"And they'll say, aha, here's this is analogous or this is analogous or this is analogous. And then they expand and extend and move way beyond that precedent. But then when challenged on it, they can go back and say, well, Clinton did X or Obama did Y. Now two things are true at once. Number one, Clinton often did X or Obama often did do Y.... That doesn't excuse Donald Trump at all. And it doesn't mean that... what Donald Trump is doing is the same level of wrongness. It can be more wrongness. But what he does tactically and what he tries to do legally, which often doesn't fly, but what often flies tactically, especially with his base, is he's constantly pulling from these prior examples that are scattered all throughout modern American history.... [I]f you're an administration that is pulling all of the wrongdoing from say five previous administrations, putting it under one administration and then amplifying all of it, then you do have an issue.... But guys, political fandom should be over, let's not do this, okay?"
The whole discussion there is very good, examining many legal issues and precedents. I'm just selecting that one thing, which is something I've observed again and again. It's not Trump's way to say it stops with me, I see what's wrong, and I'm going to set us straight and get back to what is soundly legal and in line with the intent of the Framers. That might seem to fit his slogan "Make American Great Again," but that's not what he does. He's in the middle of a big fight, and he's going tit for tat and beyond. He's one of those guys who say "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
"Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!"
It isn’t a good discussion at all, only an attempt to nullify the criticism of calling out Trump’s actions that are rally no different than previous administrations. Only difference is Trump is doing them and succeeding politically- bigly
The Osborne Brothers have a video of their song “It Ain’t My Fault” where four men rob a pawn shop wearing Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump masks. Trump is the only caught in the ensuing police chase. A Democrat President in 2028 will pack the Court, add two states, and open the gates to illegal immigration again in an effort to create a one party state. And David French will be okay with it because Trump.
They’re rally mad the villagers they trapped and hanged were set free and compensated for the actions of their totalitarian government, aren’t they? It doesn’t seem like the thing they should be burning through political capital on at the moment but their lack of competent policy is what’s got them into this mess in the first place…
It sounds like an ordinary award for malicious prosecution. Only, half the country doesn't believe it's malicious prosecution and half does. Trump is making the choice between them.
The fact of the matter is that Trump has used whatever mechanisms are available to advance his (and his constituents') goals. He has abided by every court order and decision against him, while appealing (generally successfully), citing those very precedents that French now claims that Trump is improperly taking advantage of. Isn't that the way things are supposed to work in a constitutional republic, Frenchie?
French also insisted there is something wrong with securing the border, fixing the reflecting pool, stopping Medicare fraud, building a ballroom, blowing up drug boats, deporting criminal illegals aliens, and all the other things.
There might be something wrong with Trump's billion dollar fund, but nobody cares what David French thinks.
It’s a good point. But is David French also willing to entertain the idea that simultaneously an administration could be pulling all of the best foreign policies and American pragmatism from those same five previous administrations, putting it under one administration and then amplifying all of it also?
Or is your model and judgement of people and presidents only binary and the two choices good/bad, Trump is bad,
Obama should have hung or been shot already for what he did. Obama is the most evil person we have had in American government in decades and that includes Hillary Clinton. He worked with a Russian spy to frame a sitting president and created the Russian Collusion hoax out of nothing.
Every single person like Jen Psaki who conspired with Obama committed conspiracy to commit treason and committed treason themselves.
Obama is a Diversitist who believes in aborting "burdens" for social progress, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, redistributive change schemes, ethnic Springs, and politically congruent constructs.
The current political era dates to the Clinton administration. While both sides condemned Nixon and all accepted that Carter was honest and moral, agreement stopped by the 1990s. The Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" and went after credible females who accused him. This culminated with the Lewinsky coverup impeachment and resulting "we don't care" partisanship.
As bipartisan approvals for judges went away by the 1980s (Bork, Clarence Thomas), and as politics no longer ended at the border (post Vietnam) -- the parties followed parallel rules.
Obama's handlers used shallow iconography to put the deep state in control, and that begat Trump. Trump is a Clinton-like reactionary to Obama-like ideologies.
A pot filled with blackstrap molasses calls the kettle black.
There might be something wrong with Trump's billion dollar fund, but... there is no being broken right now. That's the problem with all the "pre-reporting" on crimes that have not taken place yet if ever.
But Democrat malfeasance right in our faces with hookers and blow can't be reported on or investigated, much less what Democrats may in the future do. That's just never part of the discussion, what future crimes democrats make possible in their schemes.
Planned Presidenthood (PP)? Wouldn't that be ironic. It's his Choice, paraphrasing Feminists, Masculinists, Democratics, Progressive Liberal sects, et al.
Sean Davis said... "[Senator] Tillis voted for a $500,000 per senator fund for senators who were illegally spied on by the Biden. It wasn’t available to any normal Americans whose rights had been violated—just senators. But now Tillis is mad that actual American citizens might receive restitution. What a clown."
GOP Senator Thom Tillis on Trump’s proposed “Anti-Weaponization” fund: “I think it’s stupid on stilts. When you take money from me to give to a purpose I vehemently disagree with, that’s tyranny.”
French causes me to erase all doubt I might have had. About 99% of the Democrat hand-waving about "Trump corruption" [sic] is to distract from any news coverage about all of the Democrat and deep state corruption being exposed every day by this administration.
Not a shred of doubt. Have you heard ANY democrat ANYWHERE express relief we have uncovered so much CMS fraud that wasn't going to help the people? Any D at all? Bueller?
Tillis is one of the ugliest, most obnoxious Republican Senator. I have zero idea how this clown ever got elected. He's going to be a lobbyist in Jan 2027, so opposing Trump on everything except israel is a way build cred with his future clients. That he would pretend to be upset about the Trump fund while trying to get a pay-off for himself isn't shocking.
Sure, bad actions by President X does not excuse bad actions by President Y. But I'll be damned if that message from French is welcome. Perhaps if he could show where he labeled acts by President X an assault on democracy, an existential threat of just plain old Hitler-like. Breath not being held here. Otherwise this is simply "I'm a hypocrite. My ethics are solely driven by personal animus. TDS is my North Star, but don't you dare say it".
OK David French, lets talk about corruption. Why did you take money from Google and Hi-tech under the table while writing articles in NR entitled "The Conservative Case for Google"?
The lIberal/left and Grifters like French are the biggest fakes in the world. they don't care about corruption.
They do nothing about it when its on their side or when the D's are in power. Its only when its Trump, or some other R politician that they dislike, that suddenly, suddenly, they become "concerned".
Trump should do anything that isn't explicitly illegal. And that includes telling Leftwing lawyers in black robes to fuck off.
"When you take money from me to give to a purpose I vehemently disagree with, that’s tyranny.” Hey (soon to be ex-) Senator. It is me and several million of my fellow TAXPAYERS that YOU are taking money from. There are a pant load of Federal laws that I "vehemently disagree with". That you VOTED for. The tyrant appears in your mirror.
Nobody would care if he didn't blunder into a stupid war to further Israels doomed plan for thousand years of security. He's Netanyahu's bitch, so he cleaved his base apart, making the remaining part of it seem extra loyal, well sure, but they are smaller in number. AIPAC just poured tend of millions into a primary, this is a hundred or a thousand times worse, well, you get zero when you multiply by zero, o matter how big the number, so it's the actual crime that the Democrats falsely accused him of in Russiagate.
I am hoping he ends up in a jumpsuit to match his hair. Of course this means that the Democrats are just going to use their power to double down on what got Trump elected in the first place. Whatever, Israel owns the Republican Party, the Masse primary proves that. They own the Democrat Party too, we will see if they can throw off the shackles.
The ingenuity of the corruption seems to have no end.
In this case, the defendant was the IRS, which, as an arm of the executive branch, was also under plaintiff Trump’s control; it never mounted a defense. The judge ordered both defendants and plaintiffs counsel to explain in what way they were actually adversarial and not simply colluding. Rather than respond, Trump's DoJ simply dropped the sham “suit.” The same day they announced the creation of the “anti-weaponization fund,” and called it a “settlement.”
Trump is repeating Biden's mistakes, acting out of vengeance towards what he believed were political wrongs perpetrated against him, and leaving the best interest of his base, and the country, to one side and embracing those with the power to fund his election. Both president's gravest mistakes could have been prefaced by "I'll show them..."
"The ingenuity of the corruption seems to have no end."
Makes Joe Biden's grifts and money laundering through teaching gigs, getting jobs for his ne'er do well son in return for favors, steering a $2 billion dollar contract from Iraq to his brother, etc, seem almost quaint.
Has any president sought indictments for made up crimes of their political foe? Have they raided their foe’s home? Have they executed the greatest vote fraud in American history? Have they fomented a riot when people were crazed about the voting fraud? Have they made up claims of Russian collusion, inhibiting their foe’s ability to govern at 100% for two years? Etc etc.
Trump’s gotta a long way to go to match the very worst in the arena of despicable actions by a US President.
Dismissing Trump's support as "political fandom" shows you how out of touch French is. French is a guy sitting on a toilet, trying to finish a half-written limerick for the wall of a gas station men's room, who doesn't realize his "friends" drove away as soon as he went out of sight around the corner.
It’s going to be fun listening to our politicians rail against an “Anti-Weaponization Fund”. By doing so, they implicitly condone the government using lawfare to target people with whom it simply disagrees.
I thought the 'fund' was a pre-trial, out-of-court settlement. Do I have this wrong? Why isn't it called a 'settlement', then, why is it called a 'fund'? Because it makes for an easy segue into 'slush fund', that's why, and because it evokes a certain association with unstructured pots of money that are deployed to a different purpose than the one intended. Like Medicare 'funds' in certain blue states. It's the old mis-direction projection game again. 'Yes there's lots of fraud and this is the worst one !'
The is called 'Progressives being reasonable'. 'Trump shouldn't use all the dirty tactics we've used against him a million times, that's unfair! It's making us have to fight even dirtier, and nobody wants that! Trump should be nicer, so it's easier for us to beat him without working so hard.'
Blanche or someone else should simply ask the naysayers what ideas they have to combat the obvious scourge of lawfare against the government’s political enemies.
"I thought the 'fund' was a pre-trial, out-of-court settlement. Do I have this wrong? Why isn't it called a 'settlement', then, why is it called a 'fund'?"
The podcast discusses this very well. There are, they say, 3 ways to characterize what is being done and align it with a legal theory and precedent. I'm not trying to explain that because it's complicated and the podcast does it well. There's a free transcript at Podscribe here: https://app.podscribe.com/episode/158183268?transcriptVersionReqId=7814a9eb-06b6-45ff-a7b5-68371987238e&uid=44f8f4e8-3081-70cb-29d5-ef2600c322ea
Ah, but he wasn't when he called Republicans his "enemy." That's a label he wouldn't-- didn't -- stick on Al Queda. Or ISIS. Only his domestic political rivals. The ones he instructed college kids to "get in their faces."
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said... The ingenuity of the corruption seems to have no end.
In this case, the defendant was the IRS, which, as an arm of the executive branch, was also under plaintiff Trump’s control; it never mounted a defense. The judge ordered both defendants and plaintiffs counsel to explain in what way they were actually adversarial and not simply colluding.
Something judges are remarkably uncurious about when consent agreements are presented during Democrat administrations. Especially in environmental cases.
The podcasters are interested in getting Congress to perform its constitutional role, which includes controlling the money. There's a lot of water under the bridge there, and the point I'm making in the post is that Trump isn't the type to try to get us back to the original vision of checks and balances. I think he may feel entirely unconstrained and be fine with attracting his antagonists into a big fight over this. It would shine a light on what those past Presidents have done and get the problem out into the open. If the courts are shaken into action, the limits they impose will constrain Democratic presidents too. There are many ways to win this fight. It's also a massive distraction.
Except when its Israel or supporting big business, Trump must be attacked everyday and in everyway. No wonder the Left and D's always win. They never give up or shut up. MSM gives them the "talking points" and its off to the races. Next day, its the same thing. Rinse and repeat. Over and over.
And of course, this fund/settlement is now being reviewed by a Far-left district judge who will - of course - find it "Unconstitutional" or some such nonsense. Then we will go to the DC appeals court - stacked with leftists - who will concur and finally it will up to Roberts and the SCOTUS.
I think my earlier “Fifth Avenue” analogy gets at this: if Trump shot someone and Democrats once committed murder elsewhere, the prior crime does not negate the present one. It may raise fairness questions about enforcement, but it does not answer the factual question of what happened.
Blanche, Trump’s personal attorney given power, solely signs a settlement that says Trump “shall have the power to determine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing and granting or denying claims.” Sounds like he can award it to who ever he wants or perhaps, no one at all. And if that isn’t sweet enough, Trump and his family are now immune of IRS audits or investigations.
The whataboutism just doesn’t fly here but then, it never flew in Trump flooding the zone with shit while he and the billionaires go for the jugular. Perhaps if the Trump defenders could put a bit more voice inflections on Obama’s middle name, it might reinforce this tu quoque within the tribe.
It’s been a cult since Trump's nomination… Is it really only just dawning on the media class that this has been the situation for the last decade..?
They will be bereft of ideas once he is gone. The sensible country-club republicans of the previous century are all gone now. What's left will just be a tug of war between Silicon Valley techno-bros, economic populists who might be vulnerable to democrats, and people who want to turn the US into Gilead.
Ann Althouse said... The podcasters are interested in getting Congress to perform its constitutional role, which includes controlling the money. There's a lot of water under the bridge there, and the point I'm making in the post is that Trump isn't the type to try to get us back to the original vision of checks and balances. I think he may feel entirely unconstrained and be fine with attracting his antagonists into a big fight over this.
lol checks and balances.
Our government is a jobs program and a looting mechanism. Has been for decades.
The purpose of government since Obama was explicitly taking money from productive people and closing the “wage gap.”
Our university system was a learing center.
This is just the looters complaining about someone else being compensated.
How many kids are in student loan debt so Ann can talk about checks and balances.
Remember when the ig investigated americorps grift they called him senile with clinton start was a sex pervent When the wretched back bay slug called mueller was on the march and he used the testimony of scum like george nader 155 times they issued candles he was paid off by banamex he put joe farah in a coma they didnt care
The critics of Trump said the man was Adolf Hitler. Over and over and over.
And now it's all, giving money away like a liberal.
Do you dipshits remember the 88 felonies and the rapist and the Nazi and all the rest of the shit you threw at the man? I do. So when you make your allegation that he's got a slush fund like Santa Claus for his fans? It might be true. Maybe he's guilty of slushing the funds like he's from the North Pole. Dropping money down the chimneys of J6ers everywhere.
You can't start off with Hitler, blow that call completely, and expect me to pay attentiion to allegation #6,192. Gave tax payer dollars to anonymous people he's never met..
The government under Obama/biden spied on and persecuted people.
They deserve compensation and the people on here who cheered the persecution are traitors.
I agree. But, do you know how we handle these things in "America"? Those that have had their right violated sue, prove their case, prove their damages, in open fucking court for the goddamn world to see and scrutinize. We don't do slush funds and secret tribunals. That's about as Anti-American as you can possibly be.
Why don't you just move to one of the Banana Republics that you want to turn America into?
The real butt hurt is that Trump is saying the J6 protest is like the Boston Tea Party. Sure, it's a crime, but also patriotic. And he's now rewarding them for criminal behavior. Why? Because the punishments were insanely politicized, and way over-the-top. Some of those people spent years in jail.
Also, kudos to Trump for doing this before the midterms. Go ahead and rant and rave about it, leftists.
"...The podcasters are interested in getting Congress to perform its constitutional role, which includes controlling the money...."
I think that's BS. I think the podcasters have a keen, partisan interest in seeing this portrayed as 'Bucket #3', because it presents the most problems, the most opportunities for criticism. Congress' only interest is in seeing that the out-of-court settlement is paid, period, then the money is out of their hands and their oversight is finished. The hand-wringing over the administration being in charge of its disbursement because 'Trump' is absurd when he has set it up specifically to have no personal benefit from it. That's the job for an Inspector General - not Congress.
I'm thinking how this is going to look in one of those illustrated kids history books in 50 years time. 'In Jan' 2021 an insurrectionist mob attacked the Capitol building in an attempt to overthrow the government. By 2026 the government had pardoned them and paid out huge amounts of compensation despite them never being exonerated of their crimes. We call this period the 'lunatic period' when the country lost its mind'.
The suit brought by a private citizen who then became president and then the suit was settled. So because the suit went through the courts as if the plaintiff was still a private citizen, does the resulting award belong to the president? Because to my way of thinking the money belongs to Donald Trump the citizen . Who may do with it as he pleases. Am I wrong?
All those people that think this is wrong because 'Trump', I want to hear your full-throated, post-pardon endorsements of FBI pre-dawn, black helicopter, SWAT team guns-up raids on elderly grandmothers who visited the Capitol peacefully on Jan 6th and got thrown in jail on bogus charges. C'mon, lets hear you roar for that kind of 'law enforcement'.
Steve. The only people who called it an "insurrection" was the media. It was a protest that we have subsequently found out was encouraged to get out of hand by the FBI planted in the mob. I know it's difficult for you, but try and at least be honest.
"The whole discussion there is very good, examining many legal issues and precedents. I'm just selecting that one thing, which is something I've observed again and again. It's not Trump's way to say it stops with me, I see what's wrong, and I'm going to set us straight and get back to what is soundly legal and in line with the intent of the Framers. That might seem to fit his slogan "Make America[n] Great Again," but that's not what he does. He's in the middle of a big fight, and he's going tit for tat and beyond. He's one of those guys who say "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
The anti-Trumpers have been bringing literal guns into play, against him personally, against capitalists, against people like Charlie Kirk, against ICE officers, and against plain folks on the street (as in Austin).
Why should he not fight back most vigorously? And how has he gone beyond tit for tat? How many literal guns has he brought to the battle so far?
French is like the ten year old who punches his brother and then loudly yells “ No hit backs!” The US is not served by the hypocrisy of complaining only when your enemy and not your friends break norms. Congress compensates itself personally for Beiden’s stealing of phone records, they vote tax money to secretly compensate their sex assault victims, that’s a shining example of morality.
The answer is for all to push the system to the extremes until they’re forced to fix it, there is no other way forward. Tit for tat works.
Dems crow, oh you stupid stupid maga, Beiden did that way back 2 years ago! Trump is doing it now! But our loud mouth leaders swear to do it agin when we are back in power!
The podcasters are interested in getting Congress to perform its constitutional role, which includes controlling the money.
I don't have patience to even think about the legal analysis, because the political analysis is so bad. The punishments for the J6 defendants were severely out of whack. It was the same level of crazy as all the allegations against Trump.
The American people acquitted Trump when they re-elected him in 2024. It was a massive repudiation of the politicized horseshit that happened during the Biden administration. Trump pardoned all the protesters, but did that address the really awful political vendetta against the J6 protesters? Did that right the wrong?
No.
I applaud Trump's pivot, from trying to address the wrongs against him, to addressing the wrong against his supporters.
The whole discussion there is very good, examining many legal issues and precedent ... Now two things are true at once. Number one, Clinton often did X or Obama often did do Y.... That doesn't excuse Donald Trump at all.
One could say that David French is merely stupid, but that would be wrong. He is in fact evil.
Because if Obama and Clinton both did it, then it's a "precedent", and it's entirely legitimate for Trump to be doing it.
No one who did not viciously fight against Obama / Clinton / Biden for doing it gets to open their mouth and complain about Trump doing it.
Anyone who associates or sides with a Democrat who was ok with Clinton / Obama / Biden doing it, but is attacking Trump for doing it, is also a morally wretched piece of shit.
Yes, it was wrong when the Democrat did it. But by doing it and getting away with it, they changed the rules. And that means it's perfectly fine for Trump to do it.
Don't like that? Then stop the Democrats from violating & changing the rules
I'm thinking how this is going to look in one of those illustrated kids history books in 50 years time.
50 years from now, when Trump is dead, the left will cheer him for freeing Cuba (we all wanted to free Cuba) and getting the entire Middle East to recognize Israel (we always loved Israel), and for getting Roe v. Wade overruled (we always loved babies), and for expanding the power and authority of the Article II branch (Administrative state forever!).
The January 6 riot will go down in history as a fun Boston Tea Party type activity. And the historians will shuffle the rankings, putting Trump in the top 20, somewhere between McKinley and Adams.
Peron did this in Argentina -- public money for displays of loyalty without external oversight. So do/did Putin, Chavez/Maduro, and Erdogan.
"Sorry about that Hitler thing. He's more like Peron, or Erdogan. We might have gone a little overbaord with the Nazi name-calling. Is this microphone on?"
D.D. Driver said... The government under Obama/biden spied on and persecuted people.
They deserve compensation and the people on here who cheered the persecution are traitors.
I agree. But, do you know how we handle these things in "America"? Those that have had their right violated sue, prove their case, prove their damages, in open fucking court for the goddamn world to see and scrutinize. We don't do slush funds and secret tribunals. That's about as Anti-American as you can possibly be.
Why don't you just move to one of the Banana Republics that you want to turn America into?
So I am right.
But you want us to do play by rules you know the democrats break.
You are here in bad faith. Get fucked and go hang out with your Democrat buddies. I am sure they will be nicer to you than they were to us. They like their quizzings and simpsZ
You should go read some history on who they always start murdering first after they seize power. But then again you are kinda stupid.
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said... Peron did this in Argentina -- public money for displays of loyalty without external oversight. So do/did Putin, Chavez/Maduro, and Erdogan.
The German people acquitted Hitler after his coup attempt when the Nazi party took control through popular elections . . So I guess that excuses his later conduct.
When 'Obama did it', yes there was a bit/lot of handwringing from the right. The left blew it off. So, the precident has been set. It's OK to let slide legal, but perhaps morally objectionable, actions performed by a sitting president.
Rustygrommet said... Steve. The only people who called it an "insurrection" was the media. It was a protest that we have subsequently found out was encouraged to get out of hand by the FBI planted in the mob. I know it's difficult for you, but try and at least be honest.
5/22/26, 9:34 AM
Okay so it was a protest yet it was a mob? But it wasn’t the protestors fault because the FBI brought out that true mob in them? But it was still just a protest?
And if none of that works, just fall back on the Antifa disguising as Trump supporters, or maybe, just calm innocent people meandering into the Capitol during a peaceful tour and never noticed the peaceful protestors turned mob by the FBI?
I hope Matthew Perna's family gets a million dollar+ pay day. The Dems and their crooked DOJ drove Matthew to suicide when the night before his plea deal was supposed to go thru the DOJ decided he was a terrorist and threw out the plea deal. If the Dems don't want to be treated like fascists going forward they will have to stop kissing themselves in the mirror. And that's never going to happen.
But you want us to do play by rules you know the democrats break.
I want to follow the rules written by our Founding Fathers. The rules thousands have sacrificed their lives to defend. The Constitution is much bigger and far more important than your petty, cunty little partisan bickering.
I started reading the transcript, and it's a hilarious legal problem. I'm not even sure who would have standing to sue to stop this. I guess theoretically the IRS could try to claw back the money in 2029 or 2033.
They are really in the legal weeds.
in bucket number three, we're now paying future claimants who haven't filed lawsuits and where the statute of limitations has almost certainly run on all of them. Donald Trump is 18 months into his administration. As I said, the statute of limitations is two years. This is all supposed to be for Biden weaponization. So like unless Biden did something to you in the last few months of his administration, you would not have a very meritorious claim here and your lawsuit would almost certainly be dismissed out of hand.
What French just glides right over is that it was the government that was fucking with the J6 patriots. It was the government that tried to prosecute a president for 88 felonies, who made up a rape charge, and who imprisoned people for doing mild shit that was, at worst, a class 2 misdemeanor. Since the government is the bad guy in this shit-show, the government needs to bend over backwards to redress the wrong that it did.
French also completely ignores his own bias. You and other Ivy League attorneys have been caught peddling manure for all of Joe Biden's presidency. The 2024 election should humble you to your bones. The American people rejected your version of reality.
If you want to speak to America now, the very first thing you ought to do is say something like, "What we did to the J6 protestors was wrong." But you won't say that, will you?
French argument is predicated that what is wrong is Trump creating a slush fund for supporters. However, what Trump did that's really grating is he based that slush fund on actual harm caused by Democrats to ordinary individuals, many of them small donor supporters. While people like French whine about Trump possibly getting revenge against his big-name opponents, what Trump is actually doing is getting justice for people most of us never heard of before the FBI raided their home and hauled them off to jail for trespassing.
Could this be the Green Presidency that Biden swung for and missed?
16 states are on track to set new all-time Memorial Day gas price records this year, surpassing the highs set in 2022: AK, CO, HI, KY, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, OH, OR, SD, WA, WV, WY. A couple states could narrowly escape it: KY (+1.6c right now), MO (+2.3c right now) https://x.com/GasBuddyGuy/status/2057808536550166748?s=20
A gas station in deep blue Wisconsin, might seem like a strange place to meet Trump supporters. But beneath the propulsive go-go strains of Chuck Brown, you can hear whispers that DEI, not the war in Iran, is the reason gas prices have jumped to the highest levels since 2022.
French's argument can be turned around. Opponents took out Nixon. They tried to take out Clinton. Every president faces opposition. Trump was the only one impeached twice, the only one put on trial and called a felon, the only one they took millions from and tried to send to prison. He was the only president subjected to ... was it six ... trials after leaving office. Doesn't the money for the fund or settlement come from the travails they put Trump through? We are living through unusual times and have left old norms far behind.
First, the 2020 election was blatantly and fairly openly stolen. By the Dems. Most of the lawsuits were rejected on Standing (now, at least, as of a month or two ago, candidates get standing, which, I think is going to be big). Most of the remainder were Moot. The Dem controlled MSM told the disgruntled Trump voters to shut up and just take the loss gracefully. A lot of us didn’t, and the more that came out, the more egregious the theft of the election appeared.
So a bunch of disgruntled Trump voters came to DC to non-violently protest the election theft. You know that they didn’t intend violence because every one of them left their guns behind. The only guns that we know of there that day were in the hands of the Capital Police, and the 274 FBI agents.
The Capital Police were cut out of the intelligence, planning, and communications with other agencies. The FBI though knew exactly what was going to happen. They were there with 274 undercover agents, several dozen paid provocateurs (apparently also by the SPLA), and knowledge that they were being joined by two busloads of AntiFA provocateurs. Pelosi, of course, knew. It was her baby, and she had her daughter following her around that day to record that momentous day.
And to make sure that all everyone learned their lesson, over a thousand peaceful Trump supporters were prosecuted for bogus crimes. The Biden/Garland prosecution bankrupted many of them, defending themselves, with their infinitely deep pockets, and cheated their asses off. It took five years to find out about the 274 FBI agents. That meant hundreds, probably many more, Brady and § 1001 violations. And the defendants never got the video they needed, because Pelosi doled out what she wanted to. Defendants were held for better than a year without the possibility of bail, just because the prosecutors could. And held in deplorable conditions.
In law, we call it the in terrorem effect. The Deep State and the Dems were teaching Trump supporters to just shut up and take it up the rear. They openly cheated, got away with it, and anyone who complained, was likely to suffer along with the J6 Martyrs. They even went after Trump himself, with 4 BS felony and one civil prosecutions. We even had someone here, who had innocently been at the Capital that day with his family, and said nothing for over 4 years, to not risk being dragged in.
Meanwhile, Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page, got a $2 million stipulated settlement from the B/G DOJ. The two who were the main instigators for torpedoing the case against Clinton, and at her campaign’s behest, initiating the RussiaGate investigations.
I'm kind of hoping the settle and sue slush fund gets made illegal. What would the litigous NGO's do with their cooperative lawfare settlements against the government then?
French’s co-author, Sarah Isgur, worked on “three presidential campaigns.” Whose?
The reasons Trump supporters ignore his unpleasant personality traits and occasional bouts of poor judgment are: Barack and the Obots, Kamala, Soros, AOC, Omar, Newsom, Bass, etc., etc., etc., and the “good Germans” and “good Muslims” who support and vote for them no matter how much damage they intend and do.
We really need an alternative label for J6. One that can hopefully crowd "insurrection" off the field, sort of the way that Trump took over "fake news," which was originally used to describe him and Fox. One that's much, much shorter than "rally in support of Trump and several Republican Congressmembers' contention that several Democratic state machines stuffed ballot boxes, falsifying their states' electoral votes."
I can't think of a good short alternative. J6 demonstration? Too general. J6 Cry For Justice? Might have been good on the day, but now it could be confused with justice for the J6ers' treatment. J6 Rally for Clean Elections?
To the extent J6 had an official name, it was sometimes called the Stop The Steal Rally. Maybe use that? J6 Anti-Fraud Demonstration?
Ooh, maybe quote the Constitution: J6 Petition for Redress of Grievances? Could be confusing because most people think of a petition as a piece of paper.
Americans say Donald Trump should stop taking bribes, freeing criminals, suppressing clean energy, defunding research, and driving up the cost of living.
St. Croix--That Atlantic piece by French is as mendacious as anything David Corn ever produced. What a dishonest hack. No wonder the NYT loves him. One thing that French ignores is that the "insurrection" was the premise by which Congress prevented Trump allies in Congress from attempting to challenge the certification of the election, not some sort of putsch in support of overthrowing the government. (The fact that nobody bothered to bring a gun might be one clue).
Bruce Hayden @ 1:45, understanding the Trump cult phenomenon, your response is what’s known as a “closed explanatory system”, where nearly every fact is absorbed into one overarching narrative.
“Election stolen“ can no longer be a hypothesis but is now settled fact within the tribe. Courts rejected cases on standing or mootness becomes proof the system blocked truth rather than evidence weighing against the claims. FBI presence equals evidence of orchestration. “Pelosi knew” is intentional planning. Prosecutions are retaliation rather than law enforcement. Silence of others is fear from state oppression. And of course, Trump cases become further confirmation.
Notice what happens structurally: almost nothing can falsify the theory. Contrary evidence is reinterpreted as part of the cover-up.
I could get into correcting much of it with facts that ship of beaten horses has long sailed but what struck me most was this line; “The Deep State and the Dems were teaching Trump supporters to just shut up and take it up the rear.”
That’s what’s known in cult study as “grievance identity language”. It reframes events such as: our people persecuted while their people are oppressors, and institutions becomes illegitimate while evidence against us is proof of persecution.
That framework is powerful because it reinforces belonging and explains setbacks.
Just like Jonestown and the Holocaust, J6 parallels around information isolation and charismatic leadership, So it isn’t merely “wrong facts.” It is the self-sealing nature of the narrative:
If evidence supports us, we were right. If evidence contradicts us, it’s cover-up. If institutions disagree - captured. If supporters stay silent, it’s intimidation.
As far as Jan 6th protesters illegally walking through open doors and parading peacefully within the velvet ropes and their rights to fair trials- very few lawyers would even think of representing them because they were threatened with being disbarred for doing so.
Meanwhile actual Democrat lawyers who threw Molotov cocktails at police cars were sentences to 1 year and 1 day in prison and 15 months in prison. Less time that many Jan 6thers spent in pre-trial detainment. Often in solitary. Oh, and as a BTW, the American Muslim Bar Association thought they were treated way too harshly.
John Mosby writes: "We really need an alternative label for J6."
The most accurate neutral description is a riot that turned into a violent breach of the Capitol by a portion of the crowd.
Trump's team organized alternate slates of electors in seven battleground states Biden won (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin). These groups met on December 14, 2020, and signed certificates falsely claiming Trump won those states. The documents were sent to VP Pence and the National Archives.
The legal theory, primarily from lawyers John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro (detailed in the "Eastman memos"), was: • Create "competing" slates so Pence, as presiding officer, could cite disputes. • Pence could reject Biden's certified electors from those states, count the alternate Trump ones, or send the issue back to state legislatures. • This would either give Trump the win outright or throw the election to the House of Representatives (where Republicans held more state delegations).
This was not a fringe side effort — Trump personally pushed it, including calling state legislators and pressuring Pence publicly and privately. The goal was explicitly to disrupt or alter the January 6 joint session of Congress tabulating the electoral votes.
Not everyone at the event was in on this. Most attendees were ordinary protesters believing the election was stolen and wanting their objections heard. The organized alternate electors effort and the most aggressive breach planning came from a smaller group (including some Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders later charged with seditious conspiracy).
Slowing/stopping the certification to leverage alternate electors and create chaos/uncertainty was absolutely the strategic goal of the Trump legal team's January 6 plan. The riot amplified that disruption in practice, even if many participants weren't explicitly there for the "fake electors" memo. It was a multi-pronged pressure campaign on the electoral process, not just a spontaneous protest.
Some days when I'm feeling nasty I hope that the Democrats steal 2028. Because then they will get to see what an actual "right wing insurrection" looks like.
Hint: it will involve guns, and lots of dead bodies
Yeah, Greg, people keep saying an actual rightie insurrection would be so bloody. But there is no infrastructure in place for guys (it would be mostly men) picking up their AR15s, leaving their jobs, moving in an organized fashion to - where exactly? - and killing - who exactly?
Trump did prove with his 2024 rallies in blue areas that he could mobilize potential street fighters, but the most those guys were prepared for was to push back against Antifa. Tell those same guys that they're leaving home for good, and you won't have as many. Especially if you can't answer the questions go where? and kill whom?
As opposed to the left, who already have very organized, very violent street fighter groups. They just have to turn their violence from 8 to 11.
Now if the 2028 election is blatantly fucked with, Trump could use the existing military and federal LE. And he'd be joined by red-state governors with their Guard and state LE. The Dems showed what they wanted to do in 2021-2024, so the R leaders would be under no illusion of survival or staying out of jail this time - might as well fight. And the layers of leadership in the military and LE have been replaced with people who will follow Trump, not phone Xi.
Maybe some armed citizens could be worked into this effort, but it wouldn't be an insurrection - it would be the people helping their elected government.
The best rightie reaction to election tomfoolery would be a general strike. Stop showing up at work, including the work that brings food and energy to the blue cities. Open up refugee centers for people who want to walk, unarmed, out of the cities and stay in the center, fed and housed, until everything calms down. Existing trade union networks (maybe without the Dem-sucking top leadership) could probably organize this sort of thing. The Teamster guy who butted heads with Markwayne Mullin and is now his best buddy could run the general strike. CC, JSM
I enjoy pointing out that in context, the scene from The Untouchables that Obama quoted isn't really about advocating violence against political enemies - it's about encouraging a federal law enforcement officer to ignore concerns about civil rights when going after someone he knows is bad. I don't know which of those messages Obama intended to send.
“ That’s what’s known in cult study as “grievance identity language”. It reframes events such as: our people persecuted while their people are oppressors, and institutions becomes illegitimate while evidence against us is proof of persecution.”
Do you think that, after saying 5hat, that anyone here takes yo7 seriously
“Just like Jonestown and the Holocaust, J6 parallels around information isolation and charismatic leadership, So it isn’t merely “wrong facts.” It is the self-sealing nature of the narrative:”
“If evidence supports us, we were right. If evidence contradicts us, it’s cover-up. If institutions disagree - captured. If supporters stay silent, it’s intimidation.”
Ok, smarty pants. Convince us that the 2020 elections were fair and honest, and that Dementia Biden won fairly and honestly. Then convince us that the Biden/Garland DOJ didn’t commit Brady and § 1001 violations by denying the presence of those 274 undercover FBI agents, several dozen FBI CIs and provocateurs, and a couple busses of AntiFA.
This wasn’t the first time that alternate slates of electors were sent to the Capital, in a closely contested. AlGore did it too, and a number of other times during our history. But this was somehow (D)ifferent because Dems were on the receiving end. And, no, there wasn’t anything illegal about it. This is why there are procedures for just this in the Constitution. Dems just call it Criminal, to get everyone to ignore that they blatantly and openly stole the election.
Yeah, Greg, people keep saying an actual rightie insurrection would be so bloody. But there is no infrastructure in place for guys (it would be mostly men) picking up their AR15s, leaving their jobs, moving in an organized fashion to - where exactly? - and killing - who exactly?
Trump did prove with his 2024 rallies in blue areas that he could mobilize potential street fighters, but the most those guys were prepared for was to push back against Antifa. Tell those same guys that they're leaving home for good, and you won't have as many. Especially if you can't answer the questions go where? and kill whom?
You are right about most of these people. For the most part they would be wandering around in a disorganized mob.
What you need to understand is "freedom to maneuver." In Afghanistan the regular army went on patrols. They literally drove in a preplanned loop until they got shot at.
That allowed us to go in at night and get the Taliban and various other malcontents.
At some point all that will be needed is for most people to walk around and make a lot of noise and make it hard for the bad guys to walk around.
@ Mr Hayden: This comparison you presented doesn't hold up factually.
Al Gore in 2000: Gore did not send alternate slates of electors to Congress. The dispute was limited to Florida recounts. The Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Gore conceded, and no competing electors were submitted. Some Democrats discussed the idea, but it never happened.
Historical precedents: Rare cases exist (notably 1876 Hayes-Tilden crisis and Hawaii in 1960), but they involved ongoing, unresolved disputes where the state outcome was still legitimately contested at the time electors met. In 2020, all seven states had already officially certified Biden as the winner. The Trump alternate ("fake/contingent") electors met anyway and signed documents falsely claiming they were the duly elected electors.
The Constitution (Article II and 12th Amendment) and the Electoral Count Act set clear procedures. States appoint electors based on their popular vote certification. Creating and transmitting false certificates claiming to be the official electors — after certification — led to criminal charges in multiple states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, etc.). Courts repeatedly rejected the Trump campaign's legal challenges before January 6. The Eastman memos pushed a novel theory giving Pence unilateral power, which Pence's own legal team and conservative lawyers called unconstitutional.
The 2020 effort wasn't standard "procedure" — it was an aggressive, post-certification attempt to create alternate facts for VP Pence to exploit during the joint session. That's why it was treated differently.
Calling routine objections or recounts "stealing the election" while defending this specific scheme is inconsistent. Both sides have stretched norms in close elections, but the scale and coordination in 2020 were unprecedented in the modern era.
Imagine 2020 happened in 2012. Red states ginned up enough fake ballots - like maybe 10-20 people in each lot of their trailer parks - to ensure Romney got their electors. Kicked NAACP, SPLC, etc, observers out of their rinky dink county halls during ballot counts. Told any D politicians who complained "I know where your kids go to school." Etc.
Hell, even Romney himself would have demanded something more than a rubber stamp of those slates on January 6 2013.
And the courts would have found some standing, somewhere, for people challenging the electors.
Unfortunately, in 2020 it was But Republican. But White. But Trump. CC, JSM
@ Mr Mosby:The role-reversal hypothetical is a fair question about consistency, but the 2020 facts don't match the extreme scenario you're describing.
• Lawsuits and standing: Trump’s campaign and allies filed over 60 lawsuits. Many were dismissed on standing or procedural grounds, but dozens received hearings on the merits. Judges — including Trump-appointed ones and the conservative Supreme Court — ruled the evidence of widespread fraud insufficient to change outcomes. It wasn’t a blanket “no standing because Trump.”
• Observers: There were legitimate complaints about restricted access and observers being kept at a distance (especially in Detroit’s TCF Center and parts of Georgia). However, Republican observers were present in counting rooms, and no court found these issues altered enough votes to flip any state.
• Fake ballots / irregularities: Extensive audits, hand recounts (Georgia three times), and investigations (including by Republican officials) found isolated fraud — as happens in most elections — but nothing close to the scale needed to flip 3-4 states (tens of thousands of votes). Claims of systematic “trailer park” ballot manufacturing or mass threats didn’t hold up in court.
• Alternate electors: This was the key escalation. After states had certified Biden, Trump allies created and transmitted parallel slates falsely claiming to be the official electors. This went beyond normal legal challenges or historical close-election disputes (like 1960 Hawaii, where the outcome was still unresolved when electors met). Trump’s own White House Counsel and conservative lawyers called parts of the plan legally dubious or invalid.
If Obama had done the full 2020 playbook (fake elector certificates sent to Congress + pressure on Pence + Jan 6 delay), many Republicans would have called it a coup attempt too. But the reverse is also true: Democrats and media often applied harsher standards to Trump. Both sides have eroded norms in close elections. The evidence showed real procedural problems in 2020, but not outcome-determinative fraud on the scale claimed.
Hypotheticals cut both ways — consistency matters more than team colors.
Bruce Hayden said: “ Ok, smarty pants. Convince us that the 2020 elections were fair and honest, and that Dementia Biden won fairly and honestly. Then convince us that the Biden/Garland DOJ didn’t commit Brady and § 1001 violations by denying the presence of those 274 undercover FBI agents, several dozen FBI CIs and provocateurs, and a couple busses of AntiFA.”
Oh, if I ever at any point suggested I had some power of convincing or cracking the cult, or that facts are a factor in the rabbit hole, I clearly misarticulated that point.
Actually, your interpretation validates my argument.
Challenge accepted. Let's do facts, not hypotheticals.
Biden won by 7 million votes and 306-232 in the Electoral College. All 50 states certified it. Trump’s lawyers filed 60+ lawsuits, got multiple hearings in front of Trump-appointed judges, and even the conservative Supreme Court told them “nice try.” Recounts and audits in the key states still showed Biden ahead.
As for the FBI mastermind false flag: The DOJ Inspector General found 26 confidential informants in D.C. that day — not 274 undercover agents, not busloads of Antifa being directed by Garland. Most were just watching the crowd. Pretending the entire thing was a giant FBI/Deep State production while simultaneously claiming it was a legitimate “mostly peaceful” protest is impressive mental gymnastics.
Look, the DOJ clearly overcharged some people and the double standards stink. But claiming “Dementia Biden” stole the election with trailer-park magic ballots and that the FBI ran a 274-agent cosplay coup requires more than Facebook memes and wishful thinking.
Admitting Biden won fairly would require accepting that Trump lost to a weak candidate despite massive turnout, and that many of their friends/family were wrong. That's a tough pill.
Deep skepticism about 2020 is now a tribal identity for millions of Americans, much like how many Democrats still treat 2016 as "Russia stole it." Once trust is this broken, facts alone rarely change minds. People update their beliefs when it aligns with their tribe or when the pain of holding the belief exceeds the pain of changing it
Biden got 81 million votes — the highest total ever. Trump got 74 million — the second highest ever, and 11 million more than in 2016. Turnout was through the roof.
The "math" arguments (Bellwether counties, late-night dumps in heavily Democratic cities, etc.) are real red flags worth scrutiny. But they don’t magically equal millions of fake ballots. After 60+ lawsuits, multiple recounts, forensic audits (Arizona), and hand recounts (Georgia x3), no court or audit found enough irregularities to flip even one state — let alone the three needed.
If the math was so obviously "bullshit," Trump’s own lawyers and hand-picked experts should’ve been able to prove it with receipts in court. They couldn’t.
Skepticism is healthy. Claiming basic math proves a stolen election is where it goes off the rails.
D.D. Driver said... DD Give me some "reasonable" restrictions on the public ownership of firearms.
"I don't have any in mind. BUT-Fucking Donald Trump does." I didn't ask you what Donald Thinks. I asked you what YOU think. So the current situation suits you?
David French and Bill Kristol are cut from the same cloth. There's nothing "conservative" in their bones, what have they "conserved?". Grifter Class of the Beltway Cocktail circuit is what they are all about.
With regard to sue and settle, mutually assured destruction is the solution. Why? Because Congress is incapable of governing but has spending power. Congress works by secretly funding pet projects by making budgets in shortly timed crisis events and government shutdowns that hide the details. Congress spends and hides it from constituents. Congress is not the victim, Congress is the perp.
So the only answer is to have each party beat the other over the head with a concrete block until they are both immobilized.
Then they will learn that there is a better way to make a budget.
Yes, it was wrong when the Democrat did it. But by doing it and getting away with it, they changed the rules. And that means it's perfectly fine for Trump to do it.
Don't like that? Then stop the Democrats from violating & changing the rules
5/22/26, 10:10 AM Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said... Peron did this in Argentina -- public money for displays of loyalty without external oversight. So do/did Putin, Chavez/Maduro, and Erdogan.
What is the vision? What does the promised land hold? Remember that the United States is a big place that contains lots of people of many ilks. It’s easy to move.
We need to have a federalism that gives more power to regional government, we need to let people cluster into communities that are happy together. Let us self select like the pilgrims, the cavaliers, the Amish, and the Californians want to do. But limit federal funding, if you want to have communist Minnesota, you pay for it. If you want free range Texas, your money is not going to go to Seattle.
Will we grow apart? I think the risk is low. Socialist will think that all the people will move to the socialist places, and if so, good. Others think that everyone will move to Florida or Texas, fine.
But a decision will be made, a winnowing will occur, truth will be found, your beliefs will be trialed by fire and their tenor will be found.
The problem will be, that those who are found lacking will want to impose. They will want money from the successful places, that is how it works now. So prohibit the failed parts from stealing from the good parts. Rather, make them change by not subsidizing them.
Make success the criterion, don’t reinforce failure. The good will live and the bad will die. No thumb on the scale, only truth as measured by who moves where.
Now the crux, if all the mentally ill go to one place what do you do. Well, probably something better than what is happening now.
Yes, Gore conceded, but had planned to use his alternate slate of electors. And in 1960, both parties had HI slates, because the count the re took so long. Other elections, at least as far back as Grant had considered alternate slates of electors - which is why federal law (3 USC) has provisions for dealing with them.
But here is the thing. These states had election statutes on the books, enacted by their legislatures, and signed into law. They were allegedly violated in those states. The Executive (typically Sec of State) waived off those violations. Indeed, in several of them (including AZ), the Sec of State was the one implementing the illegal voting procedures. The problem was that under US statutes, only the state legislatures (and not Executives) can make voting and election certification laws for the Presidency. Which arguably means that they couldn’t legally certify an elector slate not elected under then current state election law. Or to simplify, the state Executives couldn’t legally certify results (and slates of electors) that were not arrived at by following legislatively enacted state election laws in effect at the time of the elections.
So, in AZ, if I remember correctly, the Republican legislature determined that the election had been run illegally (by then Sec State, now Gov, Katy Hobbs) and thus they, as the Legislature, had the duty to appoint their own slate, and let Congress hash it out. With the procedures that have been set out in USC Title 3.
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
પોસ્ટ્સ
142 ટિપ્પણીઓ:
It isn’t a good discussion at all, only an attempt to nullify the criticism of calling out Trump’s actions that are rally no different than previous administrations. Only difference is Trump is doing them and succeeding politically- bigly
…it would help us out if you would put the ‘said David French’ earlier in the post…
and what he tries to do legally, which often doesn't fly
…what bilge. The political opinions of Hawaiian judges cast as law and reversed later does not a ‘doesn’t fly’ make…
The Osborne Brothers have a video of their song “It Ain’t My Fault” where four men rob a pawn shop wearing Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump masks. Trump is the only caught in the ensuing police chase. A Democrat President in 2028 will pack the Court, add two states, and open the gates to illegal immigration again in an effort to create a one party state. And David French will be okay with it because Trump.
They’re rally mad the villagers they trapped and hanged were set free and compensated for the actions of their totalitarian government, aren’t they? It doesn’t seem like the thing they should be burning through political capital on at the moment but their lack of competent policy is what’s got them into this mess in the first place…
It sounds like an ordinary award for malicious prosecution. Only, half the country doesn't believe it's malicious prosecution and half does. Trump is making the choice between them.
They are so mad that the people that they persecuted are going to be compensated.
Really I hope they keep walking down this road.
David French is a particularly odious creature.
I expect him to move to Europe.
The fact of the matter is that Trump has used whatever mechanisms are available to advance his (and his constituents') goals. He has abided by every court order and decision against him, while appealing (generally successfully), citing those very precedents that French now claims that Trump is improperly taking advantage of.
Isn't that the way things are supposed to work in a constitutional republic, Frenchie?
The Democrats seem to be bringing a gun to a word fight a lot lately.
French also insisted there is something wrong with securing the border, fixing the reflecting pool, stopping Medicare fraud, building a ballroom, blowing up drug boats, deporting criminal illegals aliens, and all the other things.
There might be something wrong with Trump's billion dollar fund, but nobody cares what David French thinks.
This is a straw man argument.
It’s a good point. But is David French also willing to entertain the idea that simultaneously an administration could be pulling all of the best foreign policies and American pragmatism from those same five previous administrations, putting it under one administration and then amplifying all of it also?
Or is your model and judgement of people and presidents only binary and the two choices good/bad, Trump is bad,
Was Keepseagle v. Vilsack "wrong?" Not according to the courts.
Turns out "the Chicago Way" is more than applicable to this entire discussion, right Mr. French?
Only, half the country doesn't believe it's malicious prosecution and half does
…recent evidence suggests that first group is substantially larger than represented…
This is just compensation.
We want retribution.
Obama should have hung or been shot already for what he did. Obama is the most evil person we have had in American government in decades and that includes Hillary Clinton. He worked with a Russian spy to frame a sitting president and created the Russian Collusion hoax out of nothing.
Every single person like Jen Psaki who conspired with Obama committed conspiracy to commit treason and committed treason themselves.
They all deserve execution and they know it.
Obama is a Diversitist who believes in aborting "burdens" for social progress, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, redistributive change schemes, ethnic Springs, and politically congruent constructs.
The current political era dates to the Clinton administration. While both sides condemned Nixon and all accepted that Carter was honest and moral, agreement stopped by the 1990s. The Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" and went after credible females who accused him. This culminated with the Lewinsky coverup impeachment and resulting "we don't care" partisanship.
As bipartisan approvals for judges went away by the 1980s (Bork, Clarence Thomas), and as politics no longer ended at the border (post Vietnam) -- the parties followed parallel rules.
Obama's handlers used shallow iconography to put the deep state in control, and that begat Trump. Trump is a Clinton-like reactionary to Obama-like ideologies.
A pot filled with blackstrap molasses calls the kettle black.
There might be something wrong with Trump's billion dollar fund, but... there is no being broken right now. That's the problem with all the "pre-reporting" on crimes that have not taken place yet if ever.
But Democrat malfeasance right in our faces with hookers and blow can't be reported on or investigated, much less what Democrats may in the future do. That's just never part of the discussion, what future crimes democrats make possible in their schemes.
Planned Presidenthood (PP)? Wouldn't that be ironic. It's his Choice, paraphrasing Feminists, Masculinists, Democratics, Progressive Liberal sects, et al.
"No LAW being broken right now..." I meant.
Sean Davis said...
"[Senator] Tillis voted for a $500,000 per senator fund for senators who were illegally spied on by the Biden. It wasn’t available to any normal Americans whose rights had been violated—just senators. But now Tillis is mad that actual American citizens might receive restitution. What a clown."
GOP Senator Thom Tillis on Trump’s proposed “Anti-Weaponization” fund: “I think it’s stupid on stilts. When you take money from me to give to a purpose I vehemently disagree with, that’s tyranny.”
French causes me to erase all doubt I might have had. About 99% of the Democrat hand-waving about "Trump corruption" [sic] is to distract from any news coverage about all of the Democrat and deep state corruption being exposed every day by this administration.
Not a shred of doubt. Have you heard ANY democrat ANYWHERE express relief we have uncovered so much CMS fraud that wasn't going to help the people? Any D at all? Bueller?
Tillis is one of the ugliest, most obnoxious Republican Senator. I have zero idea how this clown ever got elected. He's going to be a lobbyist in Jan 2027, so opposing Trump on everything except israel is a way build cred with his future clients. That he would pretend to be upset about the Trump fund while trying to get a pay-off for himself isn't shocking.
Sure, bad actions by President X does not excuse bad actions by President Y.
But I'll be damned if that message from French is welcome. Perhaps if he could show where he labeled acts by President X an assault on democracy, an existential threat of just plain old Hitler-like. Breath not being held here.
Otherwise this is simply "I'm a hypocrite. My ethics are solely driven by personal animus. TDS is my North Star, but don't you dare say it".
OK David French, lets talk about corruption. Why did you take money from Google and Hi-tech under the table while writing articles in NR entitled "The Conservative Case for Google"?
The lIberal/left and Grifters like French are the biggest fakes in the world. they don't care about corruption.
They do nothing about it when its on their side or when the D's are in power. Its only when its Trump, or some other R politician that they dislike, that suddenly, suddenly, they become "concerned".
Trump should do anything that isn't explicitly illegal. And that includes telling Leftwing lawyers in black robes to fuck off.
"When you take money from me to give to a purpose I vehemently disagree with, that’s tyranny.”
Hey (soon to be ex-) Senator. It is me and several million of my fellow TAXPAYERS that YOU are taking money from. There are a pant load of Federal laws that I "vehemently disagree with". That you VOTED for.
The tyrant appears in your mirror.
Nobody would care if he didn't blunder into a stupid war to further Israels doomed plan for thousand years of security. He's Netanyahu's bitch, so he cleaved his base apart, making the remaining part of it seem extra loyal, well sure, but they are smaller in number. AIPAC just poured tend of millions into a primary, this is a hundred or a thousand times worse, well, you get zero when you multiply by zero, o matter how big the number, so it's the actual crime that the Democrats falsely accused him of in Russiagate.
I am hoping he ends up in a jumpsuit to match his hair. Of course this means that the Democrats are just going to use their power to double down on what got Trump elected in the first place. Whatever, Israel owns the Republican Party, the Masse primary proves that. They own the Democrat Party too, we will see if they can throw off the shackles.
The ingenuity of the corruption seems to have no end.
In this case, the defendant was the IRS, which, as an arm of the executive branch, was also under plaintiff Trump’s control; it never mounted a defense. The judge ordered both defendants and plaintiffs counsel to explain in what way they were actually adversarial and not simply colluding. Rather than respond, Trump's DoJ simply dropped the sham “suit.” The same day they announced the creation of the “anti-weaponization fund,” and called it a “settlement.”
Trump is repeating Biden's mistakes, acting out of vengeance towards what he believed were political wrongs perpetrated against him, and leaving the best interest of his base, and the country, to one side and embracing those with the power to fund his election. Both president's gravest mistakes could have been prefaced by "I'll show them..."
"The ingenuity of the corruption seems to have no end."
Makes Joe Biden's grifts and money laundering through teaching gigs, getting jobs for his ne'er do well son in return for favors, steering a $2 billion dollar contract from Iraq to his brother, etc, seem almost quaint.
Has any president sought indictments for made up crimes of their political foe? Have they raided their foe’s home? Have they executed the greatest vote fraud in American history? Have they fomented a riot when people were crazed about the voting fraud? Have they made up claims of Russian collusion, inhibiting their foe’s ability to govern at 100% for two years? Etc etc.
Trump’s gotta a long way to go to match the very worst in the arena of despicable actions by a US President.
It wasn’t Pres. Obama’s fault he was encouraging violence, he was just quoting a movie. Maybe quote a different movie.
"10% for the Big Guy" - Joe Biden
"25% for the Big Guy" - Donald Trump.
Dismissing Trump's support as "political fandom" shows you how out of touch French is.
French is a guy sitting on a toilet, trying to finish a half-written limerick for the wall of a gas station men's room, who doesn't realize his "friends" drove away as soon as he went out of sight around the corner.
"When you take money from me to give to a purpose I vehemently disagree with, that’s tyranny.”
Because of our current culture, I read ‘tyranny’ as ‘tranny.’
And the ‘when…that’s’ formula makes me think of Dean Martin:
When fake boobs hit your eyes/Like two big pizza pies/That’s a tranny….’ CC, JSM
It’s going to be fun listening to our politicians rail against an “Anti-Weaponization Fund”. By doing so, they implicitly condone the government using lawfare to target people with whom it simply disagrees.
I thought the 'fund' was a pre-trial, out-of-court settlement. Do I have this wrong? Why isn't it called a 'settlement', then, why is it called a 'fund'? Because it makes for an easy segue into 'slush fund', that's why, and because it evokes a certain association with unstructured pots of money that are deployed to a different purpose than the one intended. Like Medicare 'funds' in certain blue states. It's the old mis-direction projection game again. 'Yes there's lots of fraud and this is the worst one !'
The is called 'Progressives being reasonable'. 'Trump shouldn't use all the dirty tactics we've used against him a million times, that's unfair! It's making us have to fight even dirtier, and nobody wants that! Trump should be nicer, so it's easier for us to beat him without working so hard.'
Blanche or someone else should simply ask the naysayers what ideas they have to combat the obvious scourge of lawfare against the government’s political enemies.
"I thought the 'fund' was a pre-trial, out-of-court settlement. Do I have this wrong? Why isn't it called a 'settlement', then, why is it called a 'fund'?"
The podcast discusses this very well. There are, they say, 3 ways to characterize what is being done and align it with a legal theory and precedent. I'm not trying to explain that because it's complicated and the podcast does it well. There's a free transcript at Podscribe here: https://app.podscribe.com/episode/158183268?transcriptVersionReqId=7814a9eb-06b6-45ff-a7b5-68371987238e&uid=44f8f4e8-3081-70cb-29d5-ef2600c322ea
...he was just quoting a movie...
Ah, but he wasn't when he called Republicans his "enemy." That's a label he wouldn't-- didn't -- stick on Al Queda. Or ISIS. Only his domestic political rivals. The ones he instructed college kids to "get in their faces."
That's the Obama-Chicago way.
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...
The ingenuity of the corruption seems to have no end.
In this case, the defendant was the IRS, which, as an arm of the executive branch, was also under plaintiff Trump’s control; it never mounted a defense. The judge ordered both defendants and plaintiffs counsel to explain in what way they were actually adversarial and not simply colluding.
Something judges are remarkably uncurious about when consent agreements are presented during Democrat administrations. Especially in environmental cases.
The podcasters are interested in getting Congress to perform its constitutional role, which includes controlling the money. There's a lot of water under the bridge there, and the point I'm making in the post is that Trump isn't the type to try to get us back to the original vision of checks and balances. I think he may feel entirely unconstrained and be fine with attracting his antagonists into a big fight over this. It would shine a light on what those past Presidents have done and get the problem out into the open. If the courts are shaken into action, the limits they impose will constrain Democratic presidents too. There are many ways to win this fight. It's also a massive distraction.
Except when its Israel or supporting big business, Trump must be attacked everyday and in everyway. No wonder the Left and D's always win. They never give up or shut up. MSM gives them the "talking points" and its off to the races. Next day, its the same thing. Rinse and repeat. Over and over.
And of course, this fund/settlement is now being reviewed by a Far-left district judge who will - of course - find it "Unconstitutional" or some such nonsense. Then we will go to the DC appeals court - stacked with leftists - who will concur and finally it will up to Roberts and the SCOTUS.
I think my earlier “Fifth Avenue” analogy gets at this: if Trump shot someone and Democrats once committed murder elsewhere, the prior crime does not negate the present one. It may raise fairness questions about enforcement, but it does not answer the factual question of what happened.
Blanche, Trump’s personal attorney given power, solely signs a settlement that says Trump “shall have the power to determine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing and granting or denying claims.” Sounds like he can award it to who ever he wants or perhaps, no one at all. And if that isn’t sweet enough, Trump and his family are now immune of IRS audits or investigations.
The whataboutism just doesn’t fly here but then, it never flew in Trump flooding the zone with shit while he and the billionaires go for the jugular. Perhaps if the Trump defenders could put a bit more voice inflections on Obama’s middle name, it might reinforce this tu quoque within the tribe.
It’s been a cult since Trump's nomination… Is it really only just dawning on the media class that this has been the situation for the last decade..?
They will be bereft of ideas once he is gone. The sensible country-club republicans of the previous century are all gone now. What's left will just be a tug of war between Silicon Valley techno-bros, economic populists who might be vulnerable to democrats, and people who want to turn the US into Gilead.
Ann Althouse said...
The podcasters are interested in getting Congress to perform its constitutional role, which includes controlling the money. There's a lot of water under the bridge there, and the point I'm making in the post is that Trump isn't the type to try to get us back to the original vision of checks and balances. I think he may feel entirely unconstrained and be fine with attracting his antagonists into a big fight over this.
lol checks and balances.
Our government is a jobs program and a looting mechanism. Has been for decades.
The purpose of government since Obama was explicitly taking money from productive people and closing the “wage gap.”
Our university system was a learing center.
This is just the looters complaining about someone else being compensated.
How many kids are in student loan debt so Ann can talk about checks and balances.
The government under Obama/biden spied on and persecuted people.
They deserve compensation and the people on here who cheered the persecution are traitors.
Keep pushing you fascist pieces of shit.
Remember when the ig investigated americorps grift they called him senile with clinton start was a sex pervent
When the wretched back bay slug called mueller was on the march and he used the testimony of scum like george nader 155 times they issued candles he was paid off by banamex he put joe farah in a coma they didnt care
The critics of Trump said the man was Adolf Hitler. Over and over and over.
And now it's all, giving money away like a liberal.
Do you dipshits remember the 88 felonies and the rapist and the Nazi and all the rest of the shit you threw at the man? I do. So when you make your allegation that he's got a slush fund like Santa Claus for his fans? It might be true. Maybe he's guilty of slushing the funds like he's from the North Pole. Dropping money down the chimneys of J6ers everywhere.
You can't start off with Hitler, blow that call completely, and expect me to pay attentiion to allegation #6,192. Gave tax payer dollars to anonymous people he's never met..
The government under Obama/biden spied on and persecuted people.
They deserve compensation and the people on here who cheered the persecution are traitors.
I agree. But, do you know how we handle these things in "America"? Those that have had their right violated sue, prove their case, prove their damages, in open fucking court for the goddamn world to see and scrutinize. We don't do slush funds and secret tribunals. That's about as Anti-American as you can possibly be.
Why don't you just move to one of the Banana Republics that you want to turn America into?
The real butt hurt is that Trump is saying the J6 protest is like the Boston Tea Party. Sure, it's a crime, but also patriotic. And he's now rewarding them for criminal behavior. Why? Because the punishments were insanely politicized, and way over-the-top. Some of those people spent years in jail.
Also, kudos to Trump for doing this before the midterms. Go ahead and rant and rave about it, leftists.
Weve had thirty years to prove dems dont believe in the cinstitution or even the founding of the counrry
"They deserve compensation and the people on here who cheered the persecution are traitors."
MAGA and satire are indistinguishable.
"...The podcasters are interested in getting Congress to perform its constitutional role, which includes controlling the money...."
I think that's BS. I think the podcasters have a keen, partisan interest in seeing this portrayed as 'Bucket #3', because it presents the most problems, the most opportunities for criticism. Congress' only interest is in seeing that the out-of-court settlement is paid, period, then the money is out of their hands and their oversight is finished. The hand-wringing over the administration being in charge of its disbursement because 'Trump' is absurd when he has set it up specifically to have no personal benefit from it. That's the job for an Inspector General - not Congress.
Every time they side with the lawbreaker the rebel as alinski declared of lucifee
A comment to a NYT article:
I'm thinking how this is going to look in one of those illustrated kids history books in 50 years time. 'In Jan' 2021 an insurrectionist mob attacked the Capitol building in an attempt to overthrow the government. By 2026 the government had pardoned them and paid out huge amounts of compensation despite them never being exonerated of their crimes. We call this period the 'lunatic period' when the country lost its mind'.
The suit brought by a private citizen who then became president and then the suit was settled. So because the suit went through the courts as if the plaintiff was still a private citizen, does the resulting award belong to the president? Because to my way of thinking the money belongs to Donald Trump the citizen . Who may do with it as he pleases.
Am I wrong?
All those people that think this is wrong because 'Trump', I want to hear your full-throated, post-pardon endorsements of FBI pre-dawn, black helicopter, SWAT team guns-up raids on elderly grandmothers who visited the Capitol peacefully on Jan 6th and got thrown in jail on bogus charges. C'mon, lets hear you roar for that kind of 'law enforcement'.
They approve of it, they want people cowed as they are in gulag that used to be Ole Britannia
Steve.
The only people who called it an "insurrection" was the media. It was a protest that we have subsequently found out was encouraged to get out of hand by the FBI planted in the mob.
I know it's difficult for you, but try and at least be honest.
From the post:
"The whole discussion there is very good, examining many legal issues and precedents. I'm just selecting that one thing, which is something I've observed again and again. It's not Trump's way to say it stops with me, I see what's wrong, and I'm going to set us straight and get back to what is soundly legal and in line with the intent of the Framers. That might seem to fit his slogan "Make America[n] Great Again," but that's not what he does. He's in the middle of a big fight, and he's going tit for tat and beyond. He's one of those guys who say "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
The anti-Trumpers have been bringing literal guns into play, against him personally, against capitalists, against people like Charlie Kirk, against ICE officers, and against plain folks on the street (as in Austin).
Why should he not fight back most vigorously? And how has he gone beyond tit for tat? How many literal guns has he brought to the battle so far?
An insurrection with no guns (they followed gun laws fancy that)
the corrupt left use every smarmy illegal lie filled trick they can. F all of them.
I know they cant possibly believe anything that stupid
Obama apprenticed under jeremiah wright and bill ayers
One the camp guru of qadaffi and fidel the other grsduate of camp matanzaa
Obama is the offscreen Con-man.
French is like the ten year old who punches his brother and then loudly yells “ No hit backs!” The US is not served by the hypocrisy of complaining only when your enemy and not your friends break norms. Congress compensates itself personally for Beiden’s stealing of phone records, they vote tax money to secretly compensate their sex assault victims, that’s a shining example of morality.
The answer is for all to push the system to the extremes until they’re forced to fix it, there is no other way forward. Tit for tat works.
Dems crow, oh you stupid stupid maga, Beiden did that way back 2 years ago! Trump is doing it now! But our loud mouth leaders swear to do it agin when we are back in power!
Trump proves the old saw:
"You come at the king, you best not miss," was popularized by the character Omar Little (played by Michael K. Williams) in the HBO series The Wire.
The podcasters are interested in getting Congress to perform its constitutional role, which includes controlling the money.
I don't have patience to even think about the legal analysis, because the political analysis is so bad. The punishments for the J6 defendants were severely out of whack. It was the same level of crazy as all the allegations against Trump.
The American people acquitted Trump when they re-elected him in 2024. It was a massive repudiation of the politicized horseshit that happened during the Biden administration. Trump pardoned all the protesters, but did that address the really awful political vendetta against the J6 protesters? Did that right the wrong?
No.
I applaud Trump's pivot, from trying to address the wrongs against him, to addressing the wrong against his supporters.
The whole discussion there is very good, examining many legal issues and precedent
...
Now two things are true at once. Number one, Clinton often did X or Obama often did do Y.... That doesn't excuse Donald Trump at all.
One could say that David French is merely stupid, but that would be wrong. He is in fact evil.
Because if Obama and Clinton both did it, then it's a "precedent", and it's entirely legitimate for Trump to be doing it.
No one who did not viciously fight against Obama / Clinton / Biden for doing it gets to open their mouth and complain about Trump doing it.
Anyone who associates or sides with a Democrat who was ok with Clinton / Obama / Biden doing it, but is attacking Trump for doing it, is also a morally wretched piece of shit.
Yes, it was wrong when the Democrat did it. But by doing it and getting away with it, they changed the rules. And that means it's perfectly fine for Trump to do it.
Don't like that? Then stop the Democrats from violating & changing the rules
Peron did this in Argentina -- public money for displays of loyalty without external oversight. So do/did Putin, Chavez/Maduro, and Erdogan.
Congress needs to get a grip.
I'm thinking how this is going to look in one of those illustrated kids history books in 50 years time.
50 years from now, when Trump is dead, the left will cheer him for freeing Cuba (we all wanted to free Cuba) and getting the entire Middle East to recognize Israel (we always loved Israel), and for getting Roe v. Wade overruled (we always loved babies), and for expanding the power and authority of the Article II branch (Administrative state forever!).
The January 6 riot will go down in history as a fun Boston Tea Party type activity. And the historians will shuffle the rankings, putting Trump in the top 20, somewhere between McKinley and Adams.
And they will bemoan the Republican of 2076 as a horrible Nazi and the worst Republican to hold office, ever.
Peron did this in Argentina -- public money for displays of loyalty without external oversight. So do/did Putin, Chavez/Maduro, and Erdogan.
"Sorry about that Hitler thing. He's more like Peron, or Erdogan. We might have gone a little overbaord with the Nazi name-calling. Is this microphone on?"
Maybe you can impeach him again, numbnuts.
I dubbed it delta house hijinks the guy in skins like a cross between graham chapmans viking and the Dude
D.D. Driver said...
The government under Obama/biden spied on and persecuted people.
They deserve compensation and the people on here who cheered the persecution are traitors.
I agree. But, do you know how we handle these things in "America"? Those that have had their right violated sue, prove their case, prove their damages, in open fucking court for the goddamn world to see and scrutinize. We don't do slush funds and secret tribunals. That's about as Anti-American as you can possibly be.
Why don't you just move to one of the Banana Republics that you want to turn America into?
So I am right.
But you want us to do play by rules you know the democrats break.
You are here in bad faith. Get fucked and go hang out with your Democrat buddies. I am sure they will be nicer to you than they were to us. They like their quizzings and simpsZ
You should go read some history on who they always start murdering first after they seize power. But then again you are kinda stupid.
the little boy who cried "Nazi"
found out nobody was listening when he shouted "Erdogan!" at the top of his lungs
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said...
Peron did this in Argentina -- public money for displays of loyalty without external oversight. So do/did Putin, Chavez/Maduro, and Erdogan.
Congress needs to get a grip.
Did you lear that in a learing center?
You are such a retard.
“ public money for displays of loyalty without external oversight.”
Like the Democrat’s NGO industry?
The German people acquitted Hitler after his coup attempt when the Nazi party took control through popular elections . . So I guess that excuses his later conduct.
When 'Obama did it', yes there was a bit/lot of handwringing from the right. The left blew it off. So, the precident has been set. It's OK to let slide legal, but perhaps morally objectionable, actions performed by a sitting president.
But the end result is, well, results.
Rustygrommet said...
Steve.
The only people who called it an "insurrection" was the media. It was a protest that we have subsequently found out was encouraged to get out of hand by the FBI planted in the mob.
I know it's difficult for you, but try and at least be honest.
5/22/26, 9:34 AM
Okay so it was a protest yet it was a mob? But it wasn’t the protestors fault because the FBI brought out that true mob in them? But it was still just a protest?
And if none of that works, just fall back on the Antifa disguising as Trump supporters, or maybe, just calm innocent people meandering into the Capitol during a peaceful tour and never noticed the peaceful protestors turned mob by the FBI?
I hope Matthew Perna's family gets a million dollar+ pay day. The Dems and their crooked DOJ drove Matthew to suicide when the night before his plea deal was supposed to go thru the DOJ decided he was a terrorist and threw out the plea deal.
If the Dems don't want to be treated like fascists going forward they will have to stop kissing themselves in the mirror. And that's never going to happen.
I am reminded erdogan had a purge excuse ergonokon because evil grey wolves
Ah. Veriwrongitude.
No. They are all beyond the pale, and have been for far too long.
But you want us to do play by rules you know the democrats break.
I want to follow the rules written by our Founding Fathers. The rules thousands have sacrificed their lives to defend. The Constitution is much bigger and far more important than your petty, cunty little partisan bickering.
DD
Give me some "reasonable" restrictions on the public ownership of firearms.
"But it wasn’t the protestors fault because the FBI brought out that true mob in them?"
Where did I say that?
I started reading the transcript, and it's a hilarious legal problem. I'm not even sure who would have standing to sue to stop this. I guess theoretically the IRS could try to claw back the money in 2029 or 2033.
They are really in the legal weeds.
in bucket number three, we're now paying future claimants who haven't filed lawsuits and where the statute of limitations has almost certainly run on all of them. Donald Trump is 18 months into his administration. As I said, the statute of limitations is two years. This is all supposed to be for Biden weaponization. So like unless Biden did something to you in the last few months of his administration, you would not have a very meritorious claim here and your lawsuit would almost certainly be dismissed out of hand.
What French just glides right over is that it was the government that was fucking with the J6 patriots. It was the government that tried to prosecute a president for 88 felonies, who made up a rape charge, and who imprisoned people for doing mild shit that was, at worst, a class 2 misdemeanor. Since the government is the bad guy in this shit-show, the government needs to bend over backwards to redress the wrong that it did.
French also completely ignores his own bias. You and other Ivy League attorneys have been caught peddling manure for all of Joe Biden's presidency. The 2024 election should humble you to your bones. The American people rejected your version of reality.
If you want to speak to America now, the very first thing you ought to do is say something like, "What we did to the J6 protestors was wrong." But you won't say that, will you?
French argument is predicated that what is wrong is Trump creating a slush fund for supporters. However, what Trump did that's really grating is he based that slush fund on actual harm caused by Democrats to ordinary individuals, many of them small donor supporters. While people like French whine about Trump possibly getting revenge against his big-name opponents, what Trump is actually doing is getting justice for people most of us never heard of before the FBI raided their home and hauled them off to jail for trespassing.
It was harm to Trump what caused the settlement. What happens after that mind your own bizness French…
DD
Give me some "reasonable" restrictions on the public ownership of firearms.
I don't have any in mind. BUT-Fucking Donald Trump does.
Did you forget about this or are you a retard that didn't know about it?
Like I said, good men and women have died for the rights that Trump wipes his fat ass with.
dang - te bold did not work
Could this be the Green Presidency that Biden swung for and missed?
16 states are on track to set new all-time Memorial Day gas price records this year, surpassing the highs set in 2022: AK, CO, HI, KY, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, OH, OR, SD, WA, WV, WY. A couple states could narrowly escape it: KY (+1.6c right now), MO (+2.3c right now) https://x.com/GasBuddyGuy/status/2057808536550166748?s=20
A gas station in deep blue Wisconsin, might seem like a strange place to meet Trump supporters. But beneath the propulsive go-go strains of Chuck Brown, you can hear whispers that DEI, not the war in Iran, is the reason gas prices have jumped to the highest levels since 2022.
David French is awful. Even Bill Maher called him out on carrying water for the left. He and his wife have incurable TDS.
☕️ DE-FAUCI-IZATION ☙ Friday, May 22, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠 https://share.google/KiB9jmPfxhvhzeyV0
It could also be less wrongness.
French's argument can be turned around. Opponents took out Nixon. They tried to take out Clinton. Every president faces opposition. Trump was the only one impeached twice, the only one put on trial and called a felon, the only one they took millions from and tried to send to prison. He was the only president subjected to ... was it six ... trials after leaving office. Doesn't the money for the fund or settlement come from the travails they put Trump through? We are living through unusual times and have left old norms far behind.
Anything French says, I assume the opposite to be true until it can be independently verified.
Of all the "conservative" Never Trumpers, only Wilson is more detestable. Even Bill Kristol is not as bad as French.
First, the 2020 election was blatantly and fairly openly stolen. By the Dems. Most of the lawsuits were rejected on Standing (now, at least, as of a month or two ago, candidates get standing, which, I think is going to be big). Most of the remainder were Moot. The Dem controlled MSM told the disgruntled Trump voters to shut up and just take the loss gracefully. A lot of us didn’t, and the more that came out, the more egregious the theft of the election appeared.
So a bunch of disgruntled Trump voters came to DC to non-violently protest the election theft. You know that they didn’t intend violence because every one of them left their guns behind. The only guns that we know of there that day were in the hands of the Capital Police, and the 274 FBI agents.
The Capital Police were cut out of the intelligence, planning, and communications with other agencies. The FBI though knew exactly what was going to happen. They were there with 274 undercover agents, several dozen paid provocateurs (apparently also by the SPLA), and knowledge that they were being joined by two busloads of AntiFA provocateurs. Pelosi, of course, knew. It was her baby, and she had her daughter following her around that day to record that momentous day.
And to make sure that all everyone learned their lesson, over a thousand peaceful Trump supporters were prosecuted for bogus crimes. The Biden/Garland prosecution bankrupted many of them, defending themselves, with their infinitely deep pockets, and cheated their asses off. It took five years to find out about the 274 FBI agents. That meant hundreds, probably many more, Brady and § 1001 violations. And the defendants never got the video they needed, because Pelosi doled out what she wanted to. Defendants were held for better than a year without the possibility of bail, just because the prosecutors could. And held in deplorable conditions.
In law, we call it the in terrorem effect. The Deep State and the Dems were teaching Trump supporters to just shut up and take it up the rear. They openly cheated, got away with it, and anyone who complained, was likely to suffer along with the J6 Martyrs. They even went after Trump himself, with 4 BS felony and one civil prosecutions. We even had someone here, who had innocently been at the Capital that day with his family, and said nothing for over 4 years, to not risk being dragged in.
Meanwhile, Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page, got a $2 million stipulated settlement from the B/G DOJ. The two who were the main instigators for torpedoing the case against Clinton, and at her campaign’s behest, initiating the RussiaGate investigations.
I'm kind of hoping the settle and sue slush fund gets made illegal. What would the litigous NGO's do with their cooperative lawfare settlements against the government then?
French’s co-author, Sarah Isgur, worked on “three presidential campaigns.” Whose?
The reasons Trump supporters ignore his unpleasant personality traits and occasional bouts of poor judgment are: Barack and the Obots, Kamala, Soros, AOC, Omar, Newsom, Bass, etc., etc., etc., and the “good Germans” and “good Muslims” who support and vote for them no matter how much damage they intend and do.
@Bruce Hayden -- is that you Sidney Powell?
We really need an alternative label for J6. One that can hopefully crowd "insurrection" off the field, sort of the way that Trump took over "fake news," which was originally used to describe him and Fox. One that's much, much shorter than "rally in support of Trump and several Republican Congressmembers' contention that several Democratic state machines stuffed ballot boxes, falsifying their states' electoral votes."
I can't think of a good short alternative. J6 demonstration? Too general. J6 Cry For Justice? Might have been good on the day, but now it could be confused with justice for the J6ers' treatment. J6 Rally for Clean Elections?
To the extent J6 had an official name, it was sometimes called the Stop The Steal Rally. Maybe use that? J6 Anti-Fraud Demonstration?
Ooh, maybe quote the Constitution: J6 Petition for Redress of Grievances? Could be confusing because most people think of a petition as a piece of paper.
Any other ideas? CC, JSM
Americans say Donald Trump should stop taking bribes, freeing criminals, suppressing clean energy, defunding research, and driving up the cost of living.
The Althouse commentariat disagree.
St. Croix--That Atlantic piece by French is as mendacious as anything David Corn ever produced. What a dishonest hack. No wonder the NYT loves him.
One thing that French ignores is that the "insurrection" was the premise by which Congress prevented Trump allies in Congress from attempting to challenge the certification of the election, not some sort of putsch in support of overthrowing the government. (The fact that nobody bothered to bring a gun might be one clue).
Bruce Hayden @ 1:45, understanding the Trump cult phenomenon, your response is what’s known as a “closed explanatory system”, where nearly every fact is absorbed into one overarching narrative.
“Election stolen“ can no longer be a hypothesis but is now settled fact within the tribe. Courts rejected cases on standing or mootness becomes proof the system blocked truth rather than evidence weighing against the claims. FBI presence equals evidence of orchestration. “Pelosi knew” is intentional planning. Prosecutions are retaliation rather than law enforcement. Silence of others is fear from state oppression. And of course, Trump cases become further confirmation.
Notice what happens structurally: almost nothing can falsify the theory. Contrary evidence is reinterpreted as part of the cover-up.
I could get into correcting much of it with facts that ship of beaten horses has long sailed but what struck me most was this line; “The Deep State and the Dems were teaching Trump supporters to just shut up and take it up the rear.”
That’s what’s known in cult study as “grievance identity language”. It reframes events such as: our people persecuted while their people are oppressors, and institutions becomes illegitimate while evidence against us is proof of persecution.
That framework is powerful because it reinforces belonging and explains setbacks.
Just like Jonestown and the Holocaust, J6 parallels around information isolation and charismatic leadership, So it isn’t merely “wrong facts.” It is the self-sealing nature of the narrative:
If evidence supports us, we were right. If evidence contradicts us, it’s cover-up. If institutions disagree - captured. If supporters stay silent, it’s intimidation.
It’s 101.
As far as Jan 6th protesters illegally walking through open doors and parading peacefully within the velvet ropes and their rights to fair trials- very few lawyers would even think of representing them because they were threatened with being disbarred for doing so.
Meanwhile actual Democrat lawyers who threw Molotov cocktails at police cars were sentences to 1 year and 1 day in prison and 15 months in prison. Less time that many Jan 6thers spent in pre-trial detainment. Often in solitary. Oh, and as a BTW, the American Muslim Bar Association thought they were treated way too harshly.
John Mosby writes: "We really need an alternative label for J6."
The most accurate neutral description is a riot that turned into a violent breach of the Capitol by a portion of the crowd.
Trump's team organized alternate slates of electors in seven battleground states Biden won (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin). These groups met on December 14, 2020, and signed certificates falsely claiming Trump won those states. The documents were sent to VP Pence and the National Archives.
The legal theory, primarily from lawyers John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro (detailed in the "Eastman memos"), was:
• Create "competing" slates so Pence, as presiding officer, could cite disputes.
• Pence could reject Biden's certified electors from those states, count the alternate Trump ones, or send the issue back to state legislatures.
• This would either give Trump the win outright or throw the election to the House of Representatives (where Republicans held more state delegations).
This was not a fringe side effort — Trump personally pushed it, including calling state legislators and pressuring Pence publicly and privately. The goal was explicitly to disrupt or alter the January 6 joint session of Congress tabulating the electoral votes.
Not everyone at the event was in on this. Most attendees were ordinary protesters believing the election was stolen and wanting their objections heard. The organized alternate electors effort and the most aggressive breach planning came from a smaller group (including some Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders later charged with seditious conspiracy).
Slowing/stopping the certification to leverage alternate electors and create chaos/uncertainty was absolutely the strategic goal of the Trump legal team's January 6 plan. The riot amplified that disruption in practice, even if many participants weren't explicitly there for the "fake electors" memo. It was a multi-pronged pressure campaign on the electoral process, not just a spontaneous protest.
Some days when I'm feeling nasty I hope that the Democrats steal 2028. Because then they will get to see what an actual "right wing insurrection" looks like.
Hint: it will involve guns, and lots of dead bodies
Yeah, Greg, people keep saying an actual rightie insurrection would be so bloody. But there is no infrastructure in place for guys (it would be mostly men) picking up their AR15s, leaving their jobs, moving in an organized fashion to - where exactly? - and killing - who exactly?
Trump did prove with his 2024 rallies in blue areas that he could mobilize potential street fighters, but the most those guys were prepared for was to push back against Antifa. Tell those same guys that they're leaving home for good, and you won't have as many. Especially if you can't answer the questions go where? and kill whom?
As opposed to the left, who already have very organized, very violent street fighter groups. They just have to turn their violence from 8 to 11.
Now if the 2028 election is blatantly fucked with, Trump could use the existing military and federal LE. And he'd be joined by red-state governors with their Guard and state LE. The Dems showed what they wanted to do in 2021-2024, so the R leaders would be under no illusion of survival or staying out of jail this time - might as well fight. And the layers of leadership in the military and LE have been replaced with people who will follow Trump, not phone Xi.
Maybe some armed citizens could be worked into this effort, but it wouldn't be an insurrection - it would be the people helping their elected government.
The best rightie reaction to election tomfoolery would be a general strike. Stop showing up at work, including the work that brings food and energy to the blue cities. Open up refugee centers for people who want to walk, unarmed, out of the cities and stay in the center, fed and housed, until everything calms down. Existing trade union networks (maybe without the Dem-sucking top leadership) could probably organize this sort of thing. The Teamster guy who butted heads with Markwayne Mullin and is now his best buddy could run the general strike. CC, JSM
Otto comes up with the stupidest take on his fillingd
The alternate electors were the legit ones
FDF
I enjoy pointing out that in context, the scene from The Untouchables that Obama quoted isn't really about advocating violence against political enemies - it's about encouraging a federal law enforcement officer to ignore concerns about civil rights when going after someone he knows is bad.
I don't know which of those messages Obama intended to send.
Giddy up there little buddy 🦄
JSM, I like J6Stop the Steal
“ That’s what’s known in cult study as “grievance identity language”. It reframes events such as: our people persecuted while their people are oppressors, and institutions becomes illegitimate while evidence against us is proof of persecution.”
Do you think that, after saying 5hat, that anyone here takes yo7 seriously
“Just like Jonestown and the Holocaust, J6 parallels around information isolation and charismatic leadership, So it isn’t merely “wrong facts.” It is the self-sealing nature of the narrative:”
“If evidence supports us, we were right. If evidence contradicts us, it’s cover-up. If institutions disagree - captured. If supporters stay silent, it’s intimidation.”
Ok, smarty pants. Convince us that the 2020 elections were fair and honest, and that Dementia Biden won fairly and honestly. Then convince us that the Biden/Garland DOJ didn’t commit Brady and § 1001 violations by denying the presence of those 274 undercover FBI agents, several dozen FBI CIs and provocateurs, and a couple busses of AntiFA.
This wasn’t the first time that alternate slates of electors were sent to the Capital, in a closely contested. AlGore did it too, and a number of other times during our history. But this was somehow (D)ifferent because Dems were on the receiving end. And, no, there wasn’t anything illegal about it. This is why there are procedures for just this in the Constitution. Dems just call it Criminal, to get everyone to ignore that they blatantly and openly stole the election.
john mosby said...
We really need an alternative label for J6.
Reichstag fire.
john mosby said...
Yeah, Greg, people keep saying an actual rightie insurrection would be so bloody. But there is no infrastructure in place for guys (it would be mostly men) picking up their AR15s, leaving their jobs, moving in an organized fashion to - where exactly? - and killing - who exactly?
Trump did prove with his 2024 rallies in blue areas that he could mobilize potential street fighters, but the most those guys were prepared for was to push back against Antifa. Tell those same guys that they're leaving home for good, and you won't have as many. Especially if you can't answer the questions go where? and kill whom?
You are right about most of these people. For the most part they would be wandering around in a disorganized mob.
What you need to understand is "freedom to maneuver." In Afghanistan the regular army went on patrols. They literally drove in a preplanned loop until they got shot at.
That allowed us to go in at night and get the Taliban and various other malcontents.
At some point all that will be needed is for most people to walk around and make a lot of noise and make it hard for the bad guys to walk around.
@ Mr Hayden: This comparison you presented doesn't hold up factually.
Al Gore in 2000: Gore did not send alternate slates of electors to Congress. The dispute was limited to Florida recounts. The Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Gore conceded, and no competing electors were submitted. Some Democrats discussed the idea, but it never happened.
Historical precedents: Rare cases exist (notably 1876 Hayes-Tilden crisis and Hawaii in 1960), but they involved ongoing, unresolved disputes where the state outcome was still legitimately contested at the time electors met. In 2020, all seven states had already officially certified Biden as the winner. The Trump alternate ("fake/contingent") electors met anyway and signed documents falsely claiming they were the duly elected electors.
The Constitution (Article II and 12th Amendment) and the Electoral Count Act set clear procedures. States appoint electors based on their popular vote certification. Creating and transmitting false certificates claiming to be the official electors — after certification — led to criminal charges in multiple states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, etc.). Courts repeatedly rejected the Trump campaign's legal challenges before January 6. The Eastman memos pushed a novel theory giving Pence unilateral power, which Pence's own legal team and conservative lawyers called unconstitutional.
The 2020 effort wasn't standard "procedure" — it was an aggressive, post-certification attempt to create alternate facts for VP Pence to exploit during the joint session. That's why it was treated differently.
Calling routine objections or recounts "stealing the election" while defending this specific scheme is inconsistent. Both sides have stretched norms in close elections, but the scale and coordination in 2020 were unprecedented in the modern era.
Infinite X, two words: Imagine Obama.
Imagine 2020 happened in 2012. Red states ginned up enough fake ballots - like maybe 10-20 people in each lot of their trailer parks - to ensure Romney got their electors. Kicked NAACP, SPLC, etc, observers out of their rinky dink county halls during ballot counts. Told any D politicians who complained "I know where your kids go to school." Etc.
Hell, even Romney himself would have demanded something more than a rubber stamp of those slates on January 6 2013.
And the courts would have found some standing, somewhere, for people challenging the electors.
Unfortunately, in 2020 it was But Republican. But White. But Trump. CC, JSM
@ Mr Mosby:The role-reversal hypothetical is a fair question about consistency, but the 2020 facts don't match the extreme scenario you're describing.
• Lawsuits and standing: Trump’s campaign and allies filed over 60 lawsuits. Many were dismissed on standing or procedural grounds, but dozens received hearings on the merits. Judges — including Trump-appointed ones and the conservative Supreme Court — ruled the evidence of widespread fraud insufficient to change outcomes. It wasn’t a blanket “no standing because Trump.”
• Observers: There were legitimate complaints about restricted access and observers being kept at a distance (especially in Detroit’s TCF Center and parts of Georgia). However, Republican observers were present in counting rooms, and no court found these issues altered enough votes to flip any state.
• Fake ballots / irregularities: Extensive audits, hand recounts (Georgia three times), and investigations (including by Republican officials) found isolated fraud — as happens in most elections — but nothing close to the scale needed to flip 3-4 states (tens of thousands of votes). Claims of systematic “trailer park” ballot manufacturing or mass threats didn’t hold up in court.
• Alternate electors: This was the key escalation. After states had certified Biden, Trump allies created and transmitted parallel slates falsely claiming to be the official electors. This went beyond normal legal challenges or historical close-election disputes (like 1960 Hawaii, where the outcome was still unresolved when electors met). Trump’s own White House Counsel and conservative lawyers called parts of the plan legally dubious or invalid.
If Obama had done the full 2020 playbook (fake elector certificates sent to Congress + pressure on Pence + Jan 6 delay), many Republicans would have called it a coup attempt too. But the reverse is also true: Democrats and media often applied harsher standards to Trump. Both sides have eroded norms in close elections. The evidence showed real procedural problems in 2020, but not outcome-determinative fraud on the scale claimed.
Hypotheticals cut both ways — consistency matters more than team colors.
Bruce Hayden said: “ Ok, smarty pants. Convince us that the 2020 elections were fair and honest, and that Dementia Biden won fairly and honestly. Then convince us that the Biden/Garland DOJ didn’t commit Brady and § 1001 violations by denying the presence of those 274 undercover FBI agents, several dozen FBI CIs and provocateurs, and a couple busses of AntiFA.”
Oh, if I ever at any point suggested I had some power of convincing or cracking the cult, or that facts are a factor in the rabbit hole, I clearly misarticulated that point.
Actually, your interpretation validates my argument.
Challenge accepted. Let's do facts, not hypotheticals.
Biden won by 7 million votes and 306-232 in the Electoral College. All 50 states certified it. Trump’s lawyers filed 60+ lawsuits, got multiple hearings in front of Trump-appointed judges, and even the conservative Supreme Court told them “nice try.” Recounts and audits in the key states still showed Biden ahead.
As for the FBI mastermind false flag: The DOJ Inspector General found 26 confidential informants in D.C. that day — not 274 undercover agents, not busloads of Antifa being directed by Garland. Most were just watching the crowd. Pretending the entire thing was a giant FBI/Deep State production while simultaneously claiming it was a legitimate “mostly peaceful” protest is impressive mental gymnastics.
Look, the DOJ clearly overcharged some people and the double standards stink. But claiming “Dementia Biden” stole the election with trailer-park magic ballots and that the FBI ran a 274-agent cosplay coup requires more than Facebook memes and wishful thinking.
If you can do basic math you know 2020 was bullshit.
Bruce, you are arguing with retards who can't do math.
Admitting Biden won fairly would require accepting that Trump lost to a weak candidate despite massive turnout, and that many of their friends/family were wrong. That's a tough pill.
Deep skepticism about 2020 is now a tribal identity for millions of Americans, much like how many Democrats still treat 2016 as "Russia stole it." Once trust is this broken, facts alone rarely change minds. People update their beliefs when it aligns with their tribe or when the pain of holding the belief exceeds the pain of changing it
Basic math cuts both ways.
Biden got 81 million votes — the highest total ever. Trump got 74 million — the second highest ever, and 11 million more than in 2016. Turnout was through the roof.
The "math" arguments (Bellwether counties, late-night dumps in heavily Democratic cities, etc.) are real red flags worth scrutiny. But they don’t magically equal millions of fake ballots. After 60+ lawsuits, multiple recounts, forensic audits (Arizona), and hand recounts (Georgia x3), no court or audit found enough irregularities to flip even one state — let alone the three needed.
If the math was so obviously "bullshit," Trump’s own lawyers and hand-picked experts should’ve been able to prove it with receipts in court. They couldn’t.
Skepticism is healthy. Claiming basic math proves a stolen election is where it goes off the rails.
It was the David Frenches of the world that made Trump necessary.
French was obsessed with losing the right way, and now he's very, very upset that trump is winning the wrong way.
D.D. Driver said...
DD
Give me some "reasonable" restrictions on the public ownership of firearms.
"I don't have any in mind. BUT-Fucking Donald Trump does."
I didn't ask you what Donald Thinks. I asked you what YOU think.
So the current situation suits you?
David French and Bill Kristol are cut from the same cloth. There's nothing "conservative" in their bones, what have they "conserved?". Grifter Class of the Beltway Cocktail circuit is what they are all about.
With regard to sue and settle, mutually assured destruction is the solution. Why? Because Congress is incapable of governing but has spending power. Congress works by secretly funding pet projects by making budgets in shortly timed crisis events and government shutdowns that hide the details. Congress spends and hides it from constituents. Congress is not the victim, Congress is the perp.
So the only answer is to have each party beat the other over the head with a concrete block until they are both immobilized.
Then they will learn that there is a better way to make a budget.
Yes, it was wrong when the Democrat did it. But by doing it and getting away with it, they changed the rules. And that means it's perfectly fine for Trump to do it.
Don't like that? Then stop the Democrats from violating & changing the rules
5/22/26, 10:10 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ along with $1.8bn of Kleptocracy said...
Peron did this in Argentina -- public money for displays of loyalty without external oversight. So do/did Putin, Chavez/Maduro, and Erdogan.
Such a serendipitous juxtaposition.
What is the vision? What does the promised land hold? Remember that the United States is a big place that contains lots of people of many ilks. It’s easy to move.
We need to have a federalism that gives more power to regional government, we need to let people cluster into communities that are happy together. Let us self select like the pilgrims, the cavaliers, the Amish, and the Californians want to do. But limit federal funding, if you want to have communist Minnesota, you pay for it. If you want free range Texas, your money is not going to go to Seattle.
Will we grow apart? I think the risk is low. Socialist will think that all the people will move to the socialist places, and if so, good. Others think that everyone will move to Florida or Texas, fine.
But a decision will be made, a winnowing will occur, truth will be found, your beliefs will be trialed by fire and their tenor will be found.
The problem will be, that those who are found lacking will want to impose. They will want money from the successful
places, that is how it works now. So prohibit the failed parts from stealing from the good parts. Rather, make them change by not subsidizing them.
Make success the criterion, don’t reinforce failure. The good will live and the bad will die. No thumb on the scale, only truth as measured by who moves where.
Now the crux, if all the mentally ill go to one place what do you do. Well, probably something better than what is happening now.
The above is in the “ modest proposal” category.
Yes, Gore conceded, but had planned to use his alternate slate of electors. And in 1960, both parties had HI slates, because the count the re took so long. Other elections, at least as far back as Grant had considered alternate slates of electors - which is why federal law (3 USC) has provisions for dealing with them.
But here is the thing. These states had election statutes on the books, enacted by their legislatures, and signed into law. They were allegedly violated in those states. The Executive (typically Sec of State) waived off those violations. Indeed, in several of them (including AZ), the Sec of State was the one implementing the illegal voting procedures. The problem was that under US statutes, only the state legislatures (and not Executives) can make voting and election certification laws for the Presidency. Which arguably means that they couldn’t legally certify an elector slate not elected under then current state election law. Or to simplify, the state Executives couldn’t legally certify results (and slates of electors) that were not arrived at by following legislatively enacted state election laws in effect at the time of the elections.
So, in AZ, if I remember correctly, the Republican legislature determined that the election had been run illegally (by then Sec State, now Gov, Katy Hobbs) and thus they, as the Legislature, had the duty to appoint their own slate, and let Congress hash it out. With the procedures that have been set out in USC Title 3.
ટિપ્પણી પોસ્ટ કરો
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.