17 Comments

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/da-fani-willis-and-the-price-of-arrogance-and-corruption-5567834?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=copy

Newt Gingrich just posted an opinion piece on Fani Willis in the Epoch Times....

Expand full comment

It will indeed be interesting to see how the courts rule on defense motion to dismiss, under the circumstances.

https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/stranger-bedfellows

The larger political question is how long can Democrats turn a blind eye to this level of corruption without alienating large chunks of the electorate. If the conduct alleged is substantiated in even the smallest degree, Fani Willis could be facing criminal charges that carry a bit of jail time.

Even if the conduct does not rise to the level at which a mistrial would and dismissal of the case is warranted, many of the particulars of her case against Trump are subjective, and Fani Willis has to present a credible interpretation of those events.

I do not see this ending well for Fani Willis.

Expand full comment

Hey, Peter, on a completely unrelated note, I’ve been trying to upgrade to PAID on your other Substack, Peter’s Proverbs. In theory, it’s Substack.com to profile to settings to subscriptions, then click on ‘edit’ to switch an account to paid, but there’s no ‘edit’ button, or toggle switch. I have looked on both Microsoft and IOS systems. My request to tech support returned an auto-email that my request was received, but it’s been days, and no change. If you have a way to add an ‘upgrade to paid’ button on your posts, or in any other way to remedy this, perhaps you’d like to do so.

On the other hand, maybe you don’t want any paid subscribers because then you’d get endless comments from ubiquitous trolls, and who wants to deal with that. If so, perhaps you could respond to me, telling me what dollar amount you’d like to charge for a year’s subscription. I will then happily remit via ko-fi, as I am receiving substantial benefit from your posted thoughts. ❤️

Expand full comment

That Substack is completely free. I haven't turned on paid subscriptions. The content being what it is, I had not planned on doing paid subscriptions for it.

Expand full comment

I just don’t want ANY president that wants to borrow money on our $34+ trillion debt to pay for other countries Territorial integrity when we have a WIDE open border..

Then - blue states are giving free healthcare to illegal aliens....

Augh.

Expand full comment

I keep hoping for a President and a Congress committed to actually paying off the debt.

Although at this point if that ever did happen I might die from the shock!

Expand full comment

I know! 34 trillion dollars. 34 TRILLION dollars! Are they all insane?

Expand full comment

Quite insane. Delusional even.

Expand full comment

The Democrats are perilously on track to lose this election. They’ve already tried every dirty, slanderous political trick, including 37,000 half-bogus legal charges, most of which have backfired. Half the country just roll their eyes and dig in their heels deeper in support of Trump. So what political strategy is left for Biden’s Boys to try? A Soviet-style assassination comes to mind (Whoops- plane crash! What a shame), but even that might not work. Anyone see a clear strategy for the Democratic Party going forward?

Expand full comment

If the independent interferes with a Democrat such as basically what Kennedy is doing then the media will ignore that candidate. Have you heard that much about Kennedy lately? I haven't.

In the case of Cheney, they will latch on to her and give her ample coverage, because she is just as much a neocon like Biden, basically a RINO and she is a thorn in Trump's side. When the media has gotten what they need from her, then she will fade away in the news like Kennedy has done.

They want just the same old "Dog and Pony" uni-party show to create the illusion that you have a choice. Third party alternatives have always just been a part of the illusion and have never been taken seriously. Ross Perot comes to mind as perhaps the closest chance and they got rid of him. Linking your thoughts as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/

Expand full comment

Any independent candidate has an uphill battle to actually win the Presidency.

However, both Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000 are considered by many to have played a pivotal role in shaping the ultimate electoral outcome--Perot's 19% of the popular vote was widely considered to have been siphoned off from George H.W. Bush, and with that 19% Bush would win re-election, while Nader is often blamed for siphoning just enough support from Gore in Florida to make that state a virtual tie, thus creating the Bush v Gore mess that wound up in front of the Supreme Court.

If RFK or No Labels gets on the ballot in all 50 states, at a minimum the possibility of a "spoiler" gets injected into the contest. If both get on the ballot in all 50 states, that would change the scenarios considerably and might even force both of the major party candidates to dramatically shift their rhetoric and their positions.

The real question is going to be can any of these potential independent and third party candidates get on the ballot in all 50 states. Right now they aren't, and that limits their potential impact. If that should change, their impact expands tremendously.

Expand full comment

You have a valid point!

Expand full comment

Partisan Politics will be the death of this Republic.

Expand full comment

Quite possibly.

Expand full comment

I agree, it is a shame. Still, it looks like we’re in for an interesting Election!

Historically, there’s been a political truism that in times of war, the voters will re-elect the sitting President, at least in part because it would be unpatriotic to not support their commander-in-chief. I’m not so sure that this would apply anymore. What do you think, Peter? Biden may have to throw a hail-Mary to win re-election, and I wouldn’t put it past him to widen existing geopolitical conflicts if it means he’d defeat Trump.

Expand full comment

"In times of war".

The United States is not "at war" in a substantive way. We're long past the hysteria of the post 9/11 period of the Global War on Terror, so I don't see that truism applying this election cycle.

If Dementia Joe starts a war, it will almost certainly cost him the election. There is zero enthusiasm for a foreign war in this country.

Expand full comment

Whew! Glad to hear you say it!

Expand full comment