Boston Globe columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr and New York Times counterpart David Brooks agreed on Friday’s PBS News Hour that Donald Trump’s recent visit to Arlington National Cemetery was “really one of the lowest political moments” they could recall.
Host Geoff Bennett set the scene by recalling that “The Army said in a statement, a rare statement, ‘that the campaign was made aware of federal laws prohibiting political activity at the cemetery.’ And they confirmed the reporting that a campaign staff — Trump campaign staffer—abruptly pushed aside an employee of the cemetery. This was a female employee who, according to the Times, didn’t want to press charges because she was afraid of retaliation from Trump supporters.”
Bennett should have added that the campaign claims it had permission to bring a photographer and that Trump was invited by Gold Star families who lost loved ones during President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.
With vital context missing, Stohr began, “You know, there was a time that being disrespectful in any way at Arlington National Cemetery, one of the most sacred places in our nation, would have put an end to a political career.”
Curiously though, it didn’t in 2020:
Memorial Day, 2020. Joe Biden posted this campaign ad featuring himself standing over a grave in Arlington National Cemetery.
If you have been trash-talking Trump the last two days for supporting a family and claiming he was campaigning. I expect you to share this video. pic.twitter.com/Mxq1tUHsYd
A cobra and a mongoose treated an airplane runway like a boxing ring, viciously attacking one another and causing havoc in India.
The airplane’s takeoff was delayed after the pilot spotted the creatures scrapping on the tarmac in Patna, Bihar, as seen in a viral video.
The interspecies grudge match reportedly transpired at the Jay Prakash Narayan Airport, although the plane’s intended destination is currently unclear, Jam Press reported.
In the footage, filmed from the aircraft’s window, a cobra can be seen striking at a mongoose as the lightning-fast furball tries to dodge its venomous fangs.
After her instant ascension to the Democratic nomination, Vice President Kamala Harris waited more than five weeks to do an interview with the press. Now, she has done a single interview, a mostly friendly session with CNN that consisted of 27 minutes of questions and answers. Now that it’s done, a debate awaits a week from Tuesday, and a couple of weeks after that, early voting starts in some states and then ramps up across the nation. Will Harris feel the need to do another interview in that time? “It’s possible her campaign will figure this is the last interview she needs to do from here to November,” wrote the Wall Street Journal editorial board. It might be right.
As for the CNN talk, “she was methodical and risk-averse in the 27-minute interview, performing like a top seed in the early rounds of the U.S. Open tennis tournament trying to hold serve, survive, and advance to the next round,” the New York Times wrote. It wasn’t that hard to do. While interviewer Dana Bash asked a few probing questions, with an occasional follow-up, they weren’t the sort of follow-ups designed to really dig down to the crux of an issue.
Still, since this is literally the only time Harris has taken a series of questions as a presidential candidate, it’s worth looking closely at what she said about the three issues polls show are the most important to voters in the 2024 elections. Those issues are inflation, immigration, and abortion.
Box ticked, and now it’s time to play prevent defense, as the MSM-DNC believes Kamala to be ahead, and just need to run out the clock — and it’s a strategy that could well work.
One of the most devious words in political discourse today is ‘decency’. It’s everywhere at the moment.
Last Thursday, Oprah Winfrey issued a direct appeal to unaffiliated and undecided voters to back Kamala Harris as the next US president. ‘Decency and respect are on the ballot in 2024’, she said, ‘character and values most of all’.
The same word was employed by Max Hastings earlier this month. Writing in The Times, he concluded that the Democrats were the party all Americans should back, as they embody ‘fundamental decency and moderation’. The same day, Alan Rusbridger, in his Prospect column, inveighing against Elon Musk’s X, wished there was a ‘reliable, decent, honest, well-tended [social-media] platform that can never be taken over by a billionaire man-child’.
Decency is a vague, asinine word. It’s beloved of people who seem to think that being a nice person and having good manners are the same as having good politics – the kind of people who deprecate Donald Trump for his coarseness and vulgarity, and who revile Musk’s X for allowing users to express horrid, ‘hateful’ words. ‘Decency’ is an empty mantra for a class that likes its politics bland and consensual.
This is why you should beware the appeals to decency. It’s used by people who want to shut others up, who would be happy to see X hobbled and GB News taken off the air. They conflate being offensive, impolite and airing unfashionable and brash opinions with inciting actual hatred and violence. ‘Decency’ is a form of attempted linguistic blackmail, designed to make dissenters feel the opposite: indecent, uncivilised and abnormal. It belongs in the same category as that other insipid mot du jour, ‘grown-up’ (the antithesis of which is ‘childish’ or ‘juvenile’). Both sit alongside the better-established ‘kindness’ (anyone who disagrees is unkind), and that long-standing declaration of egotism deployed by the crafty and the naïve: ‘compassionate’.
“Shut up” is the mantra of leftist politics. “Decency” is simply a kinder, gentler way to accomplish that goal.
Given the very close coordination between the media and Vice President Harris’ campaign, this conversation likely happened — just not when the cameras were rolling.
FINALLY, THE LONG-AWAITED MIAMI VICE MEETS DR. STRANGELOVE CROSSOVER CAN BE SEEN: Photographer Visits Underground House Built by Eccentric Millionaire for Nuclear Fallout. “You need to have a penchant for over-the-top kitsch, insane colour combinations and James Bond-villain-lair aesthetics. Which I do…You could party down here for weeks and not even realise there was a nuclear war going on upstairs.”
To be clear, this is not about defending Trump’s private life, which is in many ways indefensible. This is about being honest about the state of American politics. If you want to understand why someone as allegedly immoral as Donald Trump wasn’t immediately kicked off the political stage because of his supposedly outrageous character flaws, you merely have to recognize that the American public rightly understands that the Democrat Party is itself fully in the thrall of figures whose personal dealings and sex lives are in many ways worse than Trump’s peccadilloes.
Eight years later, people are still in total denial about this, and maybe you shouldn’t feign outrage over a talk radio guy being cruder about the truth than your sensitive ears can handle. Especially when you’re silent about Kamala Harris’ past, the Clintons’ continued influence, and your friends and allies cashing checks from Reid Hoffman. But other than that, I’m sure [the Bullwork’s Sarah] Longwell is a swell gal.
6. Do not mention Biden at all. Harris is not to be seen with him in photos or at events. Create a vaguely joyful but completely imaginary, “Harris record.” Separate it from the miserable Biden-Harris administration. Leak that she was unhappy with Biden.
7. Call Trump a mobster, criminal, insurrectionist, and dictator nonstop. Never provide any evidence to support such charges. When challenged, double down and let loose with worse invective.
8. Talk about abortion nonstop. But never dare mention the word. Relabel abortion “reproductive rights.” Falsely reinvent Trump as a radical anti-abortionist who wants a federal ban.
9. Follow the 2020 successful Biden “basement” strategy: keep out of the public eye, silent on the issues, reliant on 70 percent of the ballots not being cast on Election Day, and outsourcing the campaign to the fusion media and billionaire class.
10. Harangue about race and gender nonstop. Define the election as a stark binary between a “young” oppressed but dynamic black woman and an old oppressor racist white guy.
11. Reinvent the “journey” and life “story” of Harris — the child of two PhDs — into a hardscrabble, lifelong struggle against poverty, systemic racism, and greedy “billionaires” like Trump. She is always to be from Oakland — never Berkeley.
12. Talk about transparency nonstop. Feign a willingness to have three or four debates. But agree to hold only one — and only on a left-wing network. Promise interviews and town halls endlessly. Enter into discussions about them. But always delay, stonewall, and evade for the next 10 weeks.
13. Meet privately and endlessly with the megarich donor class that helped to remove Biden. Assure Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley grandees that banter about wealth taxes, taxes on unearned income, and higher corporate taxes are mere campaign posturing. Then outraise Trump again 3-1.
14. Privately assure leftist activists and Democrat politicos that any backslidings from supporting lifelong left-wing advocacies are temporary and necessary 70-day pretexts. Instead look at what Harris actually does after November 5, not anything she must say before then.
Saul Alinsky published Rules for Radicals in 1971 after the domestic battles of the previous decade, where American politics largely consisted of radical new leftists versus older, establishment New Deal Democrats. (Conservatives were largely on the sidelines. Goldwater’s stillborn campaign failed in 1964 and Nixon was a moderate Rockefeller Republican.) But reading between the lines of VDH’s latest column, it’s obvious that the radicals have been running the show for the Democratic Party (and by extension, much of the country) for quite some time.
After laying a white rose at the site of the Diversity Festival slashing that left three dead and eight wounded, Chancellor Olaf Scholz promised rapid action would be taken against knives.
Right now, people in Germany can carry knives up to 4.7 inches long. The law will be modified so that they can only carry knives up to 2.4 inches long. No one appears to have considered the possibility that Muslim terrorists on the way to killing as many infidels as possible might violate the law and carry a concealed knife of 4 inches or longer. Such thoughts are unthinkable.*
There were 13,844 “knife crime” incidents in Germany in 2023, which the authorities are blaming on the existence of knives and not the perpetrators, who are reportedly mostly young Muslim men.
But locating the source of the problem is probably “not a very helpful insight,” In the UK, people sharing such insights are being locked up even as Islamic terrorists are being freed.
Kamala Harris’s newly appointed head of Arab-American outreach once accused Zionists of “controlling” American politics, echoing an anti-Semitic trope that suggests Jews nefariously manipulate global affairs.
“The Zionists have a strong voice in American politics,” Brenda Abdelall, an Egyptian-American lawyer and former Department of Homeland Security official, said in a 2002 interview with the New York Sun while attending the American Muslim Council’s annual convention. “I would say they’re controlling a lot of it.”
Abdelall, whom Harris tapped earlier this week to help galvanize Arab voters, made the remarks after a speaker at the event, anti-Israel professor Jamil Fayez, said that “Zionists are destroying America.” Responding to his remarks, Abdelall said that while “‘destroying’ is a harsh word,” supporters of the Jewish state do control American politics.
The American Muslim Council’s 2002 confab also provided attendees with a chance to meet anti-Semitic former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.), who famously blamed Jews for the 9/11 terror attack and attended a 2009 Holocaust-denial gathering in London. Her father similarly blamed Jews when she lost her congressional seat shortly after the 2002 conference. “Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S,” he said.
It was, Dana Bash said on CNN at 9 p.m. Thursday, “a watershed moment.” Not just a watershed—”a defining moment.” Why the fuss? Kamala Harris was giving an interview.
Think about that. Somehow, in the whirlwind of campaign 2024, we have reached the point where it’s news that the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America will answer questions from the press. Until now, if you’ve been interested in Harris’s views, you’ve had to rely, with one or two exceptions, on the Harris whisperers—the unnamed aides quoted in mainstream media disavowing the vice president’s previous positions on health care, energy, the environment, immigration, and crime. The interview mattered because it was the first time we heard the nominee unfiltered, without her teleprompter, no notes.
But bolstered by her sidekick:
After watching the CNN interview of Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz it is clear that Walz is the first “emotional support candidate” in history. Just as some people need an emotional support pet it is clear Harris is sufficiently insecure she needs an…
The contrast between her gentle, loving, and indefensibly incurious treatment of her pals Kamala and Tim with this hostile and badgering debate against someone she clearly loathes could not be more dramatic. https://t.co/geMAWkZE0Y
As Ed Morrissey notes, “Harris doesn’t fight. It’s not in her. Harris retreats when challenged and avoids confrontation when possible. She lacks a fighting instinct, and her entire campaign thus far demonstrates it.”
Harris expects to be elected on the basis of her identity and her “joy.” And that’s all she’s prepared to engage on. What does that say about what kind of president she will make — especially on foreign policy? If she won’t fight for herself and her “values,” why would anyone expect her to fight for America and its interests?
And that’s it. That’s the election in a nutshell. We have one candidate who won’t fight, and another candidate whose first instincts are to run to a fight. It makes me wonder whether Harris and her campaign really plan to show up for the debate on September 10. If they do, they’d better find a fighting spirit, or it may turn out worse for Harris than the previous debate turned out for Joe Biden.
Maybe there really is strength through “Joy,” if this is the best Harris can do, but is counting on the sheer force of the DNC-MSM to drag her across the finish line, past a candidate they’ve spent nearly a decade portraying as the anti-Christ.
“Joy” is now Democrats’ official campaign strategy. Of course, joy in the true sense resonates with people who are starving for it. But we ought to ask about the deeper purpose of the Harris-Walz presidential campaign adopting “joy” as messaging. Even The New York Times recently offered skepticism, stating “joy is not a political strategy.” No, it’s not.
But I’ll go out on a limb, and say there’s a weird trick going on here. Consider thinking of Vice President Kamala Harris’s “joy schtick” as analogous to the joystick used in aircraft and video games. The joystick is all about imposing control, dictating movements and direction. Likewise, the psychological operation behind the Democrats’ joy schtick is about controlling or “nudging” the direction of an electorate that’s profoundly miserable because of the insane amounts of inflation, crime, and social turmoil cultivated under the Democrats’ watch.
As with all such “joy” campaigns in the history of modern totalitarianism, they end up tacitly stating that “misery is joy.” It’s like being beckoned into a sado-masochistic relationship in which inflicting and receiving pain is supposed to be pleasurable. Enthusiasm becomes mandatory.
Not only is a “joy” campaign meant to distract attention from the track record of tyrants, but with media control it imposes an Orwellian anti-definition, similar to the novel 1984’s delusional slogan “freedom is slavery.” Or like the passage in Isaiah 5:20 about those who would call light darkness and darkness light, those who would call good evil and evil good.
In all, the joint interview in Savannah with her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz – their first since becoming the Democratic presidential ticket – provided one of the clearest looks into Harris’ positions and her plans for the presidency.
“How should voters look at some of the changes that you’ve made?” Bash asked Harris. “Is it because you have more experience now and you’ve learned more about the information? Is it because you were running for president in a Democratic primary? And should they feel comfortable and confident that what you’re saying now is going to be your policy moving forward?” …
“I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed,” she said. “You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed – and I have worked on it – that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.”
Apparently, Harris used the same exact sentence to explain her border and immigration policy reversals too:
And she pointed to her record as California attorney general, when she prosecuted gangs accused of cross border trafficking, as an indication of her values on immigration.
“My values have not changed. So that is the reality of it. And four years of being vice president, I’ll tell you, one of the aspects, to your point, is traveling the country extensively,” she said, pointing to her 17 visits to Georgia since becoming vice president. “I believe it is important to build consensus, and it is important to find a common place of understanding of where we can actually solve problems.”
If your values haven’t changed, then … your policies won’t reflect your values? Or is it that your earlier policies didn’t reflect your values? While this isn’t quite a word salad — it’s at least cognizably coherent — it’s also utterly void of substance. It’s not an explanation of a reasoned process by which a candidate has concluded that earlier positions should be abandoned for better policies. It reveals nothing at all about reversing just one policy, let alone an entire agenda of policy positions that Harris took publicly in 2019 and in 2020, including on CNN.
If that’s the quality of the conversation, small wonder CNN will only run 18 minutes of it — although that has still not yet been confirmed. The practice of taping an interview for editing and later airing is common, but the refusal to release a full transcript seems very odd for a news organization. This is the major-party ticket defending an incumbency; anything they say that’s not specifically off the record should be reported, especially given the lack of media access to this ticket ever since it launched.
“I’ve got 68 days to go with this election, so I’m not putting the cart before the horse. But…I think it’s really important. I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion. I think it’s important to have people at the table when some of the most important decisions are being made that have different views, different experiences. And I think it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican.”
Americans in the market for a used vehicle can cut their risk of having trouble down the road by considering some brands over others, with Lexus and Toyota topping a newly published list by Consumer Reports.
The nonprofit research and advocacy group’s first-ever ranking of 26 brands has Lexus and Toyota holding a commanding advantage over third-placed Mazda. All three brands have held consistent average or better reliability ratings over the years, Consumer Reports noted.
“Brands like Lexus and Toyota have a history of conservative redesigns, incrementally improving their entire product line, rather than introducing many all-new systems,” said Steven Elek, senior automotive data analyst at Consumer Reports. “Our data consistently shows over time that cars from those brands are reliable when new and they continue to be reliable as they age,” he added.
1990s-era Toyota Corrolas and pickups appear to be particularly reliable:
This wave has taken many people by surprise, particularly as the country has largely consigned the pandemic to the past. While public life has pretty much returned to pre-pandemic norms — something almost none of us would have believed in the summer of 2020 — the virus itself has not.
Mutations of the virus continue to occur, and new variants are emerging, posing ongoing challenges to public health and safety. As we look ahead to the remainder of 2024 and into early 2025, we need to take stock of where we are, understand the factors driving this resurgence and better anticipate how the pandemic might evolve.
The recent surge in COVID-19 cases has disrupted summer travel plans, overwhelmed healthcare facilities in certain areas, and left many Americans dealing with the familiar symptoms of fever, cough and fatigue. The summer months, typically associated with lower respiratory virus activity, have instead seen a significant uptick in COVID-19 infections. Several factors contribute to this unexpected surge.
“So, you didn’t say, ‘This bandage was a prop, a spectacle from a candidate who’s obsessed with spectacles’?” asked Lewandowski.
“Uh, Mr. Lewandowski, I did not say that. That is a false quote,” the MSNBC host shot back.
“I have it right here,” said Lewandowski.
“What you have is a false quote… I’m putting you on notice, if you continue to repeat falsely that I said that, you will be potentially in a defamation situation because I didn’t say that,” [Ari] Melber threatened, declining Lewandowski’s offer to apologize to former President Trump for his remarks.
The far-left Daily Beast, Mediaite, and Huffington Post covered the exchange in tones suggesting Melber was in the right. However, their reports show that Lewandowski’s characterization of Melber’s statement about Trump and his bandage is correct.
Users on X began quoting Melber’s words back to him after clips of the exchange went viral, criticizing him as both a bully and a wimp for threatening a lawsuit. Melber responded by locking his account.
If he didn’t say it, this Fox News clip seems like an incredible advancement in deep fake AI technology:
Ari Melber of MSNBC says: “Trump was his own biggest prop: a large white bandage on his injured right ear, a spectacle.” pic.twitter.com/KCMP7DSkHh
On the front page of The New York Times on August 26 is a story explaining that the Harris campaign has an allergy to noting their candidate was born in the radical tumult of Berkeley in the 1960s. Instead, a convention video listed her childhood home as located in “East Bay.” It can’t be “The People’s Republic of Berkeley” in anyone’s reintroduction to moderate voters.
Reporters Heather Knight and Alexandra Berzon acknowledged Kamala’s mother Shyamala was “steeped in the social activism vibrant in both Berkeley and Oakland.” They told readers that the word “Berkeley” went missing early in her career, when Harris ran for Attorney General of California in 2008.
But in other places, it’s more explicit. On their podcast The Daily — broadcast across the country on taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio — Times reporter Astead Herndon underlined that activism was prominent in her upbringing.
“This is someone who is growing up really around not only just a Black community, but a very prideful, rich history of Blackness…The Black Panthers’ headquarters was blocks from her house.” Her parents made “a very intentional effort to place their children in Black affirmation spaces,” teaching black history in a radical activist way.
The “reintroduction” shapers also left out Kamala’s teenage years in Canada. From 1976 to 1982 (from roughly 12 to 18), she lived in Montreal, where her mother worked at McGill University. The Times noted Montreal “fared even worse than Berkeley” at the convention. “The city’s name was completely excised from Ms. Harris’s re-telling of her childhood.”
Harris’s work at McDonald’s, which allegedly took place at a franchise in the California Bay Area the summer after her freshman year in college, is a recent addition to her carefully curated life story. For decades, Harris never mentioned it, not on the campaign trail nor in two books. It’s absent from a job application and résumé she submitted a year after she graduated from college. Third-party biographers did not write about it. Not until Harris ran for president in 2019 and spoke to a labor rally in Las Vegas did she mention the job, telling the crowd that she “was a student when I was working in a McDonald’s.”
McDonald’s boasts that one in eight Americans has worked at the fast food chain, and Harris, whose campaign is light on policy and heavy on image, has been using her fast food job to portray what the Washington Post, in a credulous piece this month on the Harris-McDonald’s connection, described as “her humble background.” (Harris is the daughter of an eminent cancer researcher, whom her campaign calls “a working mother,” and a tenured Stanford economist, who split when Harris and her sister were children.)
Early this month, Harris’s campaign said she used her McDonald’s wages to pay for college. “Vice President Harris is the daughter of a working mother and worked at a McDonald’s to put herself through college,” campaign spokeswoman Lauren Hitt said this month. A pro-Harris super PAC ad said she “work[ed] her way through school at McDonald’s.” And former president Bill Clinton, at the Democratic National Convention, joked that “she’ll break my record as president who has spent the most time at McDonald’s.”
At the same time, however, Harris’s image makers tweaked the story ever so slightly. According to an August 14 item in Politico, an early cut of a Harris campaign ad said she worked at McDonald’s to “pay her way” through college. Aides changed the script to reflect that “she really took the summer job just to earn a bit more spending money,” as Politico put it.
The Politico story, which was published just hours after the Washington Free Beacon reached out to the Harris campaign with a series of detailed questions about Harris’s claims regarding her job at McDonald’s, didn’t say when exactly—or where—Harris worked at the restaurant. The campaign did not respond to the Free Beacon’s inquiries.
It is possible that Harris did indeed work at McDonald’s in the early 1980s. But the absence of that detail in public records and her campaign’s coyness and refusal to provide any further details raise questions about what is now a foundational narrative.
Ed Morrissey asks, “So … is Harris faking the fryer? Flipping us the Filet-O-Fish? Giving us a bad shake for the sake of humble apple pie?”
I have a very hard time seeing why anyone would fake this kind of claim, because there’s really no upside to it. No one puts “McDonald’s fryer chef” on a professional resumé, after all, so a lack of track record on this before her first presidential run is at least explicable. I’d bet that this turns into a “Corn Pop” story — presumed fabulism that suddenly gets confirmed by witnesses, to everyone’s surprise. At some point, her fellow fryers and flippers will come forward with “My Summer With Kamala” stories, and this will all be a trivia point.
But if it is fake … don’t count on the media to cover it. Call it professional courtesy from the Fake News industry.
All of us had some fun at Harris’ expense on Monday, thanks to a little satire I wrote for you about her pathetic attempts to distance herself from the Biden-Harris record of “achievements” while also blaming Donald Trump for them. If you read Harris’ quotes — which I did not make up for Monday’s column — you’d think Trump had been president for the last four years.
Inflation? Trump’s fault. Record house prices? Trump’s fault. Slouching towards World War III? Trump’s fault. Border chaos? Trump’s fault.
And that brings us to today’s flip-flop, coming close on the heels of Harris doing the Triple Lindy on banning fracking, gun confiscation, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, decreasing funding for the Border Patrol, eliminating private health insurance, Medicare for All, court-packing SCOTUS, defunding police, Green New Deal, EV mandates, and (I’m running out of breath here) a federal jobs guarantee.
Harris wants to build the wall.
Somebody get her a red MAGA hat, won’t you?
No, wait — the New York Post already did that for us.
As Ann Coulter wrote way back in 2004, “both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do.”
According to constitutional scholar Rob Natelson, “Montana’s [Supreme Court] may be unique for its disregard of basic standards of justice, the extent of its intervention into the state’s political life, and its high-handed use of power.” Natelson also describes the Montana Supreme Court’s rulings as “banana-republic conduct” and questions its legal competence. For all these reasons, he has concluded it is “America’s worst court.”
One elected official, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, has been suffering for bravely confronting the state court’s wrath and incompetence. Knudsen, a Republican, has become the victim of lawfare for simply doing his job — defending state laws in court. Knudsen was elected as attorney general in 2020 following service for a decade in Montana’s state House of Representatives, including two terms as speaker. Due to the Montana Supreme Court’s judicial overreach and activism, in recent years the state legislature has skirmished with the court over matters such as changing how judicial vacancies are filled (the subject of Senate Bill 140) and access to judicial email records, which had been subpoenaed by the legislature as evidence of inappropriate political activity by the justices.
As attorney general, it is Knudsen’s duty to advocate on behalf of the legislature, even if the legislature is trying to make the state supreme court more accountable and less intrusive. Not surprisingly, the court justices and their patrons in the plaintiffs’ bar strongly oppose efforts to lessen the court’s power and influence. Just as bar associations in California and other states have become weaponized by the left to intimidate and retaliate against conservative lawyers such as John Eastman, the attorney discipline body in Montana (called the Office of Disciplinary Counsel) has unleashed a torrent of 41 “ethics” charges against Knudsen, accusing him of attacking the court’s integrity and undermining public respect for the court.
InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a
means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.
