Brett Kavanaugh

There Is Nothing 'Illegitimate' About the Brett Kavanaugh Nomination

More Trump-era hyperbole from liberal pundits and politicians.

|

Perhaps one day a court will find that Donald Trump conspired with his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to pay nondisclosure agreements meant to silence his mistresses. Perhaps one day the House will impeach Trump for breaking those campaign finance laws, and then maybe the Senate will also remove him from office.

Those are the mechanisms that have been provided by the Constitution to thwart a president from appointing justices to the Supreme Court. I'm afraid there's no clause in the document that empowers angsty liberal pundits and politicians to question the legitimacy of duly confirmed justices.

But much like their ideal Supreme Court, Democrats have set about fabricating brand-new extraconstitutional standards that happen to always align with their partisan aims. Their latest concocted stipulation states that anyone nominated by a president under suspicion of criminality becomes "illegitimate."

Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono and Ed Markey canceled meetings this week with prospective Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh. Markey said the nominee is "illegitimate" because the president was "all but named as a co-conspirator" by Cohen when Cohen was pleading guilty to breaking a campaign finance law. A similar sentiment was repeated by many Democrats and liberal pundits. The Supreme Court itself, contends The New York Times' Paul Krugman, would become "fundamentally illegitimate" with Kavanaugh on board.

Much of this, of course, is typical Trump-era hyperbole. None of these senators was going to vote for Kavanaugh anyway, and none of these pundits is going accept the validity of a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution as written. Yet it's still worth noting the vacuousness of their arguments.

For one thing, Kavanaugh is not Trump. His nomination will be considered by senators, ostensibly on the merits of his career and legal positions. His nomination has nothing to do with either Trump's short-lived campaign manager Paul Manafort, whose crimes aren't even related to the 2016 election, or Cohen. Even if Trump were impeached, Kavanaugh would be the kind of judge that Mike Pence would nominate—and, for that matter, Jeb Bush or any other conservative. That is the real problem for Democrats.

Trump's nominees for SCOTUS, in fact, have been about the most traditional and predictable aspects of his presidency. And because those picks have shown a fealty to law, their nominations should be a boon for the institutions that Democrats are pretending to protect.

Then again, the idea that mere suspicion of criminality is enough to stop a president from engaging in his constitutional duty is a completely new one, designed, like most things these days, only for Trump.

The Whitewater investigation went on for six years. Did that mean that any court with Stephen Breyer, nominated after an independent investigation was launched, became "fundamentally illegitimate"? I mean, that investigation ended up convicting 15 friends and allies of the Clintons' for over 40 crimes, including felonies such as fraud, bribery, and embezzlement. Talk about a "cloud of suspicion." Clinton himself was impeached, not on campaign finance charges but on obstruction of justice and perjury. His wife was under investigation throughout most of her 2016 campaign, and not one serious person claimed that her SCOTUS nominees would be "illegitimate."

Does this standard mean that all of Richard Nixon's justices are retroactively illegitimate, as well? Or that the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act and Environmental Protection Agency are also now illegitimate? Does it mean anyone who cops a plea with prosecutors to save himself some prison time can name a politician as a co-conspirator, ending that elected official's ability to engage in his constitutional duty?

Of course, if the Senate doesn't want to take up the Kavanaugh nomination, that's its prerogative. There is nothing in the Constitution that demands senators consider the president's choices—despite the feigned fury over Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to move on the Merrick Garland vote. That, too, was a new standard Democrats concocted. There is, however, a real threat to order when a major party is convincing its constituents that our institutions—elections, courts, and so on—are no longer legitimate because it hasn't gotten its way in the political arena.

The fact is that even if special counsel Robert Mueller were to come back with a recording of Trump and Vlad Putin strategizing on how to hack the Democratic National Committee's servers, the only way to stop the president from nominating justices would be to elect people who want to impeach and remove him—not by creating a make-believe constitutional order.

The other day, liberals got a big kick out of pointing out the "irony" of Republicans at the president's West Virginia rally chanting "lock her up!" on the very same day that his former campaign manager and personal lawyer were assured prison time. I imagine that those chanting see another irony in the fact that Democrats skirt justice while Republicans are asked to play by new rules Democrats invent as they go along.

NEXT: Movie Review: The Happytime Murders

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I imagine that those chanting see another irony in the fact that Democrats skirt justice while Republicans are asked to play by new rules Democrats invent as they go along.

    Whining, wallowing-in-white-grievance, authoritarian, stale-thinking, right-wing malcontents are among my favorite faux libertarians.

    1. Rev, are you a snake handler, your most holiness?

      Can you hold the evil serpent and cast out the demons?

      Or are you a phony with a white collar that mooches off a naive congregation and maybe gets some nookie off a grieving widow?

      1. Mary Stack is a severely mentally ill woman in Fort Worth, Texas who trolls us under about seven or eight different user names.

        1. Not sure about Mary but RAK has been around the Volokh Conspiracy for years. SSDD (Same Shit Different Day) is normal for RAK (Royal Arse Kisser).

          1. RAK is one of Mary Stack’s many accounts.

    2. #Resist
      #stillwithher
      #butgarland

      1. #WHsilverware
        #Politicalaccessforsale
        #Stillwithcigars

    3. Projection is strong in this one. Perhaps so strong that he/she/it has become delusional!

    4. Boring, repetitive, obnoxious, and unenlightening ? it’s always the same ugliness from the nasty “reverend”.

    5. Widow nookie; that’s the best kind.

    6. I’m sure, since they are few and far between. Unlike Whining, wallowing-in-white-grievance, authoritarian, stale-thinking, left-wing malcontents like you, who are quite common.

  2. “You can’t triple-stamp a double-stamp, Lloyd!”

  3. It’s not fair that Trump won the contest by cheating and very possibly conspiring with a foreign govt of mobsters but it’s tough shit. I don’t like it and I think we should hold against Republicans for the next 50 years. It’s even fair to throw it around the necks of the people who are profiting from the epic corruption like these Supreme Court nominees and all the other people who trade away their honor for personal enrichment. Frankly we should thank Trump for so clearly delineating the good guys from the degenerates.

    1. LOL

    2. Hillary lost. Get over it.

    3. It’s not fair that Trump won the contest by cheating and very possibly conspiring with a foreign govt of mobsters but it’s tough shit.

      Translation: It’s not fair that Trump won the contest after HRC/DNC cheated and conspired with foreigners including Russian FSB…

      1. The difference being, is that his candidate lost while playing the same game.

    4. “Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”

    5. To be completely honest, there’s no evidence that the Russian interference was significant in the number of votes that it swayed or that it was in any way orchestrated with Trump. The only connection that has been made public is one meeting that Trump Jr had that both sides admit didn’t talk about anything related to the election (the meeting was called under false pretenses and was actually just a pitch for an adoption program).

      On the other hand, we have solid proof that Hillary Clinton paid a foreign national (Christopher Steele, who is British and a former MI6 agent) in order to research her political opponent and publicly released the dossier as part of a smear campaign. We also have solid proof of malfeasance in her nomination campaign against Sanders due to an e-mail hack that has been accused to be Russian in original.

      If anything, all evidence points to the idea that the Russians deliberately set this up deliberately to ensure whomever won would get a constant stream of partisan legal attacks undermining their entire presidency.

      1. Ben, you were doing just fine until:

        “If anything, all evidence points to the idea that the Russians deliberately set this up deliberately to ensure whomever won would get a constant stream of partisan legal attacks undermining their entire presidency.”

        I doubt you have one bit of evidence to support that claim.

      2. If you’re a shitty bankrobber and only get away with $100 that doesn’t mean that you still didn’t attempt to rob the bank.

        That was the DNC not Hillary Clinton, get your facts straight.

        1. But we also know from Donna Brazile that Hillary’s team ran the DNC.

  4. the nominee is “illegitimate” because the president was “all but named as a co-conspirator” by Cohen when Cohen was pleading guilty to breaking a campaign finance law.

    That’s ridiculous! The nominee is “illegitimate” because Hillary won the popular vote.

    1. refer to your copy of the Constitution for instructions on how the President is elected and then get back to me on how the popular vote total is relevant.

      1. IIUC Rich’s comment is dripping with sarcasm. 😉

    2. Is that why Hillary was spending all that money rounding up votes in California while Trump was campaigning in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin?

      I can’t help but think if he knew the object was to win the popular vote rather than the electoral college he could have won that too. Even though he spent half as much as Hillary did, he spent his money a lot better, where he got results that actually mattered.

  5. 1. Trump impeached

  6. d’oh
    1. Trump impeached
    2. Pence becomes president
    3. Kavanaugh withdraws
    4. Pence picks Merrick Garland
    5. New Supreme Court majority nullifies Pence presidency
    6. Hillary become president

  7. OH MY GOD!

    Politicians embellished their position and used excessive rhetoric!!!!

    QUICK – hide your Bible and Guns!

  8. Yeah, well, the Democrats’ arguments about “legitimacy” aren’t aimed at you, they’re aimed at the few GOP Senators still weak and stupid enough to believe the Democrats arguments about fairness and honor and principle have any merit whatsoever. All they need is a couple of them worried that the press and the Dems (but I repeat myself) might say bad things about them unless they vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the Dems will win the day. Notice, there’s rarely any concern expressed that the Dems won’t vote in lockstep, there’s never a question that one of them might break ranks and “vote their conscience”, it’s only ever Republicans whose votes seem to be based on arguments and persuasion rather than just doing what they’re told.

    1. I hear ya although it appears to be the Democrats trying to give cover to their own Senators that will most likely lose in November if they vote against Kavanaugh.

  9. Perhaps one day a court will find that Donald Trump conspired with his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to pay nondisclosure agreements meant to silence his mistresses. Perhaps one day the House will impeach Trump for breaking those campaign finance laws, and then maybe the Senate will also remove him from office.

    The odds of this happening are close to zero.

    Those rooting for Trump to be impeached & removed from office (I wouldn’t be terribly upset by it happening) need to step back and consider history. In the entire history of the US, only two bills of impeachment have been issued by the US House of Representatives against a US President. Both failed in the Senate. No sitting President has ever been removed.

    Even if the Democrats retake control of both the House & the Senate this November, there are only 8 Senate seats currently held by Republicans up for re-election this year and it takes a 2/3rds super majority for the Senate to convict on a bill of impeachment. The 2/3rds majority for conviction on impeachment is specified in the constitution itself, so the Democrats can’t get around it with a rule change.

    Any one who thinks they can get half the Republican Senators to vote in favor of removing Trump from office is delusional.

    It isn’t going to happen, get over it.

    1. “Perhaps one day a court will find that Donald Trump conspired with his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to pay nondisclosure agreements meant to silence his mistresses. Perhaps one day the House will impeach Trump for breaking those campaign finance laws, and then maybe the Senate will also remove him from office.”

      If this becomes the standard for campaign finance violations, can Pelosi be removed from office as a result of all the money she wasted on plastic surgery?

      1. It can’t be the standard for campaign finance violations, because no jury would convict someone for using their own money for paying off a porn star.

        I can just see a candidate up in front of a jury saying, if I used campaign funds it would have been wrong, it was my mistake so it should have been my money to fix it.

        Besides how do you make a case it was to influence the election? Trump just has to pay 2 tapes for the jury, the pussy tape, and the “I could shoot some one out on the street and they’d still vote for me” tape. He didn’t believe Stormy Daniels could influence the election and he is probably right. When the story came out he went up in the polls.

  10. Of course, if the Senate doesn’t want to take up the Kavanaugh nomination, that’s its prerogative.

    The only hope the Democrats have of stopping Kavanaugh’s confirmation is to win majority control of the Senate in November and somehow, despite currently being in the minority, delay a confirmation vote until next year.

  11. I’m afraid there’s no clause in the document that empowers angsty liberal pundits and politicians to question the legitimacy of duly confirmed justices.

    That misunderstands the notion of legitimacy. With regard to questions of constitutional legitimacy?Kavanaugh’s appointment, for instance?the arbiter of legitimacy is the sovereign People. That’s because the Constitution is the People’s decree. The People alone decide whether the government behaves legitimately in light of the Constitution. The People do that at their pleasure, not according to any standard written into the Constitution.

    So we shall see. Assuming Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate, results won’t be in on the appointment’s legitimacy until enough elections intervene to give the People a chance to change the composition of the Senate and take action?either based on purely constitutional procedures, or by circumventing them. If nothing of that sort happens after 3 or more elections have been held, then Kavanaugh’s legitimacy in office will have earned at least the People’s tacit endorsement.

    But given the history, until that happens, the entire Court will labor under a tarnishing supposition of unresolved legitimacy for years to come.

    1. You mean the way the people voted during garland’s nomination? So you agree that he was not legitimate then.

      And as referenced in the article, three of the justices who made up the majority in Roe v. Wade were appointed by an “illegitimate” nixon. Therefore you agree that Roe v. Wade is illegitimate, right?

      1. Try re-reading what I wrote. If you still come away thinking your questions make sense, give up.

        1. Stephen Lathrop|8.24.18 @ 10:03PM|#
          “Try re-reading what I wrote. If you still come away thinking your questions make sense, give up.”

          I’m not Skippy, but he clearly called you on your bullshit claim regarding “the People” voting.
          Are you so stupid you can’t see that? Or such a slimy POS that you’ll hope no one notices your bullshit?
          Or both?

    2. “That misunderstands the notion of legitimacy. With regard to questions of constitutional legitimacy?Kavanaugh’s appointment, for instance?the arbiter of legitimacy is the sovereign People. That’s because the Constitution is the People’s decree. The People alone decide whether the government behaves legitimately in light of the Constitution. The People do that at their pleasure, not according to any standard written into the Constitution.”

      So we toss out the constitution every time a D loses?
      What a flaming pile of shit.

      1. Nah, Sevo. You don’t know what the Constitution is for. The Constitution is all about controlling the government, on behalf of the People. The Constitution was never intended to control the People. Because the Constitution is the People’s document, they decide if the government is carrying out constitutional provisions legitimately, or not.

        Like a great many folks?on the right, on the left, in the legal profession and out of it?you mistakenly suppose the Constitution is sovereign, and thus controls the People. It’s a common error. It was common at the time of the founding, as founder James Wilson noted at length.

        1. Stephen Lathrop|8.24.18 @ 10:22PM|#
          “Nah, Sevo. You don’t know what the Constitution is for. The Constitution is all about controlling the government, on behalf of the People.”
          So far, so good.
          ————————-
          “The Constitution was never intended to control the People. Because the Constitution is the People’s document, they decide if the government is carrying out constitutional provisions legitimately, or not.”
          Yes, and the the courts have that role, appointed or elected by “the People”. The “People” do not; this is a republic as lefties are happy to point out when, for instance, the court decides a penalty is a “tax”, lefty.
          ————————-

          1. “Like a great many folks?on the right, on the left, in the legal profession and out of it?you mistakenly suppose the Constitution is sovereign, and thus controls the People.”
            Like a great many people, particularly lefties, here’s where you fuck up. It is ‘sovereign’ to maintain control of the government even when lefties think they might find a slim majority of wolves to legalize eating the sheep. YOU mistakenly claim the Constitution is ‘flexible’ in the extreme, and yet offer no procedure by which it might be altered, nor by which it might attain some consistency for any period of time at all.
            Are we to be like Stalin’s ‘terror’, where the rules are made up on the fly, to be changed next week, when the government (who would institute those changes, regardless of your claim the came from “the People)
            Now, this might be an ‘honest’ (if somewhat stupid) mistake on your part, but I’ve read your crap often enough to know it is nothing of the sort. Your bullshit suggestion that I anywhere claimed the Constitution is a control on “the People” makes it quite obvious; keep dragging strawmen around and it will be noticed.
            It is a typical lefty argument from dishonesty in the hopes you won’t get caught.
            —————————-
            “It’s a common error. It was common at the time of the founding, as founder James Wilson noted at length.”
            Bullshit references to irrelevancies might impress your mom, but they get called for the bullshit they are here.
            You’ve been busted; fuck off.

            1. It is ‘sovereign’ to maintain control of the government even when lefties think they might find a slim majority of wolves to legalize eating the sheep.

              Excellent. You got that part right. Sovereignty is about power?specifically the power to constitute a government at pleasure. Acknowledge that, as your remark seems to do, and a moment’s reflection will teach you that sovereign power must be greater than government power. Indeed, as founder James Wilson taught, sovereign power must be essentially unlimited.

              If that were not so, no government on earth could be a limited government. Sovereign power sets the limits of government power, and enforces them continuously. The only conceivable limitation on sovereign power is its geographic extent. Beyond the boundaries within which the sovereign can enforce its will, sovereignty ceases.

              Also, you need to work on civility. (And to learn what “strawman” means.)

              If you still suppose?as I am certain you do?that what I tell you is bullshit, then explain, please, what power it is?other than sovereign power?which constrains government within prescribed limits?or, more fundamentally, which sets the limits. To avoid nonsense, be sure you pick a power greater than that of government.

              1. “Also, you need to work on civility. (And to learn what “strawman” means.)”
                Fuck off.

                “If you still suppose?as I am certain you do?that what I tell you is bullshit, then explain, please, what power it is?other than sovereign power?which constrains government within prescribed limits?or, more fundamentally, which sets the limits. To avoid nonsense, be sure you pick a power greater than that of government.”
                Yeah, I’ve seen that question before:
                “Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?”

            2. Sevo, please note also that you are mistaken to say I claimed that the Constitution is “flexible in the extreme,” or even flexible at all. That’s a different question, and I haven’t commented on it, or needed to.

              Once you get used to thinking separately about the government, the Constitution, and the sovereign, you won’t be so likely to make mistakes of that sort. People who do not think of them as separate invariably fall into just that kind of confusion.

              Stick with me here Sevo, and I will teach you how to criticize government in a way which does not make you look stupid, and full of rage. As a bonus, my method is originalist?the very method upon which the founders constituted the system of government you suppose you are defending.

              1. “Sevo, please note also that you are mistaken to say I claimed that the Constitution is “flexible in the extreme,” or even flexible at all. That’s a different question, and I haven’t commented on it, or needed to.”
                No, you’ve implied that it is.

                “Once you get used to thinking separately about the government, the Constitution, and the sovereign, you won’t be so likely to make mistakes of that sort. People who do not think of them as separate invariably fall into just that kind of confusion.
                Stick with me here Sevo, and I will teach you how to criticize government in a way which does not make you look stupid, and full of rage. As a bonus, my method is originalist?the very method upon which the founders constituted the system of government you suppose you are defending.”
                Stick with me here, Stephen. A bigger pile of bullshit, is still bullshit.

            3. Sevo, note also that I can make you say “lefty,” whenever I want to. Just say something about government you don’t like, or haven’t thought about, or didn’t anticipate, and you say, “lefty.” It’s not a good look for you. It makes you look like a ventrioloquist’s dummy.

              To control that tendency, before you characterize what someone says, see if you can find a quotable instance of that person actually saying it. If you can’t do it with just a quote, and discover you need a long explanation to prove the meaning you characterize is the one the speaker intended, consider waiting a bit with the criticism. That will help you sort the meanings your partners in commentary intend, from those you attribute. That, in turn, will make you look less like a dummy.

              1. “Sevo, note also that I can make you say “lefty,” whenever I want to. Just say something about government you don’t like, or haven’t thought about, or didn’t anticipate, and you say, “lefty.” It’s not a good look for you. It makes you look like a ventrioloquist’s dummy.”
                Thanks, lefty.

          2. Wrong again, but still wrong in plentiful company. Courts are rightly tasked with deciding constitutionality?a necessary government function. But that can’t be the test of court legitimacy. If it were, everything which any court did would be legitimate by definition. And that would make the notion of court legitimacy empty and meaningless.

            Court legitimacy is instead founded in the collective willingness of citizens to heed court decisions, and to demand their enforcement. While the people collectively heed court decisions, and make the courts’ judgments their own judgments, the courts continue in legitimate status. To the extent the people* do not do that, the courts’ legitimacy suffers. In a republic, every government function is legitimate or illegitimate in proportion to the sufferance and approval of citizens.

            *In the American system, the role of natural persons has a dual character?as subjects individually, but as the sovereign collectively. In my usage?when I write about subjects implicating sovereignty?”people” (small “p”) denotes the former; “People” (large “P”) denotes the latter.

            1. Ah yes. A word salad claiming the abstract sovereignty of the public. Thanks.

  12. Donald Trump conspired with his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to pay nondisclosure agreements meant to silence his mistresses.

    So having a legal discussion with a lawyer is now considered conspiring, how the hell are you going to talk to them then

    1. If you discuss and plan to take illegal actions, then yes, it is conspiracy. However, as was discussed yesterday in the “Catch 22” article, the idea that this was somehow illegal is dubious at best.

      1. And, as others have pointed out, the whole purpose of retaining a lawyer is to get advice on how to do things legally. If Cohen doesn’t have a tape of himself telling Trump, “This is illegal.”, and Trump replying, “I don’t care, do it anyway!” it’s all on Cohen, not Trump.

        “I conspired with Trump to break campaign laws, and deliberately didn’t let him know we were breaking them!” is not a bit of testimony that’s going to hurt Trump.

  13. These times are no longer the times for left or right, Republican or Democrat. These are times for Americans to stand. I have no problem with Judge Kavanaugh far as I can tell, except I would like access to the citizen owned complete record of his tenure. Last I heard, at least a third of his, publicly owned mind you, papers have been redacted. Not the way it works, folks; redacting a part of Judge Kavanaugh’s record is not ok; such is fair unAmerican, and cannot be allowed if he is to be considered for SCOTUS.

    1. “Last I heard, at least a third of his, publicly owned mind you, papers have been redacted. Not the way it works, folks; redacting a part of Judge Kavanaugh’s record is not ok; such is fair unAmerican, and cannot be allowed if he is to be considered for SCOTUS.

      “Last I heard”, BS like that is worthy of scorn.
      Cites, including what was redacted, or STFU.

      1. I watch all news channels all day (retired, now writing), from Vice to Democracy now, to Fox, to MSNBC, and documentaries and videos from every direction and opinion; I’m 67 yoa and have read books like I eat cookies since I was nine. and make my own mind up. Your lack of information is not my problem boo boo. And as the news changes so fast and often, I caveat. Do your homework; it was widely reported and recently, don’r spew at me. I do homework 8-16 hours a day. I could have stated it as the fact it is/was; if you haven’t had the time to be current (I’m as current as watching the news all day, for a couple of years now can just about be). Why are you so uninformed you don’t know this? Your sources; lack thereof no doubt. Google it, and take your own advice while you’re at it, no? And asking me to cite redacted information is about as stupid as can be on its face; google redacted.

        1. “Your lack of information is not my problem boo boo.”
          Your stupidity is not mine, asshole.

          “Do your homework; it was widely reported and recently, don’r spew at me.”
          So, you have no cites? Why is that not surprising?
          Fuck off, idiot.

      2. For the fact that Judge Kavanaugh has some 2,400+ pages redacted, and some 9,000+ pages revealed. Google NPR; or the National Archives of the United States of America. (source origin) Took me about 12 seconds to look it up, again. or are you too busy with your other hand? Funny; I like it, no BFD; USTFUJOff..or find someone to show you how to look up any question you have; say, a nine year old.

      3. Another 15 seconds; National Archives, (various Democrats, NPR, etc). Archive record 9,809 in full release, 2,540 redacted. Back to the question: those redacted records, public property of a public servant, are being withheld, and Judge Kavanaugh cannot be properly, publicly ( yeah, the way it’s supposed to be done) vetted without access to ALL of his record. While you’re scorning, do a few seconds of homework, so I don’t have to prove to you somehow the sky is blue. Or, yes, STFU; good advice to the uninformed; discuss it with whoever you are looking at when you brush your teeth.

        1. WillPaine|8.25.18 @ 12:51AM|#
          “Another 15 seconds..”
          Of unsupported bullshit.
          Fuck off.

          1. I fucked off long ago; I don’t know what to say to you; learn to spell google; don’t know what to say to you; have fun?
            And buh bye bubba.
            #:-)

  14. While I think Trump is a true shitlord, it’s not illegal to be a shitlord and make a SC nomination. I think this article is right. Kavanaugh will be a horrendous SC judge but Trump is in the right here.

    1. As bad as the wise Latina, unwise fool?

  15. Great piece David and a breath of fresh air at a site increasingly dominated by TDS afflicted writers. You don’t have to be a Trump fan to be disturbed by the level of absurdity we’ve witnessed on the part of the media and his political opponents. I’m not particularly impressed with Kavanaugh but he’s a typical nominee and it should be a done deal for better or worse.

  16. “Perhaps one day a court will find that Donald Trump conspired with his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to pay nondisclosure agreements meant to silence his mistresses. Perhaps one day the House will impeach Trump for breaking those campaign finance laws, and then maybe the Senate will also remove him from office.”

    None of that is illegal. Count you among the enemy.

    1. Except what you note is not all that has been revealed nor what he will be charged with as criminal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.