Orange Duce

[SCLaxAttack]

Every time I think there's nothing OD can say that would surprise me, he goes out and proves me wrong:

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-gaffes-montage/

[Seacoaster(1)]

Follow-up from Chubb:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... nd-3132024

[njbill]

Who was this letter written to?

I certainly should’ve known this, but I didn’t realize Greenberg had ascended to the throne after the merger between Chubb and Ace.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Who was this letter written to?

I certainly should’ve known this, but I didn’t realize Greenberg had ascended to the throne after the merger between Chubb and Ace.

"To Customers." Apparently Evan got a little hew and cry from policyholder and, perhaps, underwriting in other lines of business.

[MDlaxfan76]

Who was this letter written to?

I certainly should’ve known this, but I didn’t realize Greenberg had ascended to the throne after the merger between Chubb and Ace.

"To Customers." Apparently Evan got a little hew and cry from policyholder and, perhaps, underwriting in other lines of business.

Of course what it doesn't explain is what the basis of their collateral is, what is actually secured, and, thus, not available for the next bond.

It ain't based on his financial statement, surely, it has to be based on the specific assets securing the bond, subject to any pre-existing claims on those assets. And presumably most of his assets have leverage already to some extent.

Greenberg doesn't actually explain the basis of the confidence, rather he's asking Chubb's various clients to trust that they've done their homework and are being handsomely compensated for their willingness to do it. His explanation focuses on their willingness not being based in any way on their assessment of the case itself or the character of the defendant. It's just business and it's a good thing that such companies as Chubb play this role in the justice system...is their argument.

Fair enough, but they're not adequately making clear that they're indeed fully covered, no doubt. It's implied, but not clear.

As the first issuer of such bond, I'm not surprised that there is adequate securable assets to cover that amount, but I'd want a 2X or more coverage as the value of those assets could easily go very south if the various cases go south and there's a fire sale of Trump related assets. You gotta know it's going to be a firestorm if things go south and you're not actually fully covered.

But the next issuer for a much larger amount won't have these assets to secure...and is there really enough equity???

[old salt]

This is not (yet) a jury trial. It's still to be decided by this Judge if Willis & Wade can still prosecute the case, if the case remains in his Court, if it stays in Fulton County or if this Judge dismisses it.

The Judge had already heard this witness & the lawyers in camera. The purpose of the hearing was to make a record. The way he allowed the defense lawyers to "drill down" (his words) on that reluctant witness does not bode well for that witness or for Willis & Wade.

This Judge is in a tough spot. He has to run for reelection in Fulton County, but Willis & Wade are now totally discredited.
He seems like a straight shooter. He'd be wise to punt this case to a different venue with a different prosecutor's office, if it is to have any credibility.

I don't see anything about this that suggests that Willis shouldn't prosecute the case in this jurisdiction.

...how 'bout an odor of mendacity.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/f ... efendants/
Fani Disqualification ‘Loss’ Is a Big Win for Trump and Georgia Co-Defendants

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, March 15, 2024 6:05 PM

Okay, I’ll admit it: I didn’t have Tennessee Williams on my reading list today. But I did read Judge Scott McAfee’s opinion that scathes Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis while nevertheless allowing her to continue running the RICO prosecution against former President Donald Trump and 18 others. I would thus observe, as a former prosecutor, that if a judge is talking about you when he describes the “odor of mendacity” wafting through the courtroom, you ought to leave the proceedings voluntarily . . . and maybe start thinking about your next career move. Your useful time on a case is over.

I said in the post previewing today’s Georgia state court ruling that Judge McAfee seemed to be signaling that he would pull up short of disqualifying Willis. That, in the event, is what happened. As our Ryan Mills reports, McAffee allowed Willis to remain on the case as long as she removes her assertedly former lover, Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor.

Still, I expressed hope that McAfee would base his decision not on political considerations but his best judgment. That needn’t have meant that he agreed with me that Willis had to go; no matter how he came out, I wanted the rationale to be cogent and compelling. That, in the event, is not what happened.

McAfee’s ruling is tremulous. There is undoubtedly a political reason for that: He, a Fulton County judge who presides over cases brought by the DA’s office, did not want to make a formal finding that the DA lied, although the evidence — even in his halting recitation of it — screamed out that she did. So instead, he described the “odor of mendacity” that lingers after the spectacle of a hearing that featured Willis’s “unprofessional” testimony and “tremendous lapse in judgment”; yet, he couldn’t bring himself to say for sure that she lied — though he pointedly implied that various legislative probes and professional ethics inquiries were apt to take that step.

Alas, the judge wants to have it both ways. He wants you to believe that he knows the DA’s testimony was perjurious (in collusion with the testimony of Wade). But he is loath to formally rule that it was — a ruling that would have ramifications for all the cases Willis brings before the county court, not just the Trump case.

Obviously, as Willis collaborated with Wade in the story they presented to the court in trying to beat back allegations of self-dealing and dishonesty. The taint this leaves on the prosecution cannot be purged by removing only one of them. McAfee seems to think his job is to cure the appearance of impropriety in the prosecutor’s office, and that this can be accomplished by subtracting Wade. The judge’s job, however, is not to mind the prosecution’s reputation; it is to uphold the public integrity of the court and its proceedings. They are compromised by the continued participation of a chief prosecutor who is elevating her own interests over those of both the case and Fulton County, and who may find herself under investigation for crimes at least as serious as she has charged.

Willis’s ethical deficiency was illustrated by the way she handled the disqualification hearing: Rather than protecting her office by appointing or retaining independent counsel to represent her, Willis had her office defend her as if her personal interests and Fulton County’s interests were the same (and promptly undermined even that cozy arrangement by insisting on testifying, to the apparent surprise and dismay of her subordinates; as McAfee recounted, it was an indecorous performance). The judge correctly reasoned (as I suggested in the post) that if Willis had to be disqualified, her entire office would have to be disqualified — not just Wade.

McAfee acknowledged that, even if Wade were recused, there would still be lingering questions about Willis’s trustworthiness. Well, yes, that is why she should be disqualified. Her continued participation projects the appearance of impropriety that persists in staining the proceedings. Going forward, she will be under intense scrutiny — including potentially from state and federal prosecutors who may colorably suspect her of fraud and perjury. Consequently, her interests and the county’s interests could conflict, which in turn would undermine the court’s legitimacy as the guarantor of a fair and just trial.

Of course, there’s the law and then there’s the practical fallout of a legal decision. Even if McAfee was wrong to deny the defendants’ motion to disqualify Willis, her continued leadership of the prosecution is a boon for the defense.

McAfee’s opinion is a devastating condemnation of the DA’s judgment, professionalism, and candor. She will inject discredit into the state’s effort — she is, after all, the boss, not the fourth chair. In the public mind, she is the face of the prosecution. As such, she bolsters Trump’s contention that the lawfare campaign against him is bad-faith partisan politics. Moreover, because the disqualification ruling is a split decision, it could be appealed by either or both sides; that would facilitate Trump’s strategy of delay. And the episode further illustrates what was already apparent from the sensationalism that accompanied the sprawling RICO indictment, followed by the slap-on-the-wrist pleas doled out to four defendants so far: Willis does not appear to be up to a prosecution of this complexity — or, at least, a prosecution she has made far more complicated than it needed to be.

Trump said he wanted her off the case. He is better off with her on the case.

[SCLaxAttack]

This is not (yet) a jury trial. It's still to be decided by this Judge if Willis & Wade can still prosecute the case, if the case remains in his Court, if it stays in Fulton County or if this Judge dismisses it.

The Judge had already heard this witness & the lawyers in camera. The purpose of the hearing was to make a record. The way he allowed the defense lawyers to "drill down" (his words) on that reluctant witness does not bode well for that witness or for Willis & Wade.

This Judge is in a tough spot. He has to run for reelection in Fulton County, but Willis & Wade are now totally discredited.
He seems like a straight shooter. He'd be wise to punt this case to a different venue with a different prosecutor's office, if it is to have any credibility.

I don't see anything about this that suggests that Willis shouldn't prosecute the case in this jurisdiction.

...how 'bout an odor of mendacity.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/f ... efendants/
Fani Disqualification ‘Loss’ Is a Big Win for Trump and Georgia Co-Defendants

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, March 15, 2024 6:05 PM

Okay, I’ll admit it: I didn’t have Tennessee Williams on my reading list today. But I did read Judge Scott McAfee’s opinion that scathes Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis while nevertheless allowing her to continue running the RICO prosecution against former President Donald Trump and 18 others. I would thus observe, as a former prosecutor, that if a judge is talking about you when he describes the “odor of mendacity” wafting through the courtroom, you ought to leave the proceedings voluntarily . . . and maybe start thinking about your next career move. Your useful time on a case is over.

I said in the post previewing today’s Georgia state court ruling that Judge McAfee seemed to be signaling that he would pull up short of disqualifying Willis. That, in the event, is what happened. As our Ryan Mills reports, McAffee allowed Willis to remain on the case as long as she removes her assertedly former lover, Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor.

Still, I expressed hope that McAfee would base his decision not on political considerations but his best judgment. That needn’t have meant that he agreed with me that Willis had to go; no matter how he came out, I wanted the rationale to be cogent and compelling. That, in the event, is not what happened.

McAfee’s ruling is tremulous. There is undoubtedly a political reason for that: He, a Fulton County judge who presides over cases brought by the DA’s office, did not want to make a formal finding that the DA lied, although the evidence — even in his halting recitation of it — screamed out that she did. So instead, he described the “odor of mendacity” that lingers after the spectacle of a hearing that featured Willis’s “unprofessional” testimony and “tremendous lapse in judgment”; yet, he couldn’t bring himself to say for sure that she lied — though he pointedly implied that various legislative probes and professional ethics inquiries were apt to take that step.

Alas, the judge wants to have it both ways. He wants you to believe that he knows the DA’s testimony was perjurious (in collusion with the testimony of Wade). But he is loath to formally rule that it was — a ruling that would have ramifications for all the cases Willis brings before the county court, not just the Trump case.

Obviously, as Willis collaborated with Wade in the story they presented to the court in trying to beat back allegations of self-dealing and dishonesty. The taint this leaves on the prosecution cannot be purged by removing only one of them. McAfee seems to think his job is to cure the appearance of impropriety in the prosecutor’s office, and that this can be accomplished by subtracting Wade. The judge’s job, however, is not to mind the prosecution’s reputation; it is to uphold the public integrity of the court and its proceedings. They are compromised by the continued participation of a chief prosecutor who is elevating her own interests over those of both the case and Fulton County, and who may find herself under investigation for crimes at least as serious as she has charged.

Willis’s ethical deficiency was illustrated by the way she handled the disqualification hearing: Rather than protecting her office by appointing or retaining independent counsel to represent her, Willis had her office defend her as if her personal interests and Fulton County’s interests were the same (and promptly undermined even that cozy arrangement by insisting on testifying, to the apparent surprise and dismay of her subordinates; as McAfee recounted, it was an indecorous performance). The judge correctly reasoned (as I suggested in the post) that if Willis had to be disqualified, her entire office would have to be disqualified — not just Wade.

McAfee acknowledged that, even if Wade were recused, there would still be lingering questions about Willis’s trustworthiness. Well, yes, that is why she should be disqualified. Her continued participation projects the appearance of impropriety that persists in staining the proceedings. Going forward, she will be under intense scrutiny — including potentially from state and federal prosecutors who may colorably suspect her of fraud and perjury. Consequently, her interests and the county’s interests could conflict, which in turn would undermine the court’s legitimacy as the guarantor of a fair and just trial.

Of course, there’s the law and then there’s the practical fallout of a legal decision. Even if McAfee was wrong to deny the defendants’ motion to disqualify Willis, her continued leadership of the prosecution is a boon for the defense.

McAfee’s opinion is a devastating condemnation of the DA’s judgment, professionalism, and candor. She will inject discredit into the state’s effort — she is, after all, the boss, not the fourth chair. In the public mind, she is the face of the prosecution. As such, she bolsters Trump’s contention that the lawfare campaign against him is bad-faith partisan politics. Moreover, because the disqualification ruling is a split decision, it could be appealed by either or both sides; that would facilitate Trump’s strategy of delay. And the episode further illustrates what was already apparent from the sensationalism that accompanied the sprawling RICO indictment, followed by the slap-on-the-wrist pleas doled out to four defendants so far: Willis does not appear to be up to a prosecution of this complexity — or, at least, a prosecution she has made far more complicated than it needed to be.

Trump said he wanted her off the case. He is better off with her on the case.

1000+ words doesn’t change how correct MD’s comment was: the judge says Willis gets to prosecute the case and in the jurisdiction.

[cradleandshoot]

This is not (yet) a jury trial. It's still to be decided by this Judge if Willis & Wade can still prosecute the case, if the case remains in his Court, if it stays in Fulton County or if this Judge dismisses it.

The Judge had already heard this witness & the lawyers in camera. The purpose of the hearing was to make a record. The way he allowed the defense lawyers to "drill down" (his words) on that reluctant witness does not bode well for that witness or for Willis & Wade.

This Judge is in a tough spot. He has to run for reelection in Fulton County, but Willis & Wade are now totally discredited.
He seems like a straight shooter. He'd be wise to punt this case to a different venue with a different prosecutor's office, if it is to have any credibility.

I don't see anything about this that suggests that Willis shouldn't prosecute the case in this jurisdiction.

...how 'bout an odor of mendacity.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/f ... efendants/
Fani Disqualification ‘Loss’ Is a Big Win for Trump and Georgia Co-Defendants

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, March 15, 2024 6:05 PM

Okay, I’ll admit it: I didn’t have Tennessee Williams on my reading list today. But I did read Judge Scott McAfee’s opinion that scathes Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis while nevertheless allowing her to continue running the RICO prosecution against former President Donald Trump and 18 others. I would thus observe, as a former prosecutor, that if a judge is talking about you when he describes the “odor of mendacity” wafting through the courtroom, you ought to leave the proceedings voluntarily . . . and maybe start thinking about your next career move. Your useful time on a case is over.

I said in the post previewing today’s Georgia state court ruling that Judge McAfee seemed to be signaling that he would pull up short of disqualifying Willis. That, in the event, is what happened. As our Ryan Mills reports, McAffee allowed Willis to remain on the case as long as she removes her assertedly former lover, Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor.

Still, I expressed hope that McAfee would base his decision not on political considerations but his best judgment. That needn’t have meant that he agreed with me that Willis had to go; no matter how he came out, I wanted the rationale to be cogent and compelling. That, in the event, is not what happened.

McAfee’s ruling is tremulous. There is undoubtedly a political reason for that: He, a Fulton County judge who presides over cases brought by the DA’s office, did not want to make a formal finding that the DA lied, although the evidence — even in his halting recitation of it — screamed out that she did. So instead, he described the “odor of mendacity” that lingers after the spectacle of a hearing that featured Willis’s “unprofessional” testimony and “tremendous lapse in judgment”; yet, he couldn’t bring himself to say for sure that she lied — though he pointedly implied that various legislative probes and professional ethics inquiries were apt to take that step.

Alas, the judge wants to have it both ways. He wants you to believe that he knows the DA’s testimony was perjurious (in collusion with the testimony of Wade). But he is loath to formally rule that it was — a ruling that would have ramifications for all the cases Willis brings before the county court, not just the Trump case.

Obviously, as Willis collaborated with Wade in the story they presented to the court in trying to beat back allegations of self-dealing and dishonesty. The taint this leaves on the prosecution cannot be purged by removing only one of them. McAfee seems to think his job is to cure the appearance of impropriety in the prosecutor’s office, and that this can be accomplished by subtracting Wade. The judge’s job, however, is not to mind the prosecution’s reputation; it is to uphold the public integrity of the court and its proceedings. They are compromised by the continued participation of a chief prosecutor who is elevating her own interests over those of both the case and Fulton County, and who may find herself under investigation for crimes at least as serious as she has charged.

Willis’s ethical deficiency was illustrated by the way she handled the disqualification hearing: Rather than protecting her office by appointing or retaining independent counsel to represent her, Willis had her office defend her as if her personal interests and Fulton County’s interests were the same (and promptly undermined even that cozy arrangement by insisting on testifying, to the apparent surprise and dismay of her subordinates; as McAfee recounted, it was an indecorous performance). The judge correctly reasoned (as I suggested in the post) that if Willis had to be disqualified, her entire office would have to be disqualified — not just Wade.

McAfee acknowledged that, even if Wade were recused, there would still be lingering questions about Willis’s trustworthiness. Well, yes, that is why she should be disqualified. Her continued participation projects the appearance of impropriety that persists in staining the proceedings. Going forward, she will be under intense scrutiny — including potentially from state and federal prosecutors who may colorably suspect her of fraud and perjury. Consequently, her interests and the county’s interests could conflict, which in turn would undermine the court’s legitimacy as the guarantor of a fair and just trial.

Of course, there’s the law and then there’s the practical fallout of a legal decision. Even if McAfee was wrong to deny the defendants’ motion to disqualify Willis, her continued leadership of the prosecution is a boon for the defense.

McAfee’s opinion is a devastating condemnation of the DA’s judgment, professionalism, and candor. She will inject discredit into the state’s effort — she is, after all, the boss, not the fourth chair. In the public mind, she is the face of the prosecution. As such, she bolsters Trump’s contention that the lawfare campaign against him is bad-faith partisan politics. Moreover, because the disqualification ruling is a split decision, it could be appealed by either or both sides; that would facilitate Trump’s strategy of delay. And the episode further illustrates what was already apparent from the sensationalism that accompanied the sprawling RICO indictment, followed by the slap-on-the-wrist pleas doled out to four defendants so far: Willis does not appear to be up to a prosecution of this complexity — or, at least, a prosecution she has made far more complicated than it needed to be.

Trump said he wanted her off the case. He is better off with her on the case.

1000+ words doesn’t change how correct MD’s comment was: the judge says Willis gets to prosecute the case and in the jurisdiction.

The judge says Willis can continue to prosecute the case. Do you think the foundation has not been laid for trumps defense team to keep hammering away at her credibility? The judge was not happy with her ineptitude in prosecuting this case. If she was smart she now would understand she is a huge obstacle in getting a guilty verdict against trump. Her decision to have an intimate relationship with her hand picked prosecutor was stupid on a level that is almost republican in nature. I'm certain she thought her relationship with the prosecutor would be kept a well guarded secret.

[old salt]

This is not (yet) a jury trial. It's still to be decided by this Judge if Willis & Wade can still prosecute the case, if the case remains in his Court, if it stays in Fulton County or if this Judge dismisses it.

The Judge had already heard this witness & the lawyers in camera. The purpose of the hearing was to make a record. The way he allowed the defense lawyers to "drill down" (his words) on that reluctant witness does not bode well for that witness or for Willis & Wade.

This Judge is in a tough spot. He has to run for reelection in Fulton County, but Willis & Wade are now totally discredited.
He seems like a straight shooter. He'd be wise to punt this case to a different venue with a different prosecutor's office, if it is to have any credibility.

I don't see anything about this that suggests that Willis shouldn't prosecute the case in this jurisdiction.

...how 'bout an odor of mendacity.

1000+ words doesn’t change how correct MD’s comment was: the judge says Willis gets to prosecute the case and in the jurisdiction.

...this story is far from over. If it does make it to trial, Fani will be on a short leash with this Judge...they both face re-election in May & the GA Senate is investigating.

[njbill]

I haven't gotten the sense that Fani will take an active role in the courtroom at trial. That was going to be Wade, but he's now gone.

If the DA's office, in toto, had been disqualified, that would have been a huge deal, possibly fatal to the prosecution as the replacement prosecutors might have dropped the case (though unlikely in my view since the phone call is just too damning).

With the big exception that Fani now needs to find another lead counsel, I don't think Wade's resignation is going to impact the case all that much. All of the grunt work (and there has no doubt been a lot of grunt work performed which continued throughout the period of the Fani/Nathan As the World Turns phase) has been done and will continue to be done by underlings.

Now, to that "exception." It seems she had a highly qualified and respected Georgia attorney in mind at the beginning, but he turned her down. Then she hired Wade who didn't impress me as the second coming of Perry Mason (yeah, I know, Perry was a defense attorney).

So who will Fani get now? That's the $64,000 question. I have no idea. When I was practicing, I didn't like it when the opposing party got a new lawyer. What if he was better than his predecessor? At a minimum, he'd have the advantage of knowing all of the strategies lawyer no. 1 was using and then be able to come up with some new ideas of his own. So sometimes replacing the lawyer can be a bad development for the other side.

It's possible having to get a new lead counsel will delay the case until after the election, but that remains to be seen. A good, experienced trial lawyer should be able to get up to speed pretty quickly if all of the prep work has been done.

My sense is the case really isn't moving all that quickly. This young judge seems to be smart, reasonable, and no nonsense when he needs to be. But he hasn't been moving the case very fast.

I still think Trump's best chance of getting off in this sure loser of a case for him (the phone call is a smoking cannon, not a smoking gun) is getting one juror to hang the jury. Could happen.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Sad that people are way more critical of a DA than a supreme court justice who's done way worse. #lawfare

[jhu72]

Sad that people are way more critical of a DA than a supreme court justice who's done way worse. #lawfare

+1

[OCanada]

Last night Trump rally goers learned that Biden won against Barack Hussein Obama. He then asks if people have heard of him.

[cradleandshoot]

Sad that people are way more critical of a DA than a supreme court justice who's done way worse. #lawfare

That's the way the cookie crumbles. The DA has to be held accountable. What controlling legal authority has say so over the SCOTUS?? All you can do is whine and b***h about it. Every liberal and conservative constantly whines about how the Supremes screw up legal decisions on a regular basis. At the end of the day there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it outside of whine and b***h.

[cradleandshoot]

Sad that people are way more critical of a DA than a supreme court justice who's done way worse. #lawfare

+1

Want some cheese with that whine??

[cradleandshoot]

Last night Trump rally goers learned that Biden won against Barack Hussein Obama. He then asks if people have heard of him.

Heard of who?? Biden or Obama... must have been free pakalola being handed out to the trump people.

[Brooklyn]

Trump Declares It Will Be a 'Bloodbath' for America if He's Not Elected

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-dec ... e?ref=home


Donald Trump, who was impeached for inciting his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn his 2020 electoral loss, warned his supporters on Saturday that there will be a “bloodbath” if he doesn’t win the election this November.

In his first campaign appearance since officially becoming the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, the former president headlined a rally in Ohio to whip up support for Bernie Moreno ahead of Tuesday’s GOP Senate primary. Moreno, a hardliner endorsed by Trump, is locked in a three-way primary race with state Sen. Matt Dolan and Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

However, Trump was far more interested in airing his grievances about the dozens of criminal indictments he’s currently facing and the decisive election he lost to President Joe Biden than he was in actually campaigning for Moreno. Furthermore, he painted an extremely dark and dystopic vision for the nation if he were to once again lose to Biden this fall.

Complaining about automobile manufacturing plants in Mexico and China, Trump said that if he gets back into the White House he will impose massive tariffs on any Chinese-built vehicles imported into the United States.



Blood bath? Sounds like a terrorist threat to me.

[Olderbarndog]

Donito Trumpolini.

[OCanada]

Sad that people are way more critical of a DA than a supreme court justice who's done way worse. #lawfare

That's the way the cookie crumbles. The DA has to be held accountable. What controlling legal authority has say so over the SCOTUS?? All you can do is whine and b***h about it. Every liberal and conservative constantly whines about how the Supremes screw up legal decisions on a regular basis. At the end of the day there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it outside of whine and b***h.

Very short horizon there.

SCOTUS has had its approval rating drop below Congress. Our legal system has been corrupted and its decisions political not based on precedent, custom and plain meaning of the law. Accountability can mean loss of relevance or implosion of the legsl system

You ask a lot of questions but never seem to respond when asked questions in turn.

[cradleandshoot]

Sad that people are way more critical of a DA than a supreme court justice who's done way worse. #lawfare

That's the way the cookie crumbles. The DA has to be held accountable. What controlling legal authority has say so over the SCOTUS?? All you can do is whine and b***h about it. Every liberal and conservative constantly whines about how the Supremes screw up legal decisions on a regular basis. At the end of the day there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it outside of whine and b***h.

Very short horizon there.

SCOTUS has had its approval rating drop below Congress. Our legal system has been corrupted and its decisions political not based on precedent, custom and plain meaning of the law. Accountability can mean loss of relevance or implosion of the legsl system

You ask a lot of questions but never seem to respond when asked questions in turn.

Ask me a question then. Did you forget to do so?? I can't answer a question that you don't ask...I can't read your mind. I do answer questions on this forum all of the time. The problem is a lot of thin skinned people on this forum don't like the answers I give. If you want to ask me a question then bring it on.