Below is my column in Fox.com on the recent MS NOW interview with Rep. Ilhan Omar. The most impressive aspect of the segment with Chris Hayes was how he could conduct an extended interview without actually asking long-standing, unanswered questions. When it comes to the art of evasion, it was a masterpiece. In case you are curious, here are the questions not asked of Rep. Omar.
Here is the column:
“I am trying to figure out the way to do this.” Those words from MS NOW’s Chris Hayes say all you need to know (and likely all you will get) from his interview on Wednesday with Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. There is a litany of questions the liberal host never asked of Omar. Those questions have only increased over the years, leading to the current criminal investigation into immigration fraud. At points, Hayes sounded more like a supplicant than a journalist given his discomfort with asking pressing questions.
The interview had the journalistic nutritional content of a Slurpee that would give any liberal a sugar high and any non-liberal a stomachache.
Many of us have stressed that these allegations are unproven, and that little evidence has been confirmed to support the underlying criminal charges. However, I have also written that Omar has been remarkably unforthcoming in rebutting the allegations or providing her own exculpatory information. Instead, she has spent years denouncing the allegations as racist or Islamophobic without addressing the specific claims.
While the Biden administration began aspects of these investigations years ago, Omar again sat for another prolonged interview without being pressed (beyond cursory questions) about long-standing allegations.
Hayes exhaustively explored Omar’s feelings and reactions to the recent search while largely avoiding any detailed questions about the very allegations that a Washington, D.C., judge found sufficient to show probable cause of criminal conduct.
It may be useful to consider 10 questions not asked of Ilhan Omar. Asking these questions is not to assume that the underlying claims are true, but to establish the facts from Omar’s perspective.
Immigration fraud
It took 12 minutes for Hayes to mention immigration fraud, and he did so by asking her, “How seriously do you take it?” He then prefaced the fraud question with a laugh, saying, “I am trying to figure out the way to do this that doesn’t sound like I’m insane.”
Hayes then laughed further with Omar about questions of marriage fraud and said, “There are right-wing people who believe” these allegations, after Omar agreed that such questions are “insane.”Hayes made a series of statements about how “there is not even a kernel of truth” to these claims before inviting affirmations from Omar. He then made a general reference to “moving on to other allegations” without any details.
The questions not asked:
- It has been alleged that you are not using your birth name and the government is referring to you as “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.” What was your name at birth, and have you ever legally changed your name? Are you using a name that is different from your birth name on your birth certificate?
- You stated in the interview that the government did not remove DNA evidence. Various legal experts have said for years that such samples could put the allegation of marrying a relative to rest. Have you ever offered a DNA swab and, if not, why?
- Have you had any contact with your former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, directly or indirectly, since becoming a member of Congress?
- Your father was reportedly a colonel in a brutal Somali regime. Is that true, and did your father fully report his Somali background when applying for citizenship? Also, have you ever confirmed the information your father submitted, and if not, why not?
- You stated that the issue in this case is whether you, as a 12-year-old child, were a mastermind of a fraud. However, that is not the allegation, correct? The allegation is that you obtained citizenship through your father’s naturalization after he represented that you were 17 years old and did not have to file for your own citizenship. Was that accurate, or were you, in fact, 18 years old at the time?
- Your staff reportedly tried to change your birthdate after your election to Congress on federal sites. Did you order this effort, or were you aware of it?
- Do you have conflicting documents showing that you were, in fact, 18 years old when you became a citizen?
- Reports indicate that this investigation changed after your sister sent you messages and that she is now cooperating with federal investigators. Are you aware of what those messages were, and what did she say in them?
Financial fraud
In the interview, when Hayes moved on to Omar’s previous financial disclosure that she and her husband were worth $30 million before dropping to a little over $100,000, he again failed to address allegations that the drop in income was due to fraud. Instead, he asked about her “lifestyle,” then moved on to ask what it is like to be one of the least wealthy members of Congress.
Questions not asked:
- There are reports that the decline in your income was due to a drop in the value of your husband’s winery because of fraudulent practices, including selling empty barrels to investors under the guise of “wine to be aged.” Was that the reason for the adjustment, and when were you first informed of these fraud allegations?
- Your sister Sahra Noor reportedly listed a Minnesota home address when creating her Grit Partners Consulting business, which received millions in government contracts. That same address was used as a residence by figures convicted in the $250 million Feeding Our Future fraud scheme. Were you or your sister involved in or aware of the fraudulent activities of Feeding Our Future? Have you ever intervened or taken any action in connection with your sister’s contracts or those of Feeding Our Future?
If Omar had answered them, any of these questions would have produced a scoop, but that was clearly not the purpose of this interview. Instead, Hayes spent more time asking Omar how she felt about former President Barack Obama defending her than asking about the specific fraud allegations she faces.
Never has so much been expressed with so little said.
Hayes culminated the interview by asking, “Do you ever just want to tap out?” and Omar congratulated him on reaching the “real question.”
Unfortunately, MS NOW tapped out of the interview long before that question was asked.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
And there it is; whoever this Omar fraudster truly is, she is gonna “Tap out” now.
Exit stage LEFT
“Not that I know of” Is the best way to explain what I mean when I say “The Insincere Left”©
Immigration fraud? Financial crimes? Chris Hayes purposely leaving out the really big crimes from his ‘list’. What about an enemy combatant infiltrating the highest institutions of our government in order to topple it?
“The interview had the journalistic nutritional content of a Slurpee that would give any liberal a sugar high…”
The left has political diabetes.
The Feds seized her DNA. US Citizenship and Immigration Services already has the brother’s DNA from his biometric data.
Omar could file a defamation suit and win millions. She hasn’t.
It’s a slam dunk. And, the Dems will lose seats.
Rep. Ilhan Omar is unlikely to help build more tools for prying into her life by those so desperate to cover for Trump’s involvement with Epstein and the sexual abuse of and rape of girls and young women.
Many of those questions require answers which Rep. Ilhan Omar may have no knowledge of about actions taken by others.
What advice would a competent lawyer offer Rep. Ilhan Omar?
Amaxing how you ignore the fact that this investigation was started by the Biden DOJ. I guess maybe the FBI really doesn’t have anything to do but run around investigating US citizens. GROW UP
That is supposed to read innocent US citizens.
Make sure you hire a lawyer with terminal TDS?
One of the most envious saying is “pay their fair share”! Billions in taxes are paid by the wealthy and it will never be enough to carry the load of the rest of ‘us’. And, many of these people who haven’t, to you, paid their ‘fair share’ have given us our colleges, our museums, our hospitals. They endow charities. And the are both Dems and Republicans. They do have more than most but they often have given more than most. It is too easy to say they haven’t paid enough but do you know the stats on the amount of taxes paid and generous giving that comes from so many of these people? Why do people buy lottery tickets ? We know the odds yet millions of people dream. That is what so many of the ultra wealthy have done. But if they started out without means, it was that they dreamed ideas which brought them fame and fortune. Some call it luck, some call it hard work but whatever you call it, it is good fortune and a big responsibility.
We do want basic services and yes, we should have good schools and affordable medical. Yet, when we see the fraud that is rampant in our States, we don’t applaud the efforts made to weed this out. That is where trillions have been lost that can pay for the needed programs and service you speak about. Why has Congress not stopped insider trading? Why not stop voting fraud by passing the Save Act? 85% of the public wants this to secure our elections yet nothing moves forward but the excuses why it can’t be done. Seriously – if we can go to space, we can fix earthly problems.
If the Dems weren’t so afraid of the extremes of their party they would have worked with the Republicans and stopped the frenzy that is upon us now. The moderates of the Party have folded. Unless they stand up, the Party will implode. We need our two-party system.
There is no panacea to freedom. Only united — Dems and Republicans — working together will keep our freedoms in tack — but for how long if this hate continues. So, while you’re waiting for the Dems to control Congress, don’t be surprised if when they get there, that nothing will get done. They will gloat, then stew. When Trump’s term is over the Party infighting will begin because the object of their hate will be gone and they will have to decide who they are. Time will tell — and show if the Party can deliver a viable contender.
The top 10% of U.S. taxpayers paid 72% of all federal income taxes in 2022.
By Friday 10:30 p.m., Concerned Citizen had been rejected by six men, ignored by three, and mistaken for an employee twice.
He was slight, moisturized, and wearing a towel that suggested he had recently lost a fight with a fitted sheet. He’d come to the bathhouse with the confidence of a man who had spent forty minutes selecting the right underwear
The first guy glanced at him and said, “Sorry, you’re not my type. Im not into bîtchy queens”
“What is your type?” Concerned Citizen asked.
The guy considered this. “Someone who is masculine, intelligent and evokes confidence. And well hung”
The second man didn’t even look up from his phone. Concerned Citizen suspected he was checking Grindr, presumably to see whether a better version of Concerned Citizen had become available within a three-mile radius.
At the steam room, a gorgeous twenty-six-year-old with the facial structure of a Greek statue gave Concerned Citizen the middle finger then physically rotated his entire torso toward someone else. It was the most decisive rejection Concerned Citizen had ever experienced. Even the United Nations had never seen such a swift withdrawal of recognition.
Then a stranger approached.
“Hey,” the man said. “Do you know where the exit is?”
Concerned Citizen pointed him toward the door.
On his way out, he checked his phone. Three new Grindr messages but then vanished because the senders blocked him.
Chris Hayes is demonstrating here how one of the primary functions of modern media is to operate like the “clean-up crews” that mobsters call in to sanitize the scenes of their crimes.
The comparison works because the Left/Progessives/Democrats operate as modern day mobsters.
I’m not seeing it. They seem very fair and reasonable to me.
Anon=deaf-dumb-blind
Well, you’ve inadvertently stumbled upon the source of the problem.
From Ilhan’s campaign website:
As a student at Edison High School in Minneapolis, she became an organizer and has been a coalition builder ever since. She worked as a community educator at the University of Minnesota and has been a committed organizer in the DFL party for many years. Before running for office, Ilhan was a Humphrey Policy Fellow and served as a senior Policy Aide for Minneapolis City Council Member Andrew Johnson.
she has all of the bona fides of Barack Obama (bolded emphasized)
In 2018, she became the first African refugee to become a Member of Congress, the first woman of color to represent Minnesota, and one of the first two Muslim-American women elected to Congress. Despite significant dark money spending to defeat her by out-of-state Republicans, Rep. Omar has won eight elections and served her constituents for three consecutive terms in Congress.
She has Barack’s identity politics jargon and dark money contacts as well…until her “husband” was busted for selling empty wine barrels to investors
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/winery-owned-ilhan-omars-husband-shuttered-due-fraud-james-comer-says
Why didn’t she find an actual American mentor, take that rag off of her head, and assimilate?
Because she, Obongo, and their Islamo-Communist ilk are covetous, wannabe conquering invaders, bent on “fundamental transformation,” not allies and friends on a sojourn.
Thinking those tall ships carried a few harmless tourists was the Indians’ mistake.
Because there is something called rights. You might have heard of them. She has them, too, believe it or not.
Rights to hate America and actual Americans in America?
Did the Founders and Framers include that in the Constitution of the United States of America?
Looks like they legislated to admit only free white persons to become citizens.
What is your long-term status if you cannot become a citizen in America?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
You’re getting ahead of the dumbocrat party. The left has YET to institute this sort of “right to destroy the United States of America” and they’ve been trying since 1861.
They’re still stuck on instituting other ‘rights’, but they’ll get to it.
Just slip out the back Jack. Make a new plan Stan….get yourself free.
She’s made a killing. You don’t gotta be coy Roy.
The last time I was in the same room with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was in his environmental law class in the mid-1990s. I was in my mid-20s, and Professor Turley was about nine years my senior. Two of my girlfriends and I sat in the front row for every class, which was only remarkable because we were the hardworking, quiet types who preferred to be invisible. There’s a good chance we chose to sit in the front row because we admired this young, charismatic professor with blue eyes and dark hair, who taught us about laws to keep air and water clean. He must have admired us, too, because all three of us ended up with an A+ in his class.
Turley still teaches at GW Law School; he’s the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law. Yesterday, he testified before the House Judiciary Committee as the lone Republican-chosen impeachment expert. Alongside him were three legal scholars picked by the Democrats: Professors Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina Law School, and Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School.
What struck me the most Wednesday, as I watched the hearings with intense interest, was that the 2019 Jonathan Turley no longer matches prior versions of his younger self. To be sure, that can be said for most of us as we age. But Turley’s deterioration, for lack of a better word, comes hand-in-hand with the toll that the Trump Administration takes on anyone who comes near it.
After graduating from GW Law School, I didn’t encounter Professor Turley again until a few years later when I saw him on TV as a regular commentator excoriating Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal—when he testified before Congress in support of impeachment.
“Crime is contagious,” he said in his 1998 testimony. “If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” To Turley, who claimed to have voted for Clinton, perjury over a blow job was criminal enough to impeach a sitting president. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, at the time, captured the sudden rise to fame of this once obscure environmental law professor pithily, describing him as a liberal Democrat who was “articulate, attractive, and available.”
In 2010, Turley joined the impeachment club again—this time, in defense of a United States District Court Judge in a Senate impeachment trial. Judge Gabriel Thomas Porteous had been impeached in the House on corruption and perjury charges, including for acts committed before entering office. As defense counsel, Turley went head-to-head against none other than Congressman Adam Schiff, who then served as house manager, or lead prosecutor, in the impeachment trial. Ultimately, Judge Porteous was convicted by the Senate and removed from the federal bench after a unanimous Senate vote. Turley had thrown out some arguments against impeachment on Porteous’s behalf, but they simply didn’t stick.
Then, in August 2014, as Republican contemplated impeaching Barack Obama, Turley put his impeachment expert hat on once again. “While there’s a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment,” he wrote in the Washington Post “an offense does not have to be indictable.” He went on, “Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough,” and noted that “[James] Madison saw impeachment as ‘defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate.”’ Per Turley, the founders also emphasized that impeachment was “about what happened in the political arena: involving ‘political crimes and misdemeanors’ and resulting in ‘political punishments.’”
Get the newsletter
Fast forward to the Trump Administration—and Turley makes himself relevant again. He is now a regular on Fox & Friends, Trump’s favorite morning show. Sure enough, he’s acted often like a cheerleader for the president. In December of 2018, for instance, he commended then-nominee Attorney General Bill Barr as “an absolutely brilliant choice.” In fact, Turley and Barr have been friends for years, a point he would emphasize a year later when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of Barr’s nomination.
For folks unfamiliar with D.C. lingo, to call someone your “friend” is often another way of saying you’ve arrived at an arrangement in which you back each other up. So, true to form, Turley came out this week and trotted out his failed 2010 arguments against impeachment, but this time, on behalf of Barr’s boss: President Trump. That was the best that Turley—and the Republicans—could offer to stem the rising tide of impeachment.
Professor Turley does not necessarily march to the beat of Trump’s drum. During his testimony Wednesday, he said that he did not vote for the president and that he has previously voted for Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Indeed in 2015, Turley criticized candidate Trump’s proposed Muslim ban as unconstitutional in the Washington Post: “This would not only violate international law but do so by embracing open discrimination against one religion. It would make the United States a virtual pariah among nations.” (Of course, Turley’s opposition to Trump then is sold by Republicans as a bona fide in his defense of the president now.)
What makes a man crawl back into the saddle for people like Barr and Trump? Why would Turley dust off failed arguments and put himself in the position of being a Trump defender when he claims he doesn’t agree with or support him? Is it his love of the Constitution? Is it his concern about the overreach of Congressional investigations? Marcus’s 1998 Post piece had an answer. Some of his law school colleagues, she reported, “sniff at his celebrity, saying he has forsaken scholarship for self-aggrandizement.” Indeed, according to Marcus, one faculty member quipped at the time: “If there were the deanship for self-promotion, he’d get it.””
Twenty-five years ago, Turley’s charisma inspired three quiet students to jump at the chance to sit in the front row of his class. But something changed when, 21 years ago, Turley transformed himself as he took the spotlight during the Clinton impeachment hearings. That version of himself seems to have won out. Yesterday, he became the Republican mouthpiece as the lone expert defending Trump from impeachment. Predictably, he was all over cable news Wednesday night, and in all the papers Thursday morning.
Will future students in the front row of his class be young women viewing him through idealistic eyes? Will he inspire them to pursue a career in law to be a champion for justice? I don’t have the answer to that question, but I have a good feeling Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan’s students certainly will.
Yet you have to post as Anonymous?? Chickensh*t would fit you better!
ESTOVIR IS KIRK AND HE POSTED THAT LONG, LONG STORY.
PSYCHO MORON ANON F YOURSELF!
Like a poster on X who fails to provide their true name and photo
Phil Hannum is ESTOVIR and ‘he’ posted that long, long story.
“The last time I was . . .”
When amateurs take on a fake persona, they always make the same mistake: They try too hard to convince you that they are the real deal.
The Media Matters paid troll posted that from an article written by Julie Zebrak at the Washington Monthly published in 2019. That he pretended to be the original author and take credit for someone else’s work is pathognomonic for leftist cult brain rot. Julie Zebrak hasn’t written a piece in WM in years, and her website bio hasnt been updated since 2019. For being the founder of Mamas4Kamala, she seems to have become thoroughly irrelevant, unlike Professor Turley.
washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/05/what-the-heck-happened-to-jonathan-turley/
Well that definitely seals it.
Good catch!
No, Estovir, that was YOU who posted it!!
I would think someone who claims to have studied the law would understand the role of an advocate (in the matter of Judge Porteous) in defending a client and realize the arguments advanced by an advocate do not necessarily reflect his own opinions or feelings. I do not hold a law degree but understand the difference which reaches back to before American independence – see the case of Adams defending the British soldiers tried for the so-called ‘Boston Massacre’.
Why not sign your name? In remaining anonymous and further, in basing your character assisination on anonymous sources, you make it hard for me to take you seriously and become simply another cowardly bomb-thrower attacking anyone connected in any way with the current president.
My name, by the way, is Michael J. Begley. And no, I have no personal relationship with Professor Turley. Have never, in fact, ever met the man.
M
Professor Turley and his blog manager Darren Smith allow anonymous comments so I think any complaints about that policy or practice should be directed at them and not individual commenters. In addition, I don’t understand how an anonymous commenter can complain about another commenter also using anonymous. Finally, I found the environmental law student part of the discussion to be interesting and it would be great to hear from more of the Professor’s students about his teaching and his classes (as appropriate).
Although you seem to have many problems, here is the most troubling. You will not vote for Republicans, while thinking you are virtuous, honest, and oh so compassionate. Yet, Trump has promised every adult, impoverished American citizen $5,000. For a family of 4, with marriage in tact, that falls below the poverty line, that’s $10,000. Of course, this helps the impoverished far, far more than the fortunate. You know, those who get to attend a great Law school.
Your self-righteous “compassion” will keep millions of children (13.4% of children in the U.S.) from having nicer things, better meals, and parents with a twinkle in their eyes at Christmas. It appears to me, at least, that you have far more self-criticism to ruminate over than the life of Professor Turley. Anonymity only shields who you are – not what you are.
“Two of my girlfriends and I sat in the front row for every class, which was only remarkable because we were the hardworking, quiet types who preferred to be invisible. There’s a good chance we chose to sit in the front row because we admired this young, charismatic professor with blue eyes and dark hair . . . . He must have admired us, too, because all three of us ended up with an A+ in his class.”
I’ve never met a lawyer who writes like this. I think the BOT has been fed too many Harlequin Romances.
“. . . Harlequin Romances.”
No kidding.
The “blue eyes” mention was the clincher.
No, they’re ‘academics’, so probably just being really scientific about it:
Blue eyes likely did not exist during the time of Stonehenge, which was built around 5,000 years ago, as the genetic mutation responsible for blue eyes is believed to have emerged around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Most early humans had brown eyes until this mutation occurred.
Turley has sold out. He overlooks serious legal stories that make Trump and Republicans look bad, Trump’s constant court losses, Trump pushing the limits of presidential power and the numerous corruption scandals.
Turley is well paid to push various MAGA tropes, like attacking mainstream media, Democrats, and looking for obscure stories about some far out radical that he tries to claim represent the views and values of Democrats. He also looks for ways to attack higher education. All of this is to fit into the MAGA marketing theme of “crazy v. common sense”.
One current example is the despicable use by Ramaswamy of Dr. Amy Acton’s estranged mother to accuse her of lying, even though the State of Ohio took Amy and her brother away from her for abuse and neglect. The mother fled the state with her husband after he was indicted for raping Amy when she was between 10 and 12. This pathetic excuse of a woman sided with her daughter’s rapist.
Trump fully supports Ramaswamy running that commercial, calling it “golden”. One can’t help but compare this situation with Trump’s hiding of the Epstein files that mentioned him thousands of times and which allegedly contain a credible accusation that Trump sexually assaulted an underage girl. Turley has nothing to say about this story.
What’s Turley going to do when we finally get rid of Trump and his Republican enablers and clean up the messes they have caused? We won’t forget. Also, regardless of what Turley says about who he voted for, there’s no way to verify it.
Take your meds ANON; or get new ones.
I think you mean his BOOK has sold out due to increased demand for Turley’s excellent writing.
You must have a lot of time on your hands. Are you in a cell somewhere?
People in cells don’t have internet access. But people in mental homes probably do.
Nothing changed. You just missed the point of the professor’s instruction. Happens quite often.
Men & Women run for Congressional Office (public office) to enhance their own wealth (Period).
It’s either that or be unemployed competing for crumbs left on the table by Billionaires and corrupt Oligarchs.
Hunter Biden and a slew of Others are proof of that, that didn’t make the cut.
Had Rep. Ilhan Omar not lied about herself, She would be standing in the bread line like the rest of Us.
There are ‘Haves & Have-Nots’ in the United States. Just the “Lay of the Land” of the Free.
The question is: What would you have done, if you didn’t run for Public Office … Ms. Omar?
Men & Women run for Congressional Office (public office) to enhance their own wealth (Period).
No, they don’t. There are many reasons people run, but that is not one of them.
Yet another distraction away from Trump, his lies, his sagging poll numbers, the endless firings and resignations of incompetent members of his administration, the ongoing increase in the price of gas due to the stupid war after Trump lied about no new wars, the failing economy, all of the taxpayer money Trump is wasting on vanity projects, his efforts to initimdate voters and Republicans also sagging in the polls. Trump just can’t quit, which is why I believe he will have the Kennedy Center torn down because he can’t put his name on it. In his first failed presidency, he had Omar investigated–why? Because she is black and a frequent critic. They found nothing. The paperwork that MAGA media claims proves she couldn’t be a citizen was filled out by her father, who is dead now. So what if there were errors in the paperwork? Omar fled Somalia in the midst of a civil war–and getting records from there is impossible. AND it is a persistent MAGA lie that she married her brother. How many times does she have to deny it?
But, just like Trump can’t let go from trying to prosecute Comey, the reflecting pool guy, and all of his other perceived enemies, he just can’t quit attacking Omar, and MAGA media has to have diversion stories to avoid the inconvenient truth that voters are turning out in record numbers, which doesn’t bode well for Republicans. Trump has set a new record for low approval rating. Plus, today’s piece is double MAGA credit–attacking Chris Hayes of MSNOW. WHY would Hayes hammer Omar about her former husband, her dead father or her sister? There are Republicans who ought to be hammered about their illegalities, insider trading and failure to hold Trump accountable for helping himself to our tax money–especially Ken Paxton. What about Todd Blanche saying that he works for Trump–? That’s not the job of the AG, who is supposed to be working for the American people. What about all of the government contracts awarded to companies in which the Trumps have a financial interest? WHY won’t they release the Epstein files? Why doesn’t Turley comment about the unhinged and repulsive attack of Ramaswamy on Dr. Amy Acton, using her disgrace of a mother, who lost custody of her and her brother over abuse and neglect, and fleeing the state with her 2nd husband who raped Amy?
Turley knows that allegations are just allegations, and given the intellectual dishonesty of the Trump DOJ, plus prior investigations, there is little merit to continued whining about Omar.
Another TDS post as usual from ANON!! Do you attack DEMS as well?/
Trump’s Dimentia Syndrome.
Although you seem to have many problems, here is the most troubling. You will not vote for Republicans, while thinking you are virtuous, honest, and oh so compassionate. Yet, Trump has promised every adult, impoverished American citizen $5,000. For a family of 4, with marriage in tact, that falls below the poverty line, that’s $10,000. Of course, this helps the impoverished far, far more than the fortunate. You know, those who get to attend a great Law school.
Your self-righteous “compassion” will keep millions of children (13.4% of children in the U.S.) from having nicer things, better meals, and parents with a twinkle in their eyes at Christmas. It appears to me, at least, that you have far more self-criticism to ruminate over than the life of Professor Turley. Anonymity only shields who you are – not what you are.
According to the Constitution, Trump doesn’t have the power to give away our tax dollars. Only Congress has the authority to decide how our tax dollars are spent, but Trump has bullied them into doing whatever he wants, so he arrogantly makes promises to bribe voters. Most Americans already know that there will be no $5,000 checks coming. The cost of this bribe would add over a trillion dollars to our already historically high national debt. And, according to Trump, it would only be paid if Republicans stay in power, which polls suggest is unlikely.
Poor families would rather have the school lunches for needy kids, Medicaid restored and health care subsidies that Trump took away, which they will get when Democrats take over.
All of life in this country doesn’t revolve around Christmas presents parents can’t afford or “twinkles in the eyes” of parents— even poor ones, who need money to cover the increased costs of groceries, energy, health care, prescriptions, housing and everything else because of Trump’s stupid tariffs and the war he started.
Their eyes wouldn’t “twinkle” if they thought about the fact that their children and grandchildren will be paying off the debt Trump is incurring trying to buy votes so he can avoid the impeachment that needs to happen because of his incompetence and corruption.
Adding to that burden are the vanity arch, the gilded ballroom, both of which no one wants, the billions spent on the unnecessary war with Iran, the jet Qatar gave Trump to get those sensitive AI chips that aren’t supposed to leave the country, damaging the Washington public golf course by cutting down trees, the cost of restoring Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden, and all of the gilded doodads the next president will have to have pried off the walls of the Oval Office. None of these things benefit anyone other than Trump.
We’d rather have school lunches, Obamacare subsidies, Medicaid restored and the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, which we will get when Democrats take over Congress.
Ozzie,
$10,000 will raise that family of 4 above the level where they qualify for other assistance, without being enough to remove them from needing assistance. It’s a fast-track way to getting them kicked out of subsidized housing and onto the street.
That her “second marriage” was a sham, and the “husband” was her brother, has been an established fact for many years now. The evidence for it is overwhelming. So your asking how many times she must deny it for it to become untrue is deranged; 1000 denials won’t make it untrue, because it remains true. But every times she denies it she digs herself deeper into her lack of credibility.
And if it’s true that she never got naturalized herself but relied on being included in her father’s naturalization, then if her father’s naturalization was invalid because of material lies he told then she was never naturalized. Likewise if his was valid, but she was over 18 at the time, even if it was a completely honest mistake, the fact remains that she could not be included and therefore was never naturalized. US citizenship is a binary state; either you are one or you aren’t, and if you aren’t then it makes absolutely no difference that you honestly thought you were.