It’s A Wrap

Last one of the year, people. And what a year it’s been; but hey, let’s not get into that now. To help us put a bow on 2020, we asked our official election law analyst, John Yoo to stop by to delve into the latest suits filed and what options are left (hie National Review piece published earlier this week worth reading before you listen to his segment). Then, we wanted to end things on a happy note, so we asked our podcasting colleague Arthur Brooks, host of Ricochet’s Art of Happiness podcast to help us reset our attitudes and psyches for 2021. We also asked to give some TLC to a certain misanthropic member of this crew. Did it work? Only time will tell. Finally, we do some spelunking of bad Christmas tunes (and some good ones, too) courtesy of Lileks Post of The Week winner @cliffordbrown. Also, are people with grad degrees doctors? What say you?

Thanks for sticking with us through a turbulent and yes, often contentious year. We very much appreciate the listens and your feedback. We wish everyone a happy and healthy Christmas break and we’ll see you back here on January 8th.

Music from this week’s show: Baby It’s Cold Outside by Ella Fitzgerald (feat. Louis Jordan & His Tympany Five)

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

ExpressVPN

Headspace

Lucy

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 114 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Django: I’d like to see how two presumably competent lawyers can come to such different conclusions.

    The world is full of 5-4 decisions and competing dissents.

    Conservatives have always held that the side that Alito and Thomas came down on was the right one, until now for some reason. 

    • #31
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Django: I’d like to see how two presumably competent lawyers can come to such different conclusions.

    The world is full of 5-4 decisions and competing dissents.

    Conservatives have always held that the side that Alito and Thomas came down on was the right one, until now for some reason.

    Well we know what the “reason” is for many of them, including Jonah Goldberg and George Will:  “Orange Man Bad.”

    • #32
  3. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    I find John Yoo very persuasive. The part where he’s making fun of the accounting controls in the election are critical. Nobody talks about that enough. It’s a joke.

    In a way, anyone who has a perspective on a subject can be very persuasive if you don’t hear from a different perspective.

    I’ve heard the other side plenty.

    But if they’re not arguing it out at the same time, whoever you’re listening to at the moment can seem more persuasive just because of that.

    And if you’ve heard A’s argument, and then B comes along and disputes what you’ve already heard so now you believe B, that ignores that A hasn’t had a chance to rebut what B just told you.

    That isn’t necessarily what ALWAYS happens, but it CAN.

    I am well aware of all of this. 

    We could start a go fund me to motivate both parties. 

    • #33
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Taras (View Comment):
    Just a couple of days ago I heard Byron York, in his Ricochet podcast, read a passage from his new book, Obsession, in which one Democratic Congressman after another raises objections during the counting of the electoral vote in January 2017, quashed each time because they failed to have the backing of at least one Senator, as required by law.

    This can still happen. 

    • #34
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    I find John Yoo very persuasive. The part where he’s making fun of the accounting controls in the election are critical. Nobody talks about that enough. It’s a joke.

    In a way, anyone who has a perspective on a subject can be very persuasive if you don’t hear from a different perspective.

    I’ve heard the other side plenty.

    But if they’re not arguing it out at the same time, whoever you’re listening to at the moment can seem more persuasive just because of that.

    And if you’ve heard A’s argument, and then B comes along and disputes what you’ve already heard so now you believe B, that ignores that A hasn’t had a chance to rebut what B just told you.

    That isn’t necessarily what ALWAYS happens, but it CAN.

    I am well aware of all of this.

    We could start a go fund me to motivate both parties.

    John Yoo needs to be asked more questions, by people who know more.

     

    • #35
  6. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    For example, he says that 2004 was the last time electoral votes were challenged in Congress.

    Just a couple of days ago I heard Byron York, in his Ricochet podcast, read a passage from his new book, Obsession, in which one Democratic Congressman after another raises objections during the counting of the electoral vote in January 2017, quashed each time because they failed to have the backing of at least one Senator, as required by law.

    If I were Yoo (see what I did there?) it would be easy for me to counter that the electoral votes were not actually “challenged” in 2017 because a “challenge” requires a Representative AND a Senator. Since no senator ever agreed, there were not really any “challenges” in 2017.

    But I still think he’s wrong in several aspects of this situation.

    Unless I misheard him, the situation Prof. Yoo described in the 2004 election was exactly the same 12 years later.   In neither case did the challenges proceed to an actual debate.  Nobody wanted to waste that much time.

    • #36
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    For example, he says that 2004 was the last time electoral votes were challenged in Congress.

    Just a couple of days ago I heard Byron York, in his Ricochet podcast, read a passage from his new book, Obsession, in which one Democratic Congressman after another raises objections during the counting of the electoral vote in January 2017, quashed each time because they failed to have the backing of at least one Senator, as required by law.

    If I were Yoo (see what I did there?) it would be easy for me to counter that the electoral votes were not actually “challenged” in 2017 because a “challenge” requires a Representative AND a Senator. Since no senator ever agreed, there were not really any “challenges” in 2017.

    But I still think he’s wrong in several aspects of this situation.

    Unless I misheard him, the situation Prof. Yoo described in the 2004 election was exactly the same 12 years later. In neither case did the challenges proceed to an actual debate. Nobody wanted to waste that much time.

    If that was the situation, if there were no actual “challenges” in 2004/2005 for the same reason – they didn’t get both a Rep AND a Senator to agree – then Yoo was wrong about that too.  Not that I’m surprised or anything.

    • #37
  8. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Django (View Comment):
    It’s different when two lawyers such as Yoo and Levin disagree. I’ve heard Levin’s side, hard though it can be to listen to him sometimes. Levin stressed some clause in Article II and his opponents seem to stress Article III. I haven’t followed this in detail, but would like to see them discuss the “weighting” of the points of view.

    Mark Levin is a lawyer but he’s also an entertainer. He has an audience to play to — an audience with a very specific set of interests.

    John Yoo is a legal scholar and does not make his living based on ratings.

    • #38
  9. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    If you listen to Andrew McCarthy, this thing mostly needs to be dealt with in the political realm. Legislatures overriding bogus ballot systems. Raising Hell on January 6th. etc.

    • #39
  10. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):
    John Yoo needs to be asked more questions, by people who know more.

    I did a Q&A session with John for Ricochet members a few weeks ago. You declined to participate because you have some issue with Zoom (even though I pointed out that you could join the session by phone).  Hard to take your complaints about our questions seriously. 

    • #40
  11. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    John Yoo needs to be asked more questions, by people who know more.

    I did a Q&A session with John for Ricochet members a few weeks ago. You declined to participate because you have some issue with Zoom (even though I pointed out that you could join the session by phone). Hard to take your complaints about our questions seriously.

    I believe @kedavis meant someone who is more versed in Constitutional law than your average Ricochet member. There are plenty of people on the other side of that decision worth hearing from. 

    • #41
  12. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):
    It’s different when two lawyers such as Yoo and Levin disagree. I’ve heard Levin’s side, hard though it can be to listen to him sometimes. Levin stressed some clause in Article II and his opponents seem to stress Article III. I haven’t followed this in detail, but would like to see them discuss the “weighting” of the points of view.

    Mark Levin is a lawyer but he’s also an entertainer. He has an audience to play to — an audience with a very specific set if interests.

    John Yoo is a legal scholar and does not make his living based on ratings.

    What you say is true, but I don’t see that is has relevance to what arguments they would make, nor does it lessen my interest in hearing them debate the issue. I still doubt you’d get them together on the same stage. 

    Levin’s major issue, last time I listened and I don’t listen regularly, was that the SCOTUS by its decision had “written Article II, Section I, Clause II out of the Constitution”. 

    OK; that said, I’ll go off and read Article III now while I have some time. 

    • #42
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    John Yoo needs to be asked more questions, by people who know more.

    I did a Q&A session with John for Ricochet members a few weeks ago. You declined to participate because you have some issue with Zoom (even though I pointed out that you could join the session by phone). Hard to take your complaints about our questions seriously.

    Why assume that you or me or any other Ricochet members would or could ask John Yoo the questions that really need to be asked, or that we could get them through even if we knew what they were?

    That’s one of the reasons why John Yoo needs to defend his assertions and his positions, not to me, but to someone like John Eastman or even Mark Levin.

    Meanwhile it’s worth noting that Mark Levin and his associates through the Landmark Legal Foundation have won cases in federal courts, including the Supreme Court.  I haven’t found any similar accomplishments for John Yoo.

    • #43
  14. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Why assume that you or me or any other Ricochet members would or could ask John Yoo the questions that really need to be asked, or that we could get them through even if we knew what they were?

    Everyone who wanted to ask a question in that session got their chance. I made sure of that.  In yesterday’s podcast, a member of the audience asked a question, but we were unable to get to it due to time issues. I got him an answer from John later by text. 

    That’s one of the reasons why John Yoo needs to defend his assertions and his positions, not to me, but to someone like John Eastman or even Mark Levin.

    John does not need to do anything. He does these hits for us because he wants to. He’ll be just fine if he doesn’t debate Levin or Eastman.

    Meanwhile it’s worth noting that Mark Levin and his associates through the Landmark Legal Foundation have won cases in federal courts, including the Supreme Court. I haven’t found any similar accomplishments for John Yoo.

    You should do some Googling on what a legal scholar does, but also, there is a ton of legal work and consulting done by legal academics that goes on  behind the scenes. And that’s all I can say about that. 

    • #44
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    You should do some Googling on what a legal scholar does, but also, there is a ton of legal work and consulting done by legal academics that goes on behind the scenes. And that’s all I can say about that. 

    Are you saying that John Yoo is like those scientists who can prove that a bumblebee can’t fly?

    I should have known.

    • #45
  16. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Django (View Comment):

    What you say is true, but I don’t see that is has relevance to what arguments they would make, nor does it lessen my interest in hearing them debate the issue. I still doubt you’d get them together on the same stage. 

    Levin’s major issue, last time I listened and I don’t listen regularly, was that the SCOTUS by its decision had “written Article II, Section I, Clause II out of the Constitution”. 

    OK; that said, I’ll go off and read Article III now while I have some time. 

    We’ve had Mark on the podcast before, although not in a long time. I can reach out to him and see if he’ll come on. I haven’t asked him, but I would bet John would be OK with debating Mark. No idea how Mark would feel about it. 

    Mark is a very good lawyer and a very good broadcaster. But his audience expects a certain line of rhetoric and reasoning and he’s very good at supplying it.  

    I think perhaps the more pertinent question is why didn’t the Trump legal team listen to Levin or better, why didn’t they hire him?

     

    • #46
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Levin is an advocate. Yoo is not. 

    • #47
  18. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    What you say is true, but I don’t see that is has relevance to what arguments they would make, nor does it lessen my interest in hearing them debate the issue. I still doubt you’d get them together on the same stage.

    Levin’s major issue, last time I listened and I don’t listen regularly, was that the SCOTUS by its decision had “written Article II, Section I, Clause II out of the Constitution”.

    OK; that said, I’ll go off and read Article III now while I have some time.

    We’ve had Mark on the podcast before, although not in a long time. I can reach out to him and see if he’ll come on. I haven’t asked him, but I would bet John would be OK with debating Mark. No idea how Mark would feel about it.

    Mark is a very good lawyer and a very good broadcaster. But his audience expects a certain line of rhetoric and reasoning and he’s very good at supplying it.

    I think perhaps the more pertinent question is why didn’t the Trump legal team listen to Levin or better, why didn’t they hire him?

    It’s hard to follow Mark when he’s ranting, but it sounded like he approved of the Texas suit against PA. You don’t have to be a lawyer to read the clear text of the Article, etc. that Mark mentioned. While I’m not a lawyer and wouldn’t attempt a legal argument, I’d bet I could follow a clear discussion. Mark was pretty ticked off, yelling “SCOTUS has struck again!” He made no attempt all all to hide his disgust with Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, though he didn’t mention ACB, IIRC.

    The real question is whether any of it matters anymore.

    • #48
  19. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

     

    Everyone who wanted to ask a question in that session got their chance. I made sure of that.

    Not every question was aired. 

    • #49
  20. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

     

    We’ve had Mark on the podcast before, although not in a long time.

    I only recall him being on once, many, many years ago. He was excellent as I recall. Have you ever tried booking Rush? He gave a mention to Ricochet once upon a time. 

    • #50
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

     

    We’ve had Mark on the podcast before, although not in a long time.

    I only recall him being on once, many, many years ago. He was excellent as I recall. Have you ever tried booking Rush? He gave a mention to Ricochet once upon a time.

    What I found is Ricochet Podcast #222 – Borderline Crazy, from July 10, 2014.

    And before that, #104: The Death of Marat from February 2, 2012.

    As far as I can tell, these are no longer available through Ricochet, but since I have them all saved, I stand ready to be of service.

     

    He was also a guest a couple other times, such as:

     

    Examining Politics

    John Soloman, James O’Keefe, Mark Levin

    November 5, 2019

     

     

    Hemingway and Concha with Mark Levin

    VectormanBy VectormanVectorman   October 8, 2018   

    I’ll Take Mark Levin Anytime

    FrancoBy FrancoFranco   August 14, 2014 

    • #51
  22. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

     

    We’ve had Mark on the podcast before, although not in a long time.

    I only recall him being on once, many, many years ago. He was excellent as I recall. Have you ever tried booking Rush? He gave a mention to Ricochet once upon a time.

    What I found is Ricochet Podcast #222 – Borderline Crazy, from July 10, 2014.

    And before that, #104: The Death of Marat from February 2, 2012.

    As far as I can tell, these are no longer available through Ricochet, but since I have them all saved, I stand ready to be of service.

     

    He was also a guest a couple other times, such as:

     

    Examining Politics

    John Soloman, James O’Keefe, Mark Levin

    November 5, 2019

     

     

    Hemingway and Concha with Mark Levin

    VectormanBy VectormanVectorman | October 8, 2018

    I’ll Take Mark Levin Anytime

    FrancoBy FrancoFranco | August 14, 2014

    Oh yes, I’ll bet James O’Keefe would love to tell us what he’s been up to these days. 

    • #52
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):
    Oh yes, I’ll bet James O’Keefe would love to tell us what he’s been up to these days. 

    His recent activities have shown up in some Member Feed posts.

    • #53
  24. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Conservatives have always held that the side that Alito and Thomas came down on was the right one, until now for some reason.

    Many conservatives are anti-Trump.  They would flip on a dime if the nominee had been Nikki Haley, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio, etc.  They would wonder what had happened to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Roberts. 

    They just want Trump GONE. 

    They fail to realize that if Trump is gone that the next Republican presidential nominee is going to be someone else they don’t like or respect such as Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Ben Carson, etc.

    If Nikki Haley, Mitch Daniels, or Marco Rubio said that they felt that there were a truckload of affidavits that indicated that the election had been stolen, all the establishment conservatives would get in line.  However, many conservative writers have less respect for President Trump than Bozo the Clown.

    • #54
  25. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):
    However, many conservative writers

    I think we need to come up with a new term for them. Conservative implies they’re actually concerned with preserving America, rather than just the GOP position within it. 

    • #55
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):
    However, many conservative writers

    I think we need to come up with a new term for them. Conservative implies they’re actually concerned with preserving America, rather than just the GOP position within it.

    Maybe they should be the conservatives because they’re willing to conserve whatever the left leaves them, but we’re the originalists as are our judges.

    • #56
  27. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Why assume that you or me or any other Ricochet members would or could ask John Yoo the questions that really need to be asked, or that we could get them through even if we knew what they were?

    Everyone who wanted to ask a question in that session got their chance. I made sure of that. In yesterday’s podcast, a member of the audience asked a question, but we were unable to get to it due to time issues. I got him an answer from John later by text.

    That’s one of the reasons why John Yoo needs to defend his assertions and his positions, not to me, but to someone like John Eastman or even Mark Levin.

    John does not need to do anything. He does these hits for us because he wants to. He’ll be just fine if he doesn’t debate Levin or Eastman.

    Meanwhile it’s worth noting that Mark Levin and his associates through the Landmark Legal Foundation have won cases in federal courts, including the Supreme Court. I haven’t found any similar accomplishments for John Yoo.

    You should do some Googling on what a legal scholar does, but also, there is a ton of legal work and consulting done by legal academics that goes on behind the scenes. And that’s all I can say about that.

    As a conservative academic, John Yoo is on thin ice, always in danger of being excluded, shunned, ostracized (which means “banished” in Ancient Greek).

    First Progressive:  “Shouldn’t we destroy John Yoo with made-up charges of racism or sexual harassment?  Remember, ‘all women must be believed’, as long as they are accusing a right-winger.”

    Second Progressive:  “Let’s hold back for now. Yoo is carrying water for us, by undermining the stolen election narrative from the ‘right’.”

    Survival can be a bitch!

    • #57
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Why assume that you or me or any other Ricochet members would or could ask John Yoo the questions that really need to be asked, or that we could get them through even if we knew what they were?

    Everyone who wanted to ask a question in that session got their chance. I made sure of that. In yesterday’s podcast, a member of the audience asked a question, but we were unable to get to it due to time issues. I got him an answer from John later by text.

    That’s one of the reasons why John Yoo needs to defend his assertions and his positions, not to me, but to someone like John Eastman or even Mark Levin.

    John does not need to do anything. He does these hits for us because he wants to. He’ll be just fine if he doesn’t debate Levin or Eastman.

    Meanwhile it’s worth noting that Mark Levin and his associates through the Landmark Legal Foundation have won cases in federal courts, including the Supreme Court. I haven’t found any similar accomplishments for John Yoo.

    You should do some Googling on what a legal scholar does, but also, there is a ton of legal work and consulting done by legal academics that goes on behind the scenes. And that’s all I can say about that.

    As a conservative academic, John Yoo is on thin ice, always in danger of being excluded, shunned, ostracized (which means “banished” in Ancient Greek).

    First Progressive: “Shouldn’t we destroy John Yoo with made-up charges of racism or sexual harassment? Remember, ‘all women must be believed’, as long as they are accusing a right-winger.”

    Second Progressive: “Let’s hold back for now. Yoo is carrying water for us, by undermining the stolen election narrative from the ‘right’.”

    Survival can be a bitch!

    Has some #metoo’d Yoo?

    • #58
  29. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Taras (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Why assume that you or me or any other Ricochet members would or could ask John Yoo the questions that really need to be asked, or that we could get them through even if we knew what they were?

    Everyone who wanted to ask a question in that session got their chance. I made sure of that. In yesterday’s podcast, a member of the audience asked a question, but we were unable to get to it due to time issues. I got him an answer from John later by text.

    That’s one of the reasons why John Yoo needs to defend his assertions and his positions, not to me, but to someone like John Eastman or even Mark Levin.

    John does not need to do anything. He does these hits for us because he wants to. He’ll be just fine if he doesn’t debate Levin or Eastman.

    Meanwhile it’s worth noting that Mark Levin and his associates through the Landmark Legal Foundation have won cases in federal courts, including the Supreme Court. I haven’t found any similar accomplishments for John Yoo.

    You should do some Googling on what a legal scholar does, but also, there is a ton of legal work and consulting done by legal academics that goes on behind the scenes. And that’s all I can say about that.

    As a conservative academic, John Yoo is on thin ice, always in danger of being excluded, shunned, ostracized (which means “banished” in Ancient Greek).

    First Progressive: “Shouldn’t we destroy John Yoo with made-up charges of racism or sexual harassment? Remember, ‘all women must be believed’, as long as they are accusing a right-winger.”

    Second Progressive: “Let’s hold back for now. Yoo is carrying water for us, by undermining the stolen election narrative from the ‘right’.”

    Survival can be a bitch!

    John Yoo was involved with defending Guantanamo Bay. I don’t think to accuse him of being a MeToo RINO.

    • #59
  30. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Why assume that you or me or any other Ricochet members would or could ask John Yoo the questions that really need to be asked, or that we could get them through even if we knew what they were?

    Everyone who wanted to ask a question in that session got their chance. I made sure of that. In yesterday’s podcast, a member of the audience asked a question, but we were unable to get to it due to time issues. I got him an answer from John later by text.

    That’s one of the reasons why John Yoo needs to defend his assertions and his positions, not to me, but to someone like John Eastman or even Mark Levin.

    John does not need to do anything. He does these hits for us because he wants to. He’ll be just fine if he doesn’t debate Levin or Eastman.

    Meanwhile it’s worth noting that Mark Levin and his associates through the Landmark Legal Foundation have won cases in federal courts, including the Supreme Court. I haven’t found any similar accomplishments for John Yoo.

    You should do some Googling on what a legal scholar does, but also, there is a ton of legal work and consulting done by legal academics that goes on behind the scenes. And that’s all I can say about that.

    As a conservative academic, John Yoo is on thin ice, always in danger of being excluded, shunned, ostracized (which means “banished” in Ancient Greek).

    First Progressive: “Shouldn’t we destroy John Yoo with made-up charges of racism or sexual harassment? Remember, ‘all women must be believed’, as long as they are accusing a right-winger.”

    Second Progressive: “Let’s hold back for now. Yoo is carrying water for us, by undermining the stolen election narrative from the ‘right’.”

    Survival can be a bitch!

    John Yoo was involved with defending Guantanamo Bay. I don’t think to accuse him of being a MeToo RINO.

    I wouldn’t go that far, either.  But the pressure to conform is always there.

    It is only human to be relieved that, for once, your colleagues will approve of what you are doing.

     

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.