The Sarah Palin lawsuit has been dismissed "with prejudice", although she can appeal that decision.
A .pdf of the opinion is here.
Background at the WaPo and NY Post. It will be interesting to see how the judge balances the right to pursue defamation suits with the Times defense of "How could there be malice when we had no idea what the facts were?". Reckless disregard of the truth used to be a criteria, but maybe not.
FOR THE NON-LAWYERS: From the "with prejudice" link above:
An involuntary dismissal with prejudice may be ordered for any number of reasons, which the judge will specify. Such a dismissal can be appealed to a higher court, but it is not possible to simply start over by re-filing the case with a few changes.
UPDATE: NY Times coverage. No comment received from Ms. Palin's lawyers.
I hope this is reversed on appeal. It stinks IMO.
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 03:25 PM
Judge Rakoff is taking payments from Putin. /moron
Posted by: henry | August 29, 2017 at 03:29 PM
You can't sue the left wing.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | August 29, 2017 at 03:35 PM
Dismissed with prejudice:
"The dismissal of a lawsuit based on merits of the case where the plaintiff is prevented from filing a future lawsuit on the same grounds."
?????????
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreherin | August 29, 2017 at 03:38 PM
No, frau. It means she can appeal the decision.
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 03:40 PM
J Rakoff certainly tap dances around "reckless disregard".
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 03:41 PM
Mr. Frau echoes you, henry.
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreherin | August 29, 2017 at 03:45 PM
Nine years to the day, that journalism went norweguan blue.
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 03:47 PM
...except for the Putin part,henry.
Clarice, I understand. Thanks.
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreherin | August 29, 2017 at 03:48 PM
Apparently this is not "reckless disregard":
Posted by: jimmyk | August 29, 2017 at 03:50 PM
Or, to put it another way, willful disregard is apparently not reckless disregard. It actually seems worse, but what do I know, IANAL.
Posted by: jimmyk | August 29, 2017 at 03:55 PM
They publish loony Louise monkey scat, this is why I authorize the use of atomics on buzzfeed.
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 03:57 PM
SOB
Patterico is calling, "Burn, Bennie, Burn"
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreherin | August 29, 2017 at 04:01 PM
That little anecdote was the early occupy attack when she was out of town.
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 04:02 PM
No, it means she cannot re-institute the suit. But he rendered a final decision so she can immediately appeal.
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 04:05 PM
Early on, Rakoff says that the case if fatally flawed because it does not name a living breathing human being as defendant. The rest of his analysis is "even if she could, she would not have stated a claim."
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 04:09 PM
Remember when these honest judges were doing a bang up job with the eligibility lawsuits?
Those were the days.
Posted by: Threadkiller | August 29, 2017 at 04:11 PM
The decision is easy to understand once you account for the fact that Judge Rakoff took a million dollar bribe from NYT to throw the case.
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 04:12 PM
TK - touche. Same pattern, by the way, with the cases against Cruz. One court addressed the substance of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), holding that a person can simultaneously be naturalized and a natural born citizen. Cruz is as much a natural born citizen of Cuba, as of the US, and on the same (bogus) logic.
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 04:14 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/the-alt-right-vs-the-ctrl-left.php
Hayward quotes one of his former mentors, a William B. Allen, who said this in a recent podcast:
Never before has it been so [redacted] obvious, either.
Posted by: lyle | August 29, 2017 at 04:16 PM
He was speaking real slow so Jeff Goldberg would understand, he failed
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/538206/
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 04:17 PM
CW - "with prejudice" is a legal term of art that has nothing to do with prejudice (just like "actual malice" has nothing to do with malice). All it means is that the trial court is closing the case with finality. The loser has the right to appeal a final decision.
Rakoff's mind was made up before the hearing. It's just as well that she moves on to appeal - if she wants to, that is.
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 04:20 PM
One of golbergs (Jeff not jonah) penpals no doubt.
http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/French-Palestinian-prisoner-released-in-Gilad-Schalit-exchange-re-arrested-503449
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 04:24 PM
holding that a person can simultaneously be naturalized and a natural born citizen.
Do you remember which lawsuit this was? Sounds like another jiggery-pokery bit of dicta hiding in a lack of standing opinion.
That was the normal M.O.
Posted by: Threadkiller | August 29, 2017 at 04:25 PM
Pretty good assessment:
"North Korea fired a missile over Japan, Houston is underwater, free speech is under attack - and the media is talking about Melania's shoes." S. Molyneux
Posted by: Momto2 | August 29, 2017 at 04:25 PM
With this Rakoff decision, lawyers and judges keep telegraphing to the nation just how off they are; lawyers will likely deny my next point, but -- when you really think about it -- they're unfortunately very similar to journalism in that they both are representative of trades desperate to maintain their claims to status as a "profession" deserving of the claim.
Journalists have very cleary thrown away their always dubious claim.
Lawyers have a much better claim, admittedly, but damn if they aren't working very hard to throw away their status, too. These out-of-control judges are doing great damage to the legal profession.
Back to Lawyer McCarthy:
[1]
inexplicable -- adjective
. . . . . meaning: unable to be explained or accounted for.
[2]
plenary -- adjective
. . . . . meaning: unqualified; absolute.
What are the odds Andrew McCarthy is unaware or somehow confused regarding these two definitions? By definition, a President exercising his constitutional plenary power cannot be said to have taken an inexplicable action.
McCarthy and Rakoff, both embarrassed themselves today.
Posted by: RattlerGator | August 29, 2017 at 04:29 PM
Agree w above.
Posted by: anonamom | August 29, 2017 at 04:35 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/was-the-houston-disaster-man-made.php
A highlight on the near-criminal foolishness of heavily subsidized federal flood insurance. Hinderaker adds:
That 2012 date perfectly coincides with FEMA remapping our home property from a 500 year flood plain to a 100 year flood plain...and jacking up our premiums from ~$150/month to ~$500/month. Which led to us dropping the insurance which led to the heaviest snowfall in 150 years last winter which led to us reinstating our flood coverage this spring...
Posted by: lyle | August 29, 2017 at 04:35 PM
Sounds like an extra round of vizzini.
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 04:37 PM
Good afternoon! When I saw Melania wearing heels boarding Air Force One,I thought well,obviously she's going change shoes. Do the idiot reporters have any common sense? Never mind.
Posted by: Marlene | August 29, 2017 at 04:37 PM
cheering crowds
Posted by: Tejas | August 29, 2017 at 04:42 PM
Broken record, I know, (I do it to amuse Porch) but did our side win the election so that we run the DoJ and FBI? I am so confused:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/29/fbi-lack-public-interest-emails-justifies-withhold/
Key line is where the lawyer says 'this is what I would expect if Hillary had won the election..."
Posted by: Old Lurker | August 29, 2017 at 04:44 PM
Sullivan strikes again.
Press credential = license to defame.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | August 29, 2017 at 04:49 PM
SPLC Admits Fault, Removes Innocent Town From ‘Hate Map’ That Inspired Terror Attack
How long before some of these SPLC scumbags are assassinated? Maybe that's why they never name the people behind the fronts, Janet.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 29, 2017 at 04:53 PM
TK - I'm going to have to dig. I thought it was the PA case (Elliott) decided by Pellegrini, but that is not the one that actually applied Rogers v. Bellei. Pellegrini avoided referring to that case.
My March 11, 2016 summary of the Pellegrini decision.
I'll keep digging, but given the volume of pointless argument I made on the subject, there's a good chance I won't find the case.
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 04:56 PM
Doubtless already posted? DubDav fave scholar sacked.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/29/florida-professor-who-tweeted-texans-deserved-harvey-for-supporting-trump-is-relieved-teaching-duties.html
Posted by: JimNorCal | August 29, 2017 at 04:58 PM
NYT:
Who’s Afraid of Antifa?
Posted by: Extraneus | August 29, 2017 at 05:01 PM
RG - Judges have rendered the judicial branch unworthy of respect on moral grounds. They get respect the same way the Mafia does.
The highest court makes law using hallucination. Other courts unabashedly find "unconstitutional, because Trump" and that logic is not denounced. Courts routinely lie as much as criminal defendants when they (the courts) cite precedent. Some judges complain that courts aren't given respect, but they don;t do anything about it.
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 05:01 PM
Thanks for the FLOTUS pic, Miss Marple!! :)
Posted by: Beasts of England | August 29, 2017 at 05:01 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-tech-giants-conformity-1503960833
From “Trump Damaged Democracy, Silicon Valley Will Finish It Off” by Joel Kotkin, DailyBeast.com, Aug. 27:
Put another way, the push for Universal Basic Income by these oligarchs is also a not-so-well-disguised form of an indemnity policy: pay off the rubes so that they might--MIGHT--not notice nor resent the galactic personal wealth of the technocrats and start getting big ideas about how best to appropriate and redistribute that wealth.
Posted by: lyle | August 29, 2017 at 05:04 PM
Judge R Jakoff certainly knows how to undermine faith in the judicial system.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 29, 2017 at 05:07 PM
https://apnews.com/3eed860055624231bec15e75b5ae3290/Tillerson-to-abolish-most-special-envoys,-including-climate
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 05:09 PM
The ewok must hate being lied to by the GOP as much as I do:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=371341
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 29, 2017 at 05:14 PM
Sorry, but I have to edit for clarity this part of my last comment:
(No counting how many JOM guidebook rules I've broken with this outrageous self-reference.
"Gee, lyle, editing your own comment? Really? Lame, brah...") ;)
Posted by: lyle | August 29, 2017 at 05:18 PM
CH - I'm not in favor of an arbitrary deadline. But, see the proposals for judicial review of shutting down the investigation, that is, precluding Trump from firing Mueller without judicial review. I propose judicial review of HIRING Mueller. Make Rosenstein prove the appointment comports with the regulation - what is the alleged crime?
Everything Congress has done in this case has a ring of presuming Trump guilty. The entire process favors the dishonest prosecutor and hack investigator (which is normal legal process, FWIW), with no protection for the target.
Oh, one thing I do agree with in the proposed Mueller-limiting amendment. Investigation of crimes that predate the campaign are off limits. I think the grant to Mueller provides that, but Mueller, being a dishonest hack, is deliberately misreading the grant.
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 05:25 PM
cboldt, I think I agree with everything you said.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 29, 2017 at 05:29 PM
VDH's latest:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450903/trump-haters-left-right-versus-trump-supporters-civil-war-field-guide
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 05:30 PM
I almost linked that, Clarice. It's a bit of a rehash of his AmGreatness article from yesterday but it's still worth reading for his brutally honest critique of the Rs in their pathetic post-election cowardice.
Posted by: lyle | August 29, 2017 at 05:35 PM
I hope you're sitting down for this:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2017/08/29/griffin-explodes-reporter-saying-outrage-was-justified-over-trump
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 29, 2017 at 05:41 PM
And this decision is EXACTLY why I don't think an Article V Convention would do the slightest good.
The same judges who made this decision would be the ones interpreting any new amendments.
If we have judges who can simply ignore or twist plain language until it means the opposite of what the dictionary says it means (or what any reasonable person would take it to mean), it won't matter WHAT comes out of a convention, because it'll be distorted beyond all reason before the ink is even dry.
Posted by: James D. | August 29, 2017 at 05:51 PM
what are the odds Duda would have been critical if (a) Trump had not gone to Texas today?(b) if he went yesterday?© if he went tomorrow?(d) if he never went?
Place your bets.
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 05:54 PM
I say load up the TX relief bill with defunding planned parenthood, repeal of obamacare, and a slew of other liberal sacred cows.
Duda, the heartless prick, would be opposed to relief for Texas.
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 05:57 PM
I just saw the most unbelievable soccer goal I have ever seen. This is going to bee number one on ESPN for a decade at least.
It was in Sweden v. France for World Cup 2018 qualifier and in Sweden.
Tied 1-1 going into injury (extra) time. 3 mutes on the clock added. Sweden goes down field with the ball and France steals the ball passes it back to the goale (Hugo Lloris of Tottenham) who sends it down to the mid line but it is intercepted by a Swedish player who sends it 50+ downfield into the now undefended French goal.
If you can find it on YouTube you'll understand. Goal of the century for Sweden. One to forget for France. LOL>
Posted by: Jim Eagle | August 29, 2017 at 05:59 PM
What are the odds that doodoo would get retweeted by Bathtub Boy?
Posted by: Threadkiller | August 29, 2017 at 06:02 PM
JIB's goal:
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/4958986/3158059
Posted by: Threadkiller | August 29, 2017 at 06:06 PM
Sweet JiB, I'll look for it.
Posted by: henry | August 29, 2017 at 06:06 PM
Speaking of Bathtub Boy, someone elsewhere, surely the Horde, suggested that people with Twitter accounts should retweet his more unhinged rants to GQ and ask them if they're fine with being associated with lunatics.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 29, 2017 at 06:09 PM
Thanks TK!
Posted by: henry | August 29, 2017 at 06:09 PM
👍
Posted by: Threadkiller | August 29, 2017 at 06:11 PM
Calm down, JiB, that thing is 2 months old I do believe.
Crazy mistake by the goalie.
Posted by: RattlerGator | August 29, 2017 at 06:11 PM
Thanks for the Free Republic link, cboldt.
Posted by: Threadkiller | August 29, 2017 at 06:13 PM
Clarice!!! Wee Douchebag IS as Wee Douchebag does.
Posted by: GUS | August 29, 2017 at 06:16 PM
Janet - here's one name to remember:
*J. Richard Cohen*
Head Hater for the SPLC.
It's clear to Mr. Chief Hatemonger that almost all of the haters he makes BIG money off are located in the South.
Get it? Southern and Poverty? Get it?
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreherin | August 29, 2017 at 06:18 PM
CH - the photos of K. Griffin au naturel are so frightening they need to be used against ISIS. If they see the photos, they will no longer hate us for our women.
Posted by: Frau Rechtsverdreherin | August 29, 2017 at 06:27 PM
RG,
Who cares it was in June. I watch when I have time. Geez. Now we have time critics. Give it a break.
So, Meeechigan is big favorites. Knowing UF and its 3 QB's probably good odds.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | August 29, 2017 at 06:28 PM
Clarice,
Speaking as a Trump supporter, I will boil it down for Mr. Hanson.
We will never abandon him because he didn't abandon us.
I like Victor Davis Hanson, but I get irritated when I spot stuff which I know he inserted to make Lowry and Williams happy. Quite a few of those in that article.
I preferred the American Greatness article.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | August 29, 2017 at 06:33 PM
You would think that, after the 2nd or 3rd flood, where possible, people would rebuild UP, above the flood level .... leaving the bottom space for parking, storage, or something else that won't get completely destroyed in the next flood. Just a thought.
Posted by: fdcol63 | August 29, 2017 at 06:36 PM
He needs to disband his voter fraud commission.
They're scared.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 29, 2017 at 06:40 PM
fdcol. you would think that the insurance hit would remind them to do that. Wait, government is the insurance company? Never mind.
Posted by: henry | August 29, 2017 at 06:41 PM
fdcol63,
Got to agree. Places along the coast in the Carolinas are built that way.
Houston doesn't have floods of this scale, and I imagine that most of the houses are not built in flood plains. But this was a 500-year, if nott a 1000-year flood.
After I got hit with a flood due to torrential rainfall several years ago, when we looked for a house for my daughter to buy, I did not want a basement. I prefer this one, which is high over a crawl space (about 3 feet to ground level) and is in a higher part of the city.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | August 29, 2017 at 06:41 PM
... and is in a higher part of the city.
I've never worried about this sort of thing. If our house floods, so has the entire California Central Valley. If that comes to pass, it is the end times.
All of my other houses have been situated similarly, though they have been in different parts of the country.
Posted by: DrJ | August 29, 2017 at 06:44 PM
MM, yep .... I live in Florida, and most coastal properties now must be built on stilts or pilings.
I know it's either impossible or impractical in many cases, but even in a downtown location like Houston or New Orleans or along the Mississippi, just seems like we could avoid a lot of costly future rebuilding by leaving the first floors pretty open and not worrying about having to replace drywall, flooring, furniture, etc.
Posted by: fdcol63 | August 29, 2017 at 06:50 PM
Well this is sad news to come back to. I wish Palin brought the claim in Alaska, although I'm sure a liberal judge would havre thrown it out for jurisdiction, because of course you can't possibly read the NYT in Alaska.
Sky news is criticizing Melanie's shoes and Trump not speaking with victims who clearly had nothing better to do. (How is the storm btw?)
Spent the day on a fabulous Literary Bloomsberry Tour which Daddy would love, and the evening at an incredible production of 42nd St. tomorrow we are meeting Caro at the Churchill War Room, with Jesus Christ Superstar at night. Staying a block from Trafalger Square.
It's good to get away.
Posted by: Jane | August 29, 2017 at 06:51 PM
MM,
Trust me, VDH does nothing for Lowry or Goldberg.
Posted by: Jane | August 29, 2017 at 06:55 PM
Jane,
You mean Bloomsbury, right?
Mrs. JiB and I had our wedding reception there at Montague on The Gardens. Glad you are enjoying London.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | August 29, 2017 at 07:00 PM
No offense or irritation intended, JiB.
* * *
About this 500-year thing; that kind of language *is* an irritant to me. It seems to be in vogue these days and I'm doubtful it is grounded in anything real. Are the probability scales used to determine this 500-year thing illuminating or just confusing guess work?
I have my doubts.
Posted by: RattlerGator | August 29, 2017 at 07:02 PM
fdcol,
We are on the beach in Florida but have a 10 foot dune which protected us last year. Destroyed the walkovers but the homes were saved.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | August 29, 2017 at 07:02 PM
As for the game Saturday, I think we have our QB determined and I expect success whether one plays or all three play.
Posted by: RattlerGator | August 29, 2017 at 07:03 PM
JiB, glad you guys were okay.
RG, I'm sure hoping my #3 Noles upset Bama. LOL
Posted by: fdcol63 | August 29, 2017 at 07:12 PM
RG,
The 500-year flood thing is an actual term used by hydro-geologists and geologists. It means a flood with such severity that it comes only every 500 years.
I don't think it has pure statistical backing, but the probability is pretty spot on. After all, Houston hasn't seen a flood of this magnitude since there were the first settlers there.
Posted by: Miss Marple the Deplorable | August 29, 2017 at 07:14 PM
This seems interesting, maybe not so new:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/russia-hacking-dnc-server-comey-mueller-hillary-clinton-20170829.htmlPosted by: jimmyk | August 29, 2017 at 07:23 PM
Hey guys we are actually seeing the sun here in west Harris Co.
MM the 1935 flood was pretty close
Posted by: mike in houston | August 29, 2017 at 07:26 PM
What strikes me, Jimmy, about this is apparently they didn't examine the server logs to see where the intrusion came from, which raises further qyestions
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 07:26 PM
MM, these days I'm even skeptical of *that* 500-year claim (meaning -- how solid are the computational assumptions?).
* * *
Frank, I'm looking forward to that *other* game on Saturday, too. The Bama D-line vs the FSU O-line will be my focus (I suspect that is your weakness, and we know the D-line will be a strengh for the Tide).
Your QB (Francois) is incredibly tough but . . . can he last two years in a row, getting peppered by those big azz D-linemen?
I'm not sure about that but Jalen Hurd vs Deondre Francois should be an exciting competition in its own right.
Posted by: RattlerGator | August 29, 2017 at 07:26 PM
In terms of impact, the 1900 galvrston and this one are referenced, although they were more wind related:
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ydi01
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 07:30 PM
Francois is the Man! But I agree .... he's gonna take a pounding.
Kinda hope your G-ville Boys whoop up on Michigan. My boss is a UM alum.
Posted by: fdcol63 | August 29, 2017 at 07:31 PM
This is what the US is all about
https://www.facebook.com/veronika.previte/videos/10154877348327584/
Posted by: mike in houston | August 29, 2017 at 07:33 PM
From the Palin v. Times decision: Shortly following Loughner's attack, speculation arose about a connection between the crime and plaintiff Palin.
Clarice, the judge”s dancing started here. Who was it who “speculated”? Is previous irresponsibility a get-out-of-jail card for reckless disregard today and tomorrow? Apparently.
Judge, parse for us the difference between “speculation” and “unfounded accusation”.
That postmodern verbal legerdemain is then used as a foundation to look for “actual malice” which the judge in the sub-head conveniently separated from “reckless disregard” to leave that phrase mostly unchallenged in a verbal backwater.
Journalistic opinion is cheapened -- no, rendered worthless -- by the judge leaving the reader unable to trust anything.
Heckuva job, judge.
Posted by: sbw | August 29, 2017 at 07:39 PM
The 1935 Houston flood was rather severe:
http://www.texasarchive.org/library/index.php/The_Orris_D._Brown_Collection,_no._4_-_The_Great_Houston_Flood_of_1935
But they didn't have near the people and infrastructure..
Posted by: BeenThereDoneThat | August 29, 2017 at 07:41 PM
First Terry McAuliffe, now Pelosi condemn the violence "on both sides"--Nazi lovers all /sarc :https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/ive-looked-at-thugs-from-both-sides-now/
Thank you, Mr. President for exposing this B.S>!
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 07:43 PM
A NYT "journalist" makes up a lie and writes "some officials claim" or something like that, and voila .... you have speculation.
Posted by: fdcol63 | August 29, 2017 at 07:43 PM
"Both Sides Now" is a Joni Mitchell song, covered by Judy Collins.
Posted by: cboldt | August 29, 2017 at 07:48 PM
Interesting, Clarice. I don't see how they'll be able to sweep antifa under the rug without clubbing them into submission, though. Sure, they can control the big groups like BLM and ANSWER, but not the low-life thugs that gravitated to Occupy and now antifa.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 29, 2017 at 07:49 PM
Hardy, the bureau apparatchik, also tried to close down the investigation into the prestancia network that popped up in the 28 pages.
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 08:01 PM
MM the 1935 flood was pretty close
Posted by: mike in houston | August 29, 2017 at 07:26 PM
* * *
The 1935 Houston flood was rather severe:
But they didn't have near the people and infrastructure..
Posted by: BeenThereDoneThat | August 29, 2017 at 07:41 PM
* * *
Bingo . . . now there are about *10* times the 1935 population in the county then. Think what that has done to the effect of flooding. We freak out over weather so easily these days and always forget about how we've urbanized *and* how many more weather stations there are recording data. In a heavy rain event, a location five miles away could get significantly more rain and years ago it wouldn't have been recorded at all.
The climate change scam has exposed how *all* of the incentives these days work to amplify any possible extremes. 1935 may not have been as bad but 1817 (or some other 19th century year) may have been as bad or worse. Who knows?
Posted by: RattlerGator | August 29, 2017 at 08:02 PM
Why can't we treat these democrat controlled towns and cities that allow masked thugs to riot, like sanctuary cities. Hit them in the purse somehow.
Posted by: Rocco | August 29, 2017 at 08:03 PM
You nailed it, SBW as did Cboldt.
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 08:05 PM
Trump strung that albatross Antifa around the Dems' neck for good as they Pavlovia like shrieked "Nazi lover" when he said there were good people on both sides of the issue and bad people on both sides.
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 08:07 PM
*Pavlovian*
Posted by: Clarice Feldman | August 29, 2017 at 08:11 PM
When you worked for the osi did you have to do any foia requests, if so were they are as inscrutable are they now?
Posted by: narciso. | August 29, 2017 at 08:14 PM