Andrew, regarding the Judge Boasberg saga: Pam Bondi, Donald Trump, and others are making outrageously and intentionally dishonest comments about the judge, and, sadly, I’ve got a hunch that millions of voters are inclined to believe them. Rebuttal messaging by quality and highly knowledgeable people like you, Lisa, Ruben, and others need to state in very clear terms that the judge is simply responding to a lawsuit and seeking to determine whether or not the law is being followed or violated. It is outrageous to say that the judge is supporting terrorism. It’s like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Trump and Bondi cannot be permitted to get away with this! We need clear, examples and analogies, perhaps a professional basketball or baseball analogy in which the authorities in those sports would grossly and inappropriately respond to a controversy.
Could the outcome be that the Supreme Court maintains their authority but gives Trump carte blanche over every Court beneath them. Sounds bizarre but looking likely
Thank you so much! You make things so clear for us. Andrew I have not seen a link to “Questions Answered” this week? (3/18?) Looked high and low. I am a paid subscriber. Been watching and reading all. If anyone here can point me to how to find them thanks! 👍
I lived in Mexico City for 20 years and worked in Media for 15 yrs. My last position was as Creative Director of the National television network working for the president of Mexico. I was the only woman and only foreigner to work at that level in the Mexican government at that time. I learned politics and corruption from the best.
During that time the government was an autocracy ruled by one political party. That is where we’re headed.
The only way to fight this is head on. If the Dems can’t get their shit together, the American people will have to fight for themselves. I just hope it’s not too late.
Andrew, please explain to me like I'm five why those in the legal profession can't collectively rise up against the Supreme Court to challenge their immunity ruling (or their disregard for precedent [R v. W] for that matter).
It seems to me like a public letter with some many thousands of signatures from the exact people who have to uphold their decisions might be the MOST POWERFUL STATEMENT that could happen. Maybe challenging their legal licenses even.
They could care less what the public says, but this would be a humiliating first if their own downline rose up publicly as a collective against them.
For some reason unknown , I am totally hopeful and at the same time, fervently believing that it is profiling the self destructive end of this run amok government.
Andrew, regarding the Judge Boasberg saga: Pam Bondi, Donald Trump, and others are making outrageously and intentionally dishonest comments about the judge, and, sadly, I’ve got a hunch that millions of voters are inclined to believe them. Rebuttal messaging by quality and highly knowledgeable people like you, Lisa, Ruben, and others need to state in very clear terms that the judge is simply responding to a lawsuit and seeking to determine whether or not the law is being followed or violated. It is outrageous to say that the judge is supporting terrorism. It’s like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Trump and Bondi cannot be permitted to get away with this! We need clear, examples and analogies, perhaps a professional basketball or baseball analogy in which the authorities in those sports would grossly and inappropriately respond to a controversy.
Could the outcome be that the Supreme Court maintains their authority but gives Trump carte blanche over every Court beneath them. Sounds bizarre but looking likely
Thank you Andrew! This is a difficult time, but I will not lose hope ! Thinking spring! 🌷
Thank you so much! You make things so clear for us. Andrew I have not seen a link to “Questions Answered” this week? (3/18?) Looked high and low. I am a paid subscriber. Been watching and reading all. If anyone here can point me to how to find them thanks! 👍
Thanks for the Pep talk Andrew! Indeed scary times! I am still hopeful!
When is it time for the judge to hold them in contempt? Someone needs to be sacrificed to a cell in the courthouse until orders are complied with.
We saw what giving second, third, fourth chances got us in the Trump litigation.
I lived in Mexico City for 20 years and worked in Media for 15 yrs. My last position was as Creative Director of the National television network working for the president of Mexico. I was the only woman and only foreigner to work at that level in the Mexican government at that time. I learned politics and corruption from the best.
During that time the government was an autocracy ruled by one political party. That is where we’re headed.
The only way to fight this is head on. If the Dems can’t get their shit together, the American people will have to fight for themselves. I just hope it’s not too late.
Andrew, please explain to me like I'm five why those in the legal profession can't collectively rise up against the Supreme Court to challenge their immunity ruling (or their disregard for precedent [R v. W] for that matter).
It seems to me like a public letter with some many thousands of signatures from the exact people who have to uphold their decisions might be the MOST POWERFUL STATEMENT that could happen. Maybe challenging their legal licenses even.
They could care less what the public says, but this would be a humiliating first if their own downline rose up publicly as a collective against them.
Thank you Andrew, as ever.
For some reason unknown , I am totally hopeful and at the same time, fervently believing that it is profiling the self destructive end of this run amok government.