress can sue – or not, their choice.
Though I doubt they can win.
Democrats have been using the near infinite power of the parties in a settlement to agree to anything the please for a long time.
Goose – meet Gander.
“Let Them Eat The Unrestricted Vote of Their Defective One-Man, One-Vote Democracy.”
– American Founders
_________________________
Democracy has had a restricted vote since inception in Greece in 508 B.C.
The American Founders and Framers restricted the vote through state legislatures.
In 1788, the qualifications were generally to be male, European, and 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling, or 50 acres.
State legislatures have fallen to the “dictatorship of the majority” and the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” both resulting in communism as a one-man, one-vote democracy.
State legislatures have failed to hold the line they were entrusted with by the Founders and Framers.
The multi-layered madness reflected in this situation is a result of that monumental failure.
America has fallen into the abyss of the Jacobins; America will recover or succumb.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
– Alexis de Tocqueville (Pseudo-Tocqueville)
I am just going to put this here, NY Dems running for House want fed funding for ‘Drag Story Hour’ as city, state spend $700K
https://nypost.com/2026/05/26/us-news/ny-dems-running-for-house-want-fed-funding-for-drag-story-hour-as-city-state-spends-700k/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
And this here, Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner embraces democratic socialism at Bernie Sanders rally in Portland
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maine-senate-candidate-graham-platner-embraces-democratic-socialism-bernie-sanders-rally-portland?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
USF
Drag story hour
There once was a man named Rick that cut off his dick to the quick.
He grew out his hair and went on a tear now Calling himself the name Cher
But then came the day that his hair
Receded far beyond a repair
The doctor perplexed as Cher seemed so quite vexed
He said Cher it’s because of your pair!
Test
Jews are turning against their own. Judaism has been fracturing since the post-Holocaust era if not longer. Daniel Goldman is a Conservative Jew, his wife an Orthodox Jew, and the NY 10th Congressional District has the largest percentage of Jewish voters compared to any other congressional district. Goldman is decidedly pro-Israel and receives financial support from the pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC. He also supports Palestine as a free state. Hassidic Jews are found in large numbers in the NY 10th Congressional District. Presumably the district has voted for Goldman in two previous elections because of his pro-Israel stance, even if he brags about being a progressive. His third Congressional election is in free fall.
Goldman is tanking in local polls against another Jew, Brad Lander, 57% vs 23% per recent polls. But Lander is a Reformed Jew and parrots anti-Israel, pro Gaza Left wing talking points, including the genocide claptrap.
Dan Goldman’s Levi Straus nepo baby ties cannot save him from the pro-Gaza Jews of his district.
“While all age groups break for Lander, his most significant support comes from voters under 40, who break for Lander over Goldman, 73% to 15%,” Kimball said. “Voters over 70 are more split; 38% support Lander, while 31% support Goldman.”
Emerson College Polling
New York City 2026 Congressional Polling: NY-07, NY-10, NY-12
May 21st, 2026
Ironically we can thank Republican Cuban-Greek Representative, Nicole Malliotakis, the only Republican representing NYC, for pitting Goldman vs Lander. She is from NY 11th Congressional District which comprises Staten Island, and votes mostly Republican by >10% points in previous elections. Democrats tried to gerrymander her district into a Democrat district. SCOTUS stopped their shenanigans.
קאַרמאַ
Karma
Estovir
Crazy huh?!
Yes indeed !!
Estovir is as crazy as they come !!
Estovir is certifiably insane !!
Goldman is a dependable vote. Give him a script and he’ll read it. What more could democrats want. Same old tripe is the title bestowed upon Goldman.
There is a Justice sitting on the bench not knowing men from women. Does everyone understand that’s the very definition of insane?
There’s nothing to work with here. DJT created a 1776 account for victims of lawfare as insurance. It’s a very good idea.
OT
It is a mystery how America should accomplish “districting” and “redistricting.”
And the answer is:
Shortest Splitline Algorithm!
https://www.caliper.com/glossary/what-is-a-splitline-algorithm.htm
OT
President Trump
Please take out the Mullahs and IRGC members. Knock the hell out of them until the Iranian people can implement their own government. Do not capitulate with any cash, do not send in ground troops, blast away from afar. This regime is responsible for so many deaths including Servicemen deaths and maiming in Iraq and Afghanistan.
FUK them up bigly, please.
“He who hesitates is lost.”
– Adapted From Joseph Addison.
I’m sure it’s no coincidence that on the day of the Texas primary runoff, where GOP popular incumbent four-term senator John Cornyn is being shown the exit by Dear Leader in favor of a fellow-criminal Ken Paxton because he’s been “more MAGA” – and the outrage that has infused in the Republican ranks, the good professor would rather be writing about….checks notes…..second term House congressman Dan Goldman???? Way to stay on the news that matters, Professor.
That you, Gigi? You forgot the telltale blue icon. But the usual lunacy gives you away.
it does sound like gigi.
You sound Russian.
Russian to the finish line maybe!
Texans get to choose who they wish to represent them.
Yes, Trump wants Paxton – but it is still TV voters that decide.
Why are TX voters chosing Paxton ? Because he is more MAGA – that is up to TX voters – not you, not me, not Trump. But if Texans think Paxton is more likely to Make America Great Again – sounds good to me.
If you want a voice in the TX senator race – move to TX and register republican.
But please ACTUALY move – don;t register via a UPS store and try to vote by mail.
AG Paxton has been prosecuting election fraud.
If New Yorkers wish to elect Goldman or someone even farther left – that is their business.
I am surprised that it is possible to go farther left than Goldman.
The NY 10th Congressional District includes southern Manhattan, including Wall Street and the entire Financial District. So if Lander wins the election’s, Wall Street, the world’s capital of capitalism, will then be represented in Congress by a socialist in a city led by a socialist-communist mayor. While that may be entertaining to observe going forward, one better consider getting out now while one still can and observe it from a distance before Albany enacts a wealth tax like the one proposed in California, the equivalent of an economic “Berlin Wall”.
Wait until you find out the country is being run by a draft-dodging, criminal adulterer who is up to his eyeballs in self-dealing and corruption.
I thought Bill Clinton was in Chappaquidick?!
whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout
You mean the one with “big oranges” who just saved the world from the consequences of a nuclear Iran? Be grateful.
Wall Street is moving to TX and FL already. There are more banks headquartered in TX than NY, and both TX and FL are likely to host a Stock Exchange shortly.
NYC is no longer the financial capital of the world.
Oh my God, Turley – you ARE adorable, aren’t you? In the face of the Trump tempest, you choose to cover what now? – Ah yes – a Democrat primary battle. And what are you so outraged about now? Let’s see – ah yes – someone calling out the non-stop corruption, ineptitude and blatant criminality of our sitting “president.” Yes, God-forbid an elected official DARE to stand up to your dear leader. Oh, but you do understand your readership, don’t you? You are no fool, Professor. You know who buys your books and reads your insipid drivel. Gotta hand it to you- you will keep rearranging those deck chairs even after the ship is leagues under the water.
Seriously..this is the dvmbest statement on the platform
Get help for ur TDS …not 1 on 1 help but a team of Dr’s is needed to make u mentally stable
Ur funny
Thinking people care what u post
Blah blah Trump bad
Cry cry end of democracy
U lying racist antisemitic POS
Are the Russians using ChatGPT to put “TDS” into their replies? Gotta spend the rubles while the power stays on.
Oh my God, X/George/GiGi – you ARE Hilarious, aren’t you? So defensive. so ugly.
Goldman was the perfect Democrat.
He is white male Jewish lawyer that doesn’t support Jews. He said he is for DEI, supported Joe Biden, didn’t speak out against men is women’s sports, didn’t speak out against illegal aliens flowing into our country.
Most of all, he can’t tell the truth.
Now that the communist wing of the Democrat Party has taken over New York, he has nowhere to go, but CNN or MS-NOW.
Richard “DaNang Dick” Blumenthal, Jamie Raskin, Chuck “U” Schumer and Jon Ossoff are probably next.
Thou Shalt Not Covet
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Thou Shalt Not Steal
________________________
Nutchachacha begins her pseudo “career” with governmental assistance as a DEI ward of the state.
Welfare. Don’t leave home without it.
You go, girl.
_______________
AI Overview
Welfare state benefits accrue to women primarily through income assistance, healthcare subsidies, family leave laws, and retirement programs, while complementary regulatory policies use affirmative action, corporate board requirements, and public procurement set-asides to target systemic workplace exclusion. Because women generally face barriers in high-earning networks, have lower lifetime earnings, take more time away from the labor force for caregiving, and outlive men, these combined safety nets and market interventions significantly protect them from poverty.
Outside the far left – no one cares about left wing nut idiotic claims of Trump corruption.
Absolutely Trump is “corrupt” by settling a multi-Billion dollar lawsuit caused by criminal misconduct by the IRS and giving all that moneyh to others who have been politically targeted by government.
Only a left wing nut could spew this nonsense.
If hypocrisy did not already exist, Democrats, liberals and Communists would invent it at breakfast if only to survive until lunch.
Says the guy who was probably furious about Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma but has NO problem with Trump’s cryptocurrency deals, making 3700 stock trades in the first quarter of 2026 on companies over which he is involved with legislation, or introducing foreign diplomates to his two kids to do business deals….let alone accepting 40 million from Amazon for a “documentary” on his mistress. Sure man – tell me another story.
Seriously..this is the dvmbest statement on the platform
Get help for ur TDS …not 1 on 1 help but a team of Dr’s is needed to make u mentally stable
Ur funny
Thinking people care what u post
Blah blah Trump bad
Cry cry end of democracy
U lying racist antisemitic POS
“Says the guy who blah blah blah.”
Take anything you say, assume the opposite, and that will be right about 90% of the time. You should get a job as a contrary indicator for the stock market.
Don’t like Trump Crypto – do not buy it – no one is forcing you.
Last I checked CONGRESS legislates.
Government by trolls: “Bread and butter for Democrats; bread and water for anybody who gets in their way.”
Good. As they say; revolutions eat their children. Goldman is a despicable leftist heir to the Levi’s family. He is a hypocrite and sides wit the Anti-Semites on Iran. Good Riddance to him
Word.
Noone
@Alan
Agreed, but the people replacing him are worse and they have no problem with violence. We really need to watch the East closely and hope the socialists get checked, because they will have no compunctions about simply going insane, and such is the levels of their brainwashing, they do not care who they hurt. This is no time to be cocky. We could see riots the likes of which we never imagined, and if the dems have any power at all, they will allow it with a shrug.
The new East is basically the old South on steroids. So ironic they consider themselves to be elevated when they are the actual Cletuses.
Oh, and PS:
We talk about the law, but they do not care a whit about the law, and neither does the modern left.
James,
I dont think the Democrats in leadership as having allowing anything. I dont think they are in charge of anything as evident of how rudderless not only appea, but some of their own members have admitted.
Wokeism took over the party, the DNC leadership got on board thinking it would get them more power. When that failed, they had a problem; They tied themselves to that train and cannot get off.
Various studies and demographs show they are likely to lose power/Congressional seats from the mass exodus of failing Blue States like CA and NY to Red States. Democrat women tend not to marry or have children and the Democrat men, soy boys. They are non-breeding themselves out of existence. The younger generation are looking at socialism more favorably as they themselves are failures to launch. So, I think the DNC, needing support from those younger voters, are courting the DSA to get the votes thinking once back in power, they will simply discard the DSA. I think you and I see it as the DNC let the genie out of the bottle and there is no putting it back in.
As I mention elsewhere, if Goldman loses as he appears he will, that should send a message to the establishment DNC.
The Democrat party has very serious problems.
Goldman is on the far left.
Replacing him with someone even farther left is BAD for the party.
Nearly all leading Democrats are BAD for the party.
Absolutely in SOME places like NYC democrats need to move to the far left to win elections.
That is NOT most of the country.
In even more places they have to move to the far left to win primaries – leaving them almost unelectable in most of the country.
In other cases – such as VA we have Democrats wink and nod claim to be centrists to win elections – and then move far left in power.
About 1/3 of the blue elected offices in the country are unlikely to ever see a challenge from Republicans or even centrist democrats.
But the price for this is to make 2/3 of democrats harder and harder to get elected.
We had a near democrat uniparty for decades – from FDR through the 70’s atleast .
We do not need and should not want a republican uniparty either.
But avoiding that requires democrats to return to the values of 80% of the country – not the far left.
Get rid of Goldman,
and there will be an election in 2028 and if necescary the next failed left wing nut can be disposed of
If Dan Goldman really understood “Let them eat impeachments” he would drop it like a bad habit. Why? Because Marie Antoinette’s “them” was all the French people. They were starving from crop failure because France didn’t adopt crop rotation as had most of Europe. She meant let the people eat cattle feed-cake. Goldman is telling half of the United States that he means to erase with the midterm election the sustenance they voted for in the four year 2024 election cycle. He might get by in the New York vote. But does his idea as a political party get past the guillotine of the national ballot box?
This is utter bullcr*p.
First of all, Marie Antionette never said any such thing. If the unnamed princess who is supposed to have said it even existed, she must have done so before 1700, long before Marie Antionette was born.
Second, your interpretation is bull, whether in the 17th or the 18th century. The whole point of the story is that the princess was so detached from reality that she had no concept of poverty, and the only deprivation she could imagine was the kind that she herself might occasionally experience, where occasionally one menu item had run out for the day, so one had to order a different item instead.
86 The Cordon Bleu!!!
Aside from pedantic arguments about who said what when – what are you disagreeing about ?
For 99.99% of human existance 99% of people lived in abject poverty – the 17th and 18th centuries were the EARLY portions of the end of that.
For hundreds of thousands of years 1% growth a Millennia was high.
Thoreaux and a significant portion fo his family died of Tuberculousis – at 42.
TB almost never kills anyone today and is completely treatable.
The poor in the US today live better than Marie Antoinette or some unnamed princess.
I have no idea whether the relative poverty in france was caused by the failure adopt crop rotation or not. But the poverty itself is undeniable – and STILL at the time the French poor were better off than most of the world – and all of the non-white New World.
Is this the same Dan Goldman, the financial director for the family Richard Goldman foundation, with a $32M investment in tax-evading-haven Cayman Islands? If so, no wonder his focus is on “eat-the-impeachments” instead.
Goldman “is reportedly over 20 points behind his Mamdini-endorsed opponent . . .”
The Left is in the final stages of Dr. Jekyll morphing into Mr. Hyde.