Here We Go Again

I don't care about Fat Joe (Joseph Antonio Cartagena at birth), a 46-year-ol former rapper whose father is Cuban-American and mother is Puerto Rican. He's a rapper, not a serious individual.

But the 47-year old Marc Lamot Hill is a serious person. He once was named by Ebony magazine as one of the nation's top 30 black leaders under the age of 30 (clever!) and has been a media personality, activist, professor of urban education, and currently co-host of the Joe Budden podcast. He is nothing if not an accomplished individual- well, a few other things, but accomplished.

And so the question: Is this still a thing?

 

Marc Lamont Hill addresses Fat Joe’s recent visit to the Joe Budden Podcast and his claim that he can use the N word due to his proximity to the culture.

“Fat Joe is not black, I disagree with him using the word due to his relation to the culture, I don’t think that’s enough”… pic.twitter.com/q3ZabDLHK1

— The Art Of Dialogue (@ArtOfDialogue_) September 7, 2026

By" this"  I mean  justifying the use of the n-word by blacks while unironically condemning white racism and racists. In the video below, Hill remarks (beginning at 1:36)

I did say, and I do mean this, that if you do this you should be black. If you're going to use the n-word, you should be somebody who could actually be called the name.That's my position. That's my belief. 

Now, Fat Joe is making the claim here that he didn't make before- "I'm the blackest person." No, he is saying that he is black. I am not trying to police anybody's ethnicity. I am not trying to police anybody's racial identity.

A few moments pass before Hill decides to question, or rather "police," his friend's ethnicity or racial identity as he maintains

Fat Joe has love for black people. Fat Joe is not racist. Fat Joe cares about black people. But Fat Joe is not black. I have no issue with Fat Joe's relationship to the black community but Fat Joe is not black. Fat Joe was basically saying "I grew up around black people, I've grown up in hip-hop,I'm ensconced in the culture. I am a part of the culture.

I agree with all of that. But Fat Joe is not black. So while I love Fat Joe and I admire Fat Joe and I appreciate Fat Joe, I don't share his position that he can use the n-word by virtue of his proximity to the culture or his love for the cultrue, I don't think that's enough.

It would be easy to condemn all others while giving his friend a pass. So Hill deserves credit for not doing that. 

But not for anything else.  In response to the professor's comments, one wise and apparently black tweeter notes (though I don't know if the last statement is accurate)

The n-word derives from the most negative and degrading system of oppression known to human kind. And before slavery here in America, people of color, no matter what part of the world they were from did not call themselves or each other the n-word. I find it embarrassing and repulsive that this guy, Mr. Hill is telling the world community that it is ok to go ahead and identify yourself with degradation, lowliness, illiteracy, poverty, and everything else that is wrong with the use of this word and its ugliness.

Even more disheartening is the fact that people will hear and agree with this foolish endorsement. If you are going to be okay with people of color saying it you ought not be offended when non colored people are saying it. The word is what it is no matter who is saying. I have long ago dispensed with this notion that the word is a term of endearment, IT IS NOT. It is as offensive from people of color as it is from those who are not. This statement by Mr. Hill is miseducation of people of color. My children do not use the word and at least in my presence are forbidden from using it because they should never associate themselves or any other person of color with this word.

We have to do better. I do not know one civil rights leader of seriousness or a true scholar in history on the subject of race who would lend an ear or credibility to this ridiculous endorsement.

It should be obvious that if black people can justifiably use a term- which they can't- then all others should be able to do so. A black person, who is one most likely offended, by the term, cannot use the n-word without giving it his or her de fact endorsement.

If they could do so, accuracy would demand that we make a judgement as to an individual's blackness. Hill recognizes that Cartagena, no matter the cultural milieu in which he chose to move, is Latino. What then of an individual who is racially mixed, black on the side of one parent and whie on the other? Or what if the latter parent is racially Laino, Asian-American, or of tribal background?

Generally, those individuals have credibly been able to claim that they are black: think Kamala Harris or Barack Obama.  However, Barack Obama, for one, was not raised in a culture Hill or anyone else would recognize as being classically African-American. Nor have been most blacks who were born in Africa or whose parents were born in Africa. They- along with individuals from the Caribbean- experienced what is an immigrant culture. Yet, "black".

So there is one simple and fair resolution to this conundrum.  Another Xer- presumably white, but not clearly so- tweets

Maybe we should be having a completely different conversation altogether. Name another group that keeps one of the most degrading slurs used against them in everyday rotation, then spends time arguing over who else is allowed to say it. Some things don’t have to be carried forever just because they became part of the culture. We can decide we’re done and move on.

Let’s just all stop saying it.

Share |

Eyes Closed Shut

Hey, everyone! You, too, can be as stupid as a bedpost and be a multi-millionaie many times over.

In the video attached to the tweet below, Bill Maher and Stephen A. Smith discuss how Donald J. Trump isn't really such a bad guy. Maher remarks   "... And also had some genuine black friends.  And black folks who like him.  Because it's complicated. Life is complicated." 

When one tries to tell us that evidence of friendship with black people proves that someone is not racist, one is very ignorant. The "some of his best freinds are colored" of Maher devolves into the "he likes sports, so he's not racist" of Smith. The latter responds to the host by stating

Trump and I werr friendly before he ran for President. He used to have me at boxing matches, particularly during the Tyson fights at Trump casinos. He would be at the Knicks game and stuff like  that.

O.K., O.K. If you like sports, you can't be racist. Got it. Smith contined

And if we were being totally  honest, all the brothers found him to be cool. They found  him to be very cool. So he knew his sports, alright, says what he feels. He bucked the establishment, which we loved, and we gravitated to that.

Oh, he knew his sports, alright.  In the early '80s, the United States FootballLeague had serious potential. Then when

Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals in 1984, it initially seemed like a typical vanity purchase by a wealthy businessman. He immediately made waves, signing Walker to a then-astronomical contract and filling sports pages with bold predictions.

But Trump had a problem: he didn’t actually want a spring football team. He wanted what he’d been denied multiple times—an NFL franchise. The NFL’s old-guard owners had repeatedly rejected his attempts to join their exclusive club, and that rejection gnawed at him.

So Trump developed a different strategy. If he couldn’t join the NFL, maybe he could force them to let him in....

His plan was audacious and, in hindsight, catastrophically flawed. He would push the USFL to abandon its successful spring schedule and move to the fall, directly challenging the NFL. The collision would either force a merger (giving Trump his NFL team) or create enough chaos that the NFL would buy out USFL franchises (also giving Trump his NFL team).

Most of the owners, who wisely were loathe to go up directly against the powerful NFL, resisted. However

Trump was persuasive and relentless. He painted a vision of major network television deals and packed stadiums. He convinced enough owners that the league voted to move to fall starting in 1986.

It was a decision that would kill the league.

But, hey, he liked the sports and "bucked the establishment," so all is cool.  Maher then remarks

And also of a cerrtain age, and there's like, a certain understanding that men- white men of that age, they're not- they're going to be a little grandpa. We don't say that anymore but was he really in his heart hateful? I don't think his motivation is "I don't like black people." His motivation is everybody must love me.

Well, yes, we all understand that Donald's concern never has been for others but for himself, and at the expense of others, which Trump views as proof that he is benefitting.  Donald has a sort of perverse appeal, yet as this period's most common cliche has it, "two things can be true at once."

MUST SEE 🚨: Stephen A. Smith and Bill Maher disputed the notion that Trump is a "terrible racist."

Smith: "If we’re being totally honest, all the brothers found him to be cool. They found him to be very cool. So, let’s be clear. Because he knew his sports, all right? He would… pic.twitter.com/kNCzLhTVNk

— Dr Charlie Ward (@DrcharlieWardQ) July 15, 2026

This is Donald J. Trump, raised in Queens, New York City, and heir to $413 million. He has bragged that he graduated first in his class at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and, though a lie, Trump did graduate from the prestigious Philadelphia institution.  This was no Roscoe P. Coltrane of Hazzard County, Kentucky or soemone's uneducated grandpa. Not everyone gets to experience an exceedingly privileged, urban background and exhibit behavior excused as "grandpa."

Donald has done everything he could for several years now to convince us that he is a racist, short of declaring "I am a racist," a declaration which thus far has proven a bridge too far even for him.  He did, however, channel the "blood poisoning" of Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf," when in an interview in December of 2023 he remarked of immigrants crossing our southern border 

Nobody has any idea where these people are comming from. And we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and centters, islands we know they're terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now. It is a ver sad thing for our country. It's poisoning he blood of our country. It's so bad and people are coming in with disease, people are coming in with- with every posssible thing that you can have.

"Poisoning the blood of our country" is textbook racism, not even reducible to a "joke" the President claims to have made when he's called on something he has said. We learned years ago that "My New Order," a collection of speeches of the Third Reich's Strongman, was one of Trump's prize possessions. And more recently, when Haberman and Swan noted that the President compares himself to Mao,Stalin, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and, of course, Hitler. 

Combine all of the above with the President restoring Confederate names to nine military bases and his Administration removing slavery exhibits from Indepence Hall in Philadelphia and other efforts to erase black history, and the pattern is clear. The signs are flashing red. It's not only their problem, but our problem also, that individuals such as Bill Maher and Stephen A. Smith are color blind.

Share |

Bias and Timidity, Wrapped Into One

This is a clever tweet, because it illuminates the habit of this White House to offer shifting explanations for an outrage:

First: “it’s fake”

Then: “it’s real but he’s trolling you”

Now: “it was a staffer that posts to his account without him having any knowledge of it”

Soon: “it’s a hoax”

— Cooper (@justcuuper) February 6, 2026

He was referring to President Donald Trump's post on his Untruth Social 

late Thursday night of a video that included a racist animation of former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama depicted with the bodies of apes.

After backlash, the White House at about noon Friday said the post had been taken down from the president's page.

The roughly minutelong video, shared by Trump at 11:44 p.m. ET on Thursday, largely focused on debunked claims about the 2020 election.

At the end of the video, the Obamas' faces appear abruptly and without explanation for seconds with the song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" playing over it. The video then ends back on similar imagery of the conspiracy video footage.

A few Republicans (not many), such as Senator Tim Scott, a black Republican from South Carolina, have reacted appropriately. However, John James, a black US Representative and two-time unsuccessful GOP candidate for governor of Michigan, did not.

I was shocked and appalled by that post.

I know the President. He is not racist.

I’m glad to see that trash has been taken down. https://t.co/GJgUNvRSN6

— John James (@JohnJamesMI) February 6, 2026

Well, actually, Donald Trump is a racist. We've suspected that for many years, well before on Deccember 16, 2023

 “They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump told the crowd at a rally in New Hampshire. “That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”

Trump then repeated the use of “poisoning” in a post on his social media website Truth Social, saying overnight in an all-caps post, that “illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. They’re coming from prisons, from mental institutions — from all over the world.”

The term “blood poisoning” was used by Hitler in his manifesto “Mein Kampf,” in which he criticized immigration and the mixing of races. “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,” Hitler wrote."

"Poisoning the blood of our country" is not using a dogwhistle but screaming "racist." Whatever the valid explanation for Thursday's reprehensible video, Donald Trump is a racist and almost certainly has been for a long time. However, he could , if not make amends, show real leadership. He could say it was a mistake to post this, then find the person or persons responsible for it, and fire them.

However, that would require real leadership, which Donald would much rather fake than demonstrate.  However, to be fair and non-partisan, this may be common among two-term presidents. The last two-term president and the last two-term Democratic president since Bill Clinton, has responded in a starkly indirect way.

To all the athletes representing @TeamUSA: I'm so proud of you. Your talent and perseverance have brought you to this moment, and Michelle and I will be joining Americans from across the country cheering you on.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) February 7, 2026

Oh so bold. The man who is serving in the office Barack Obama held for eight years shows his true colors (no pun intended), working indirectly with Russian president Vladimir Putin to break up NATO, and set federal law enforcement upon both illegal immigratns and legal immigrants in a brutal and punitive manner. Membes of Obama's own party are swinging hard at Donald Trump for a social media post depicting Barack and wife Michelle as animals. Carrying water for him, they are, and the ex-President so boldly tweets out a message "cheering you on."

Audacious! Courageous! In Obama's defense, former President George W. Bush has said nothing about Trump's message, and won't. He, too, was a two-term President and unlike Barack Obama- who has said a little about Trump's immigration tactics- Bush has said nothing. 

I'm not sure what that says about us as voters and as a people, but it probably is nothing good. Still, we deserve much better than Donald J. Trump- the one who is a clear-cut, palpable bigot and. though less obvious to the naked eye, the fellow for whom leadership is a four-letter word.

Share |

Comrades

On Sunday, Democratic senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, followed by Republican senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, were interviewed by Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union. You won't be surprised that the staunchly right-wing Mullin falsely accused Kelly of calling President Trump "racist." You will be surprised that it was nowhere near the most ridiculous thing he said.

The President wrote on Truth Social "I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions." Although he added "anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country" will be removed from the USA, he did not clarify whether an incumbent President who hates his own country is included.

In response, Senator Kelly told Bash that the President "has kicked out legal immigrants already. This is kind of more of the same from this President. When he says things like Third World countries, what is he really saying? I think what he's saying is, he doesn't want brown people in our country. And that is disturbing and it's un-American."

Mullin is a faithful and enthusiastic ally of Donald, and Kelly's remark set him off.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin: "Mark Kelly is saying the most ridiculous things I've ever heard…He just got done saying that the president was racist because he doesn't like brown people, yet I sit in front of you as a Cherokee Indian and I'm very close friends with the president." pic.twitter.com/ueb3twU4I4

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) November 30, 2025

Although Kelly did imply that Trump is a racial bigot, he did not say that Donald is a racist.  He argued that Trump not wanting "brown people in our country" is "un-American." If Mullin takes issue with that connection, he didn't say he did.

That is not a difference without a distinction; Republican voters typically are aggrieved because they believe that Democrats, liberals, or progressives are always calling them, and anything that moves, "racist."  Mullin chose to feed into that narrative, a false one though the anger that conservatives feel because they believe they are being labeled "racist" is a political liability for Democrats.

The Oklahoma senator claims citizenship in the Cherokee Nation and strongly implies that Trump could not be "racist" because the two are "very close friends."  Of course, that does not preclude Donald from harboring a prejudice against tribal members generally. 

In 2011, Bradford Plumer of The New Republic reviewed that old “some of my best friends….” defense, which self-identified tribal member Mullin trotted out to defend Donald Trump. Plumer noted the first recorded use in the 1908 presidential campaign but

By 1928, the trope was being trotted out as a defense against accusations of intolerance. John Roach Straton, a fiery Baptist preacher from New York, had launched a noisy campaign against Al Smith, a Catholic Democrat running for president. Straton was the guy who popularized the notion that Smith was “the candidate of rum, Romanism, and rebellion,” but, responding to charges that he was some sort of anti-Catholic bigot, Straton told the AP, “Understand I am not a foe of the Catholics. Some of my dearest friends are Catholic.” (To prove his open-mindedness, Straton even agreed to debate Smith inside New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral.)…

The most infamous case, however, came in 1937. Hugo Black had been nominated for the Supreme Court, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had just uncorked a series of articles revealing Black’s past involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Black’s defense memorably included the line “Some of my best friends are Jews,” which earned him no small amount of scorn from newspaper editorialists (that line, after all, had been the title of a book-length history of anti-Semitism by Robert Gessner the previous year). That line couldn't stop Black's confirmation...

In 1986, Mary Jackman and Marie Crane published a paper in Public Opinion Quarterly investigating what they called the “cynical reasoning implied by the infamous ‘Some of my best friends are black, but…’ expression.” Their survey data suggested that “personal interracial contact is selective in its effects on whites’ racial attitudes, that intimacy is less important than variety of contacts, and that any effects are contingent on the relative socioeconomic status of black contacts.” In other words, having a black friend or two wasn’t at all incompatible with holding racist beliefs about broader groups.

In decades past, the notion that if an individual had a close friend who was black or gay, he or she could not possibly be prejudiced against the demographic group to which the other person belonged. Once (justifiably) derided as ridiculous, this chestnut now is applied more widely, as Mullin demonstrated.

Yet, if Kelly believed that anyone not already realizing that Trump is a bigot could be convinced by rational argument, he could have presented a wealth of evidence.

In testimony before a House of Representatives committee in 1993 in which he argued that the federal government gave tribes operating gambling facilities an unfair advantage over his own, Trump stated "if you look- if you look at some of the reservations that you have approved- you, sir, in your great wisdom, have approved- will tell you right now, they don't look like Indians to me, and they don't look like Indians."  

"Indians" don't all look alike. In a 2011 profile of Senator Mullin published in High Country News, a reporter- himself a member of Cherokee Nation- wrote that his subject "does not fit stereotypical notions of what it means to be Indigenous, either in how he looks or how he operates as a lawmaker. Mullin is also white-passing."  

In his ongoing effort to rewrite history

In March 2025, President Trump ordered the Smithsonian Institution and the secretary of the interior to identify sites that may include “improper partisan ideology.” The New York Times reports that the administration is reviewing scores of exhibits across the country that mention slavery, climate change, or Native Americans, such as exhibits on displays at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina, and the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The National Park Service has also been directed to review all items in gift shops for “anti-American content.” As a result, the administration is considering banning books from gift shops, including The 1619 Project on the history of slavery in America and a picture book about former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American Cabinet secretary.

The removal of physical exhibits on public lands began in July 2025 when the administration removed an exhibit at Muir Woods National Monument called “History Under Construction.” This exhibit brought attention to the Native Coast Miwok people, who have lived in the region for thousands of years, as well as a women’s movement that was among the first to protect Muir Woods. It also addressed the racist ideologies of many of the people who helped protect the monument across the 19th and 20th centuries.

This doesn't prove Donald Trump hates tribal peoples but it pertains more directly to the issue than does the friendship of one individual, who is as white as most non-Hispanic white Americans, with the President. For what it's worth: for most people, appearances matter and white people usually are more favorably inclined to someone of a different ethnic group if he/she does not look dramatically unlike white people. Markwayne Mullin fits the bill.

Nonetheless, Donald Trump can love everyone belonging to a Native American tribe and still be not only a bigot, but an actual racist.  We know that because he is one, as is clear from the record, especially from an incident in 1988 and one in 2024.

Jack O'Donnell was hired in 1987 as Vice President of Trump Plaza casino in Atlantic City and the following year was promoted to President. He left in late 1990 and shortly thereafter wrote "Trumped! The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump, His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall."  Although highly critical of Trump, O'Donnell went silent for the next quarter century because "I wouldn't have discounted the possibility that he could change." However, he became less sanguine about his former boss when the latter embarked upon his birther conspiracy against President Barack Obama.  

O'Donnell observed Trump in June of 2016 "preening in the lobby of Trump Tower amid a phalanx of American flags, launching his candidacy with a promise to build his now-infamous wall to protect us from Mexican criminals and 'rapists.' He hadn't changed at all." The author noted 

In 1988, shortly after I was promoted to president of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, he invited me up to New York for lunch. There was a lot to talk over one issue in particular: one of our senior managers, who happened to be African-American. Donald considered him incompetent and wanted him fired. When I acknowledged some shortcomings in the man’s performance, he instantly became enthused. “Yeah, I never liked the guy,” he said. “And isn’t it funny, I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

I was mortified. We were in a restaurant in Trump Tower. I worried he’d be overheard. But he went on, “Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else: I think the guy is lazy, and it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is. I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

Laziness as a "trait" in blacks (or individuals of any racial group) would be a reference to an inherited characteristic- nature not nurture.

Fast forward to December of 2023, passing over numerous pejorative remarks about people based upon their race, color, national origin or gender, to one particularly revealing remark.  During a campaign appearance

“They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump told the crowd at a rally in New Hampshire. “That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”

Trump then repeated the use of “poisoning” in a post on his social media website Truth Social, saying overnight in an all-caps post, that “illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. They’re coming from prisons, from mental institutions — from all over the world.”

The term “blood poisoning” was used by Hitler in his manifesto “Mein Kampf,” in which he criticized immigration and the mixing of races. “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,” Hitler wrote.

This wasn't a teenager, or an adult who has experienced an unusually secluded upbringing somewhere. This was a former President of the United States of America announcing as clearly as he could that he is a flat-out racist.

Nonetheless, one member of the House of Representatives, a close ally of Donald Trump, says the President couldn't be a racist because the two of them are pals. Well, that settles that, I suppose.

Share |

With Cheese, On Rye

It was not "lawfare." Invoking the term "lawfare" virtually no one used until MAGAts popularized it because no one understands it does not an argument make. And there were 91 indictments obtained against Donald J. Trump because his behavior warranted 91 indictments. However, there is an even more significant error made here.

I’m not a big fan of the Comey indictment, but if he did nothing wrong a jury will clear him.

But to all the people setting their hair on fire about weaponizing the Justice Department to go after political enemies, show me your posts decrying the lawfare and ANY of the 91…

— Marc Thiessen 🇺🇸❤️🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱 (@marcthiessen) September 26, 2025

James Comey will get vocal support from the left and those in the middle and on the right who still believe in the rule of law and justice.  Further, he is very well off and can afford a gaggle of lawyers to defend himself against political persecution.

Others can't, however. And "others" there is doing a lot of work, to the tune of the vast majority of Americans who are indicted, even the vast majority of Americans who actually are guilty of the charges pressed against them. Some are fortunate enough to have the state opt for a preliminary hearing but most face a grand jury because prosecutors are not stupid. As is typical (with some variation) in the USA, in New Jersey a grand jury

consists of 23 regular citizens, much like a courtroom jury consists of 12 of your peers. The grand jurors hear evidence for and against you regarding your criminal charge. The 23 members then determine whether enough probable cause exists to formally indict you of a criminal offense. You do not need to be present at the grand jury proceedings. In fact, it’s rare for defendants to attend this part of the legal process.

The members of the grand jury and the county prosecutor are the only ones present at this meeting. Grand jury presentation does not occur in a courtroom either. Your criminal defense attorney will not be there nor will a judge. The prosecutor represents the state of New Jersey and presents evidence to determine whether probable cause exists to move forward with issuing an indictment in your name.

The state must receive a majority vote from the 23 members of the grand jury to proceed with an indictment.

Moreover

The set-up of grand jury proceedings makes it easy for the county prosecutor to argue for probable cause whether there’s evidence against your criminal charge or not. Finally, grand jury proceedings are secret. That means neither you nor your criminal defense attorney are privy to why the members of the grand jury opted for indictment.

In New Jersey, a pre-indictment conference will be held which, if unsuccessful in resolving the matter, will yield to a grand jury proceeding. many states, the prosecutor may opt for a preliminary hearing, which would involve both the judge and the defendant's lawyer.

In either case, once the office of a prosecutor or district attorney decides to proceed with a case, the state holds virtually all the cards. If the government (state, county, or municipal) decides to indict an individual, he almost certainly will be indicted.

That resulted in the maxim, expressed in 1985 by the then-chief justice of New York State's Supreme Court, "any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." A critical point, but he pulled his punches- in most jurisdictions, the "good" is not necessary. Not surprisingly

According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, "Grand juries are notorious for being ‘rubberstamps' for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal matters." (McDonald, William F., Plea Bargaining: Critical Issues and Common Practices (1985).) It's also suggested that grand juries rubber stamp prosecutors' charges because grand jurors are not adept at evaluating evidence like judges are—making it easier to convince a grand jury than a judge that the defendant should stand for trial.

And so Mark Thiessen's idiocy, far more likely his disingenuousness, "if he (Comey) did nothing wrong a jury will clear him."  It also is absurd, because jurors, like human beings, are not perfect and make mistakes.

However, the greater problem is that almost any prosecutor can obtain an indictment against any individual or ham sandwich. Throughout the country, in most cases, the defendant therefore must effectively plead guilty because he (occasionally, she) will not have the time or money to go through a trial. 

An individual typically will not be able to pay for a private attorney to defend him. (A court-assigned attorney may be available. Good luck finding one who is neither politically compromised, inefficient, or overworked.) Even if he does, he may not be able to set aside the time for the court appearances (plural)- the case will demand while counting on the generosity of his employer.

Usually, this: if indictment, the defendant will, one way or another, be found guilty, whether he committed the offense or not.

This is something rarely mentioned on cable news telecasts. It might have been conceded, presumably by a liberal or progressive defense attorney or ex-defense attorney, five years ago. There was such outrage over treatment of black suspects because of (perceived or real) racism. However, even then, the legal community, in an informal, unspoken conspiracy, said nothing. 

It's the structure in which they work and they were not about to question the basic, foundational injustice of that criminal justice system. Race was a much sexier- and safer- problem for them to invoke. Now, after Donald Trump has been elected President for a second time and the tea leaves read, the issue of racism is strategically avoided and the underlying unfairness of the system continues to be ignored.

With President Trump reigning supreme and determined to make his self-identification of "King of America" a reality, James Comey is his first victim. In the criminal justice system, the cliche "innocent until proven guilty" means little to nothing. 

Though the former FBI director, has been indicted, there is a good chance the case will be dismissed before it reaches trial. If it does go to a jury, it is probable there will be a not guilty verdict. Nonetheless, Donald has made at least part of his point, a warning that critics must keep silent or else.  And there will be other indictments against individuals who dare to question Trump because, well, there are a lot of ham sandwiches.

Bondi: A very liberal grand jury in one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the country just indicted James Comey. We know of course we have to go to trial and we will have a great trial team and everybody of course is innocent until proven guilty. We are going to trial in this… pic.twitter.com/gb52CpamfP

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 27, 2025

.

Share |

St. Paul? Really?

Not surprising, given it's Timothy Dolan. Still, reprehensible:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan on Charlie Kirk: "This guy is a modern day St Paul. He was a missionary, he's an evangelist, he's a hero. He's one I think that knows what Jesus meant when he said 'the truth will set you free.'"

🤨
pic.twitter.com/YSUE23DyXc

— Lucas Sanders 💙🗳️🌊💪🌈🚺🟧 (@LucasSa56947288) September 20, 2025

 So, let's play a common and popular game. If Charlie Kirk were a modern day St. Paul, it should be difficult to determine which individual is responsible for a particular quote, offered in no particular order. In each case, I've left one or more words blank because otherwise, it would be obvious in that instance that the words were spoken in the 1st century A.D. or the first century A.D.

1) "Well, (blank) is "an ideological, unintelligent, yet confident fanatic (who) feels entitled to this position."

2) ".... prowling (blank) go around for fun to target (blank) people, that's a fact. It's happening more and more."

3) "If I'm dealing with somebody (in a particular line of work) who's a moronic (blank) woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence or is she there because of...."

4) "The (blank) party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse."

5) "(Blank) has now become the jive speaking spokesperson of (blank)."

6) (Blank) is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against (blank).

7) "We're taking our country back from these cockroaches."

8) "And Jewish (blank) have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open borders, (blank), quasi-Marxist policy, cultural institutions, and non- profits."

(Credit to Steve M./No More Mister Nice Blog and to Ta-Nehisi Coates for the links to these quotations.)

The words omitted were:

1) Ketanji Brown Jackson; 2) blacks, whites; 3) customer service, black; 4) American Democrat; 5) Kamala Harris, equity; 6) Joe Biden, America 8) donors; neo-liberal.

O.K. O.K., you probably suspected that Mr. Kirk was the author of all those quotations but if he were the modern St. Paul, it would not have been such an easy call.  The eighth statement is interesting because "radical open borders" had its parallel in Old and New Testament times, and Luke wrote in Acts "all the believers were together and had everything in common." Radical capitalists, they weren't.

The point isn't that Charlie Kirk was wrong about everything, though resenting Jews, hating blacks, and supporting the execution of an American President for having disagreeable policies normally would not be an impressive character reference. It is more so the deification of Charlie Kirk in death, an effort which normally would not be something a Roman Catholic prelate would be partial to. 

Share |

"White" Is Not An Insult

Ana Navarro and Brad Palumbo had a spirited argument on CNN's "NewsNight' on July 14. The clip as presented on Brad Palumbo's podcast, in which the pertinent clip begins at 1:54, is immediately below. On her podcast, Megyn Kelly vigorously attacked Navarro and defended Palumbo in a podcast which appears to show an edited- and slightly misleading- version of the argument.

   

Navarro (AN): Millions of people out there protesting in small cities and big cities, small protests and huge protests, defying, uh, the fear, defying the reign of terror.

Palumbo (BP): You're definitely being hyperbolic. You talk about a reign of terror when the doomsday alarm from Democrats or from media critics is always at a 10. It doesn't hit the same.

AN: Honestly, also I want to respond to you saying that I was hyperbolic when I talked about a reign of terror.

BP: That is hyperbolic.

AN: No, it's- it might be hyperbolic for you as a white man.

BP: Oh, O.K.

AN: It's certainly not hyperbolic for me as a Latino. No, I'm not being racist.

BP: Incredible to dismiss my opinion for being a white man.

AN: No, I'm not dismissing your opinion. I am tell you that- what the Latino community in America-

(crosstalk)

AN: O.K., let me speak with my voice. And you said I was being hyperbolic. 

(crosstalk)

AN: Let me respond- I'm not.

(crosstalk)

AN: Being a white man is an insult?

BP: When you invoke it to dismiss my opinion-

AN: Being a white man is an insult? Do you think Latinos are living under circumstances that other people may not be right now?

In the Megyn Kelly podcast with guest Rich Lowry, Kelly remarks (beginning at 1:12)

Unbelievable. Unbelievable. It was said and then Abby Phillip allowed it and defended it. Derelict in her duty as the anchor, first of all, and he was 100% right to call her out.

As shown in the Palumbo video (way above), Phillip ended the segment with

We're about to have a whole conversation about that very thing. But I just want to make a point that Brad, all she's saying is that her view of the situation is different yours. I don't think that's an insult. She basically said "I see it differently from you," which is not an insult. It's not.

That was nearly perfect. Unfortunately, Phillip added "also, it's not a racial explanation." 

It was a racial explanation. However, a racial explanation is not necessarily racist, and it was not in the case of Navarro's remarks. All racism is racial- but not everything racial is racist.

Navarro was merely explaining that the Latino community in the USA sees the immigration issue differently than do most white men (actually, most whites of either sex/gender) and thus has a different opinion on the issue. Their perspective is different. She did not suggest that Palumbo as a white man is not entitled to his opinion or even that his view is necessarily wrong. Unavoidably, the Latino community is going to see it through a different lens, either more or less accurately.

Kelly was incensed at Phillip for condoning Navarro's remark(s) and contended (2:05)  "I mean, how dare she allow that to happen on her set? And how dare they keep booking Ana Navarro, whose bread and butter is comments like this?"

In general, but especially when discussing immigration, the individual(s) responsible for booking decisions appreciates getting the perspective of a Latino, especially one such as Navarro, who already had a national following because she is a co-host of The View. She is a compelling figure, and the days of television as a strictly "cool" medium are long gone. (See Trump, Donald; also, Sanders, Bernie.) 

Nonetheless, this was the fun part  At 1:59, Miss anti-identity politics Kelly maintained

I don't know if it matters but Brad also happens to be gay. So he checks the minority boxes. Abby Phillip should be interested in defending him to the extent that it was necessary, though he was raising exactly the right point.

Let's clear it up for Kelly, It most certainly does not matter that Palumbo is gay. Phillip should be no more (nor less) interested in defending any of her guests because he or she is gay. Were the discussion about gay rights or the LGBTQQIA community, Palumbo's perspective as a gay man would be relevant. However, he never suggested that his view of the Trump Administration's immigration policy is informed in any way by his sexuality, and it is unclear why or how it would. And gay people need no more (nor less) defending from a news host than does a straight person.

It turns out that "checking the minority boxes" is more important for the right-wing Megyn Kelly- when that "minority" is a conservative- than it is for most people on the left. Perhaps it's unsurprising for a pundit who asserts that Jesus, a first-century Palestinian, and Santa Claus, a mythical figure, were white.

That's ignoring reality, which was at the heart of this clash. Ignoring race is not proof of objectivity and raising its issue is no evidence of racism. It can, as it was in this case, merely a recognition of reality.

Share |

The Importance of Shedeur

The man who destroyed the USFL weighs in: 

What is wrong with NFL owners, are they STUPID?” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Deion Sanders was a great college football player, and was even greater in the NFL. He’s also a very good coach, streetwise and smart! Therefore, Shedeur, his quarterback son, has PHENOMENAL GENES, and is all set for Greatness. He should be ‘picked’ IMMEDIATELY by a team that wants to WIN. Good luck Shedeur, and say hello to your wonderful father

Alex Kirshner of Slate explained "the industry consensus on Sanders was that he was something like the 20th or 40th best player in the draft, depending on one's evaluation of him." However

Any other quarterback will join a team as a backup trying to work his way up, and Sanders did not distinguish himself in the pre-draft process. He reportedly came off disinterested in interviews with teams. He passed up numerous chances to work out in front of scouts. His celebrity father used his megaphone to promise Shedeur would be a top-five pick and to threaten to manipulate the draft process so that Shedeur would only go to a team the Sanders family wanted him to go to, à la Eli Manning in 2004.

In other words: Sanders is good enough to be at least a second-round pick, but teams don’t want the pain in the ass of a development quarterback with the capacity to create drama.

Nonetheless, this goes way beyond the story of yet another greatly talented, spoiled athlete and even beyond an unusually spoiled athlete. It goes to Donald J. Trump and the reason for his assessment of the value of Shedeur Sanders to an NFL team.  Last October, ethicist Daphne O. Martschenko wrote

In a recent interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Donald Trump drew a link between immigration, violent crime, and genetics, stating, “we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.”  Comments such as these are not new. Claims regarding genes and human behavior have long been used to perpetuate social harm. Understanding this history shows just how pervasive and harmful the former president’s comments are. They also illustrate how influential they can be in shaping social policies.

Trump’s interview with Hewitt wasn’t the first time the former President made disparaging comments about migrants. During his October presidential debate with Kamala Harris, for instance, he claimed that Haitian immigrants were eating pets – harmful misinformation that has left many members of the Haitian community fearful for their safety.  The Hewitt interview also wasn’t the first time Trump vocalized false ideas about genes. In 1988, for example, he was recorded on the Oprah Winfrey Show saying to its host, “You have to be born lucky in the sense that you have to have the right genes.” Later, while running for president in 2016 and throughout his tenure in the White House, Trump was captured in video recordings making statements like “some people cannot genetically handle pressure.”

The former president’s latest comments about immigrants bringing “bad genes” into the United States are part of a longer, racialized history in which claims about genetic difference have been used to further social divisions, explain social inequalities, and justify racial violence. Specifically, such claims have been used to resist the abolition of slavery, prohibit interracial marriage, forcibly sterilize the poor and communities of color, restrict immigration, and even rationalize mass-shootings.

Donald Trump's second term thus far has been marked by many things: siding with a brutal dictator in his war of aggression in eastern Europe; a disastrous economic policy; a shakedown on law firms; lawsuits against media outlets; invocation of "DEI" in an effort to bring down major universities and critical funding of medical and scientific research; impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress; arbitrary, wholesale, and dangerous cuts to the federal workforce; corruption, and so much more.

And an extremist immigration policy. When Trump spoke to Hewitt about immigrants, he argued "you know, now a murderer, I believe this, it's in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now." Then- Presidential press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre responded in part "this comes from the same vile statements that we've had, that we've heard about migrants being poison, poisoning the blood- that's disgusting."

Jean-Pierre was being generous. She probably did not want to use the word "racist" for fear of being slammed as just another liberal accusing good, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth conservatives of being racist. "Racist" or not, the previous December

“They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump told the crowd at a rally in New Hampshire. “That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”

Trump then repeated the use of “poisoning” in a post on his social media website Truth Social, saying overnight in an all-caps post, that “illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. They’re coming from prisons, from mental institutions — from all over the world.”

The term “blood poisoning” was used by Hitler in his manifesto “Mein Kampf,” in which he criticized immigration and the mixing of races. “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,” Hitler wrote.

President Trump's immigration policies are a mere reflection of his creed of eugenics. Now, he has stressed- with capital letters so that no one can misunderstand the dark place he's coming from- that Shedeur Sanders is "all set for Greatness" because he has "PHENOMENAL GENES.:

Sanders is only a football player and whatever happens to him is far less important than the potential impact in America and abroad of Trump's belief in nature rather than nurture, that good and bad are inevitable outcome of genetic makeup. Whether cause or effect of the perspective Trump holds, in mid-October, Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated of autistic children "These are kids who will never pay taxes. They'll never hold a job. They'll never play baseball. They'll never write a poem. They'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted."

As Politico found, this belief is very much flawed. However, as Jennifer Grose wrote in an opinion piece in The New York Times, "the grimmest part of what he said is not about the ability to play baseball; it's that he started this litany with paying taxes and having jobs. That implies that those who are not able to be gainfully employed are somehow lesser citizens- that they're destroyed." 

This fellow who believes that some citizens, for reasons beyond their control, are lesser than others will be in charge of the nation's response to a pandemic. He will share responsibility with a president who himself believes that some citizens are lesser than others. He reportedly told Trump Plaza Hotel and casino manager Jack O'Donnell in the 1980s "laziness is a trait in blacks"- a trait. In 2007, he remarked to Larry King "But there is something. You know, the racehorse theory, there is something to the genes And I mean, when I say something, I mean a lot."

   

Call it racist, fascist, or "hateful" and "disgusting" as Jean-Pierre politely did in response to Trump's comment to  Hewitt. Whatever the characterization, danger lurks with leaders who believe that some "poison the blood" while some have "phenomenal genes" and thus are set for greatness. Draconian immigration policy may be only the first, and far less significant, manifestation of the presidency of a man who believes that the most important measure of a person may be the sum total of his or her chromosomes.

Share |

Not Quite Color Blind

Racist? No. Inaccurate? Well, no. But from the spokesman for President Trump, he who (successfully) nominated Marco Rubio for Secretary of State? Hell, yes.

Decoding Fox News is wrong.

This is how a legitimate news source, PBS News Hour, reported on the incredibly racist statement of Karoline Leavitt the new White House Press Secretary. Someone should ask her why the Titanic sank. I'm pretty sure everyone in charge of that disaster was a straight white man. pic.twitter.com/SbBheGj2aY

— Decoding Fox News (@DecodingFoxNews) February 4, 2025

It is neither "incredibly racist" nor slightly racist to say

When you are flying on an airplane with your loved ones, which everyone of us in this room has, do you pray that your plane lands safely snf you get to your destination or that your pilot has a certain skin color? I think that we all know the answer to that question and as President Trump said yesterday, it's common sense.

Nonetheless, it is hypocritical for someone representing Donald Trump to pretend that the Administration doesn't care about an individual's skin color. According to Semafor

Secretary of State Marco rubio will appoint Darren Beattie, a speechwriter in President Donald Trump's first term, acting undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, two people briefed on the plans said.

Rolling Stone explains

Beattie is notorious for his affiliations with some of the most noxious corners of Trumpworld, and his appointment to the influential State Department role has revived scrutiny on his past writings and statements.

In October, for example, Beattie wrote on X: “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.”

His fixation on denigrating racial minorities and women is longstanding. On Jan. 6, 2021, while rioters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the Electoral College certification of President Joe Biden, Beattie spent the day tweeting at prominent Black political figures and organizations, telling them they needed to “learn their place,” and “bend the knee to MAGA.”

Ibram Kendi needs to learn his place and take a knee to MAGA. Learn his proper role in our society,” he wrote of the famed Black author.

In May 2023, Beattie wrote: “Middle class and working class white men are treated far worse in America than Uiguhrs are in China,” a reference to the Turkish-descendent ethnic group targeted by Chinese government’s ethnic cleansing campaigns….

This appointment was not made by Donald Trump or President Musk. It appears to have been made by Marco Rubio, who was supposed to be the President's "good" Cabinet appointee. As The New York Times reported, with the support of all forty-seven democrats

The Senate confirmed Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, on Monday as America’s 72nd secretary of state, putting a former political rival of President Trump at the helm of American diplomacy.

Mr. Rubio, 53, was unanimously confirmed in a 99-to-0 vote, becoming the first Latino to occupy the job and Mr. Trump’s first cabinet secretary to be confirmed.

In his last act as a sitting senator, Mr. Rubio voted for himself, giving the Senate clerks a thumbs up as colleagues from both parties applauded.

No doubt many of those Democrats and Republicans were thrilled to be able to vote for "the first Latino to occupy the job." Evidently, he also will become the first Secretary of State to nominate for a high-ranking position an individual insisting "competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work."  

This is in an Administration whose chief spokesperson asks "When you are flying on an airplane with your loved ones, which everyone of us in this room has, do you pray that your plane lands safely snf you get to your destination or that your pilot has a certain skin color?"" Maybe she should be asked how Donald Trump, the boss of our new Secretary of State, would answer that question.

Share |

Pamela Jo Bondi Schultz

The Democratic National Committee is looking for a new chairperson. Virtually everyone recognizes that the Party has been inept in its messaging, yet it need not wait to improve its public relations efforts. This should give it an idea:

John Banner, the actor who made "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing" famous in the mid 1060s'- early 1070s' sitcom, Hogans Heroes, serves as inspiration for Donald Trump's nominee for Attorney General, Pam Bondi. 

Questioned by Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono in her confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Pam Bondi did the fictional Hans Schultz proud. 

At 4:35 of the video below, Hirono can be seen asking the former Attorney General of Florida 

Meanwhile, though, you have an incoming President that said "I have the absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department. And in fact, President-elect Trump considers a DOJ to be his law firm. I ask you this: if Preisent-elect Trump asks, suggests, or hints that you, as Attorney General, should investigate of his perceived political enemies, would you do so?

After the nominee and the Senator get into a little tiff about the latter evidently failing to meet with the former, Hirono asks "I would like to know whether if the President suggests, hints, asks, that you, as Attoreney General should invstigate one of his political enemies?" Bondi responds

Senator, I certainly have not heard the President say that. But what I will tell you is two-thirds of Americans have lost faith in the Department of Justice and it's statements like that, I believe, that we will continue to lose faith....

On December 29, 2017, President Donald Trump was asked by The New York Times about Hillary Clinton's emails. Pivoting to the Russia investigation, he contended

I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department. But for purposes of hopefully thinking I'm going to be treated fairly, I've stayed univolved with this particular matter.

At 1:38 of the video, Hirono can be seen stating "I want to ask you a factual question, who won the 2020 presidential election?" Bondi, once deeply involved in election denialism, remarked "Joe Biden is the President of the United States."  The Senator noted "I can say that Donald Trump won the 2024 election. I might not like it but I can say it. You cannot say who won the 2020 presidential election. It's disturbing that you can't give voice to that fact."

Disturbing, and significant because the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer (and prosecutor) of the USA and Trump

has repeatedly called for retribution for this supposed 2020 fraud, saying to “START ARRESTING THE POLL WORKERS AND WATCH HOW FAST THEY TELL YOU WHO TOLD THEM TO CHEAT,” and those involved “should all be ARRESTED for cheating and Election Fraud…GET TOUGH REPUBLICANS.” He has even raised grievances about the 2016 election. In one post, he asked if a former FBI official who was investigating his ties to Russia will “get the Death Penalty for treason.”

Immediately following the election denialism discussion, there followed an exchange abour the attempted coup:

Hirono: Are the felons convicted of breaking into the Capitaol on January 6 hostages or patriots? I'm quoting Trump, as President-elect Trump has said repeatedly. Do you agree with his characterization of the felons that I referred to?

Bondi: I am not familiar with that statement,Senator. 

Hirono: I just familiarized you with that statemnt. Do you agree with that statement?

Bondi: I'm not familiar with it, Senator.

Hirono: No answer.

At a rally in Newton, Iowa on the third anniversary of the insurrection, Trump declared

You get indicted once or twice if you kill people, but then you get put in jail so you don't get indicted after that.... If you are a certain person, you don't even get in trouble if you do, okay. But if you're with us, they put you in jail. Look at what's happened with the J6 hostages. The hostages- That's a horrible thing.

He claimed also "Some people call them prisoners. I call them hostages" and "Release the J6 hostages, Joe (Biden). Release them, Joe. You can do it real easy, Joe." 

Between the two exchanges is one in which Hirono and Bondi discuss/not discuss my favorite Trump quote. Not because he is right, because he is not, but because of all the criticism of Trump as "racist," this one seemed designed to prove his critics right.  Hirono notes "he (Trump) has also said illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. He said that in December 2023. 
Do you agree with that statement?"

Bondi replied "Senator, I am not familiar with that statement. But what I can tell you is I went to the border a few months ago...."

As the Senator apparently was referring to, Trump had posted on Truth Social in December of 2023 "illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. They're coming from prisons, from mental institutions- from all over the world."  Bad enough, but worse was his claim the day before at a rally in New Hampshire that

They let- I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country.When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country. That's what they've done.They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They're coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.

This, a reference to immigrants themselves "poisoning the blood of our country" was marginally worse than referring to the process of immigration " poisoning the blood of our country." Brazenly racist is slightly worse than blatantly racist but repetition allowed us to understand fully that he is racist. The only thing worse would have been had the ex-President bragged "I am racist and proud of it"; well, maybe.

Senator Hirono should have brought the receipts- date, place, and exact quote. Still, it became obvious that the nominee for Attorney General is thoroughly dishonest and completely without integrity. It is difficult, though, to satirize or ridicule Pam Bondi, choice of an incomparably dishonest politician elected to a second term as President, for being bereft of character. 

So ridicule her as reimniscent of Sergeant Schultz.Design a t-shirt, probably a sweatshirt also, with John Banner's likeness replaced with that of Panela Jo Bondi. It probably wouldn't be enough to derail her nomination but it would justifiably undermine her credibility- and would be fun, too.

 

Share |