Writings and observations

stapiluslogo1

Our justice system is going through a quiet revolution, away from what you often see on TV.

There you see disputes – from murder cases to divorces to civil money-claims lawsuits – hashed out in trials, in open court. You can’t blame the drama writers: It’s the entertaining way.

But if you go to watch the action at your local courthouse, you won’t see much of it, at least not out in the open. Compared to a generation ago, far more cases are settled away from trials, away from the courts, as a part of a deal-making process.

This comes to mind as I think about a new book (which – disclosure here – I helped publish), called Mediation Mechanisms, by Duff McKee, a retired fourth district judge who has mediated a couple of thousand or so cases. (The book is available at ridenbaughpress.com, at Amazon.com and elsewhere.) His book is about how mediation works, on a practical level.

He also writes, “When I began practicing law in the mid-1960s, it was a concession of weakness to be the first one to bring up the subject of settlement. This meant that the other lawyer had to raise the subject first if the case was to get settled. This led to bizarre communications between lawyers dying to discuss settlement without either one appearing to be the first one to utter the question, ‘Can’t we settle this?’”

Now things have changed, most especially the ballooning cost of litigation and crowded court calendars which led to more judges imploring lawyers to settle the dispute out of court, and to clients who can’t afford the public show. The costs, especially for such things as discovery, document research, expert assistance and more, can put the cost of civil action out of reach for most people.

These days, McKee said, “the settlement process is now primary in the minds of most litigators and most judges. Trial calendars with multiple settings are a fact of life, with cases stacked four to six deep, in the full expectation that five out of six scheduled cases will settle before trial.”

A few weeks ago I talked this over with a couple of long-established Boise lawyers, and they strongly agreed. One said that two or three decades ago lawyers at his firm would spend much of their time at or preparing for trial; so far this year, by contrast, only about one in ten attorneys there have undertaken even a single trial.

Another attorney I’ve known for several decades shifted several years ago from work in litigation and trials to almost exclusively working in mediation and arbitration.

As McKee said, “the civil case mediation has come of age in our system.”

That has its good points and some not so good. On the good side, settlements can lead to more compromises and to resolutions that can be fairer all around; many legal cases really aren’t all black and white, and many cry out for some answer that encourages each side to give a little. Many people may come out of the system less damaged.

The downside is that not all cases are like that, and our legal system should have a practical way to come to grips with right and wrong. Sometimes someone really should be put in the position of having to pay, and someone ought to be clearly vindicated.

Ironically, or maybe not, as we’ve moved into ever-sharper “win-lose” divisions in our politics and policy, we seem to be moving into a legal system edging toward thoughtful discussion and compromise.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus

richardson

In a recent interview with Reuters, the president claimed his administration “had done more in five months than practically any president in history.”

My first reaction was to laugh. But maybe the president is right. I suppose it all depends on what he meant by “more.”

Perhaps by “more,” Trump meant he has done more to alienate and offend our long-time allies, countries like Germany, France, and Great Britain, by equivocating about his commitment to the North Atlantic alliance.

Or maybe he meant he has done more to isolate the U.S. from virtually every country on earth by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

Possibly, Trump meant he has picked more unprovoked fights with major U.S. trading partners like China, Mexico, Canada, and South Korea.

And he might have meant he has done more to relinquish the U.S. role as world leader to the benefit of Russia and China.

Perhaps Trump meant he has done more to model petulant and spiteful behavior by never accepting responsibility, always blaming and often bullying others, making ridiculous excuses when things don’t go his way, and treating those who disagree with him as enemies, best dealt with by threats rather than civil discourse.

He could have meant he has done more to move the GOP further away from the once-proud legacy of Lincoln and Eisenhower and closer to the odious views of David Duke.

The president may have meant he has done more to attack the “western values” he pretends to champion by assaulting the First Amendment, attacking our independent judiciary, denigrating minority rights, and ignoring all manner of democratic (with a lower case “d”) norms.

Perchance Trump meant he has done more to dumb-down our national dialog by routinely communicating in unintelligible bursts of 140 characters.

Or perhaps he meant he has appointed more inept and ideologically extreme cabinet members, people like Betsy DeVos, Rex Tillerson, Scott Pruitt, and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

Presumably, Trump meant he has shown more admiration for greedy dictators who suppress dissent, blithely torturing and terrorizing their countrymen, while enjoying the spoils of graft and corruption.

Arguably, Trump meant he has done more to distract and deceive the American people, nowhere more egregiously than as to his ties to Russia, the hostile nation that attacked the heart of our republic by grossly interfering in the 2016 election.
If Trump was referring to any or all of the above “accomplishments,” I would have to agree – no president in history has done more.

Share on Facebook

Richardson

carlson

Every state has a handful of elected officials who are the glue that hold the government together. They are the folks who see public servce as a noble calling to serve others. They labor often in anonymity. They do not seek the limelight. They treat all voters, regardless of party with respect.

They do not subject themselves to the slings and arrows of outraged constituents who all too often do not have their facts straight for the pay which is often laughably parsimonious, nor any alleged glory. They patiently listen because that is part of the job, and then they respectfully correct and educate.

They understand that politics involves compromise, that the voters expect they will be part of the solution to challenges not part of the problem. They seldom raise their voice, but when they do speak others listen. They command respect because they do their homework and speak knowledgeably.

Sometimes they are in leadership, sometimes they are not. Lobbyists and media who cover government know who these “go to” folks are.

For the past 20 years Idaho’s State Senate has been blessed with two of these indispensable individuals, Senator and Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, and Senator and Joint Finance co-chair Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint. This past week brought the news that both will be leaving the Legislature, Davis to become U.S. attorney for Idaho, and Keough to return to private life to resume full-time her position as executive director of the Idaho Logging Contractor’s Association.

Of the two Keough is the least known which suits her just fine. She quietly labored in obscurity on the Joint Finance and Appropriations committee, the Legislature’s most powerful committee (it sets the budget) for a number of years, finally ascending to the Senate co-chair post in her tenth term.

She has navigated the shoals and reefs on a number of issues, not the least of which has been consistently strong support for fully funding k-12 education that often found her out of step with a governor and colleagues who in past years seriously underfunded public education.

Her moderation coupled with compassionate constitutional conservatism nonetheless made her a target for the Tea Party faction of the GOP, the hard right wing nuts who demand ideological purity and adherence to downright absurd views such as abolishing the 17th amendment that provides for direct election of U.S.senators.

Her decency and competency as well as solid constituent service along with a steely discipline inside her velvet gloves enabled her to beat back viciously personal primary challenges orchestrated primarily by State Rep. Heather Scott and her surrogates.

Despite personal threats she fearlessly showed up at most campaign forums during her last three elections and, despite the vitriol, her “here are the facts style” often quieted the zealots.

Over the years she has personified the best a citizen legislator can be. She and her husband, Mike, successfully raised two children, one a Vandal, the other a Bronco, and walked the talk of family values that so few political figures actually practice.

Though petite and soft spoken she could play hardball when she had to do so. When Avista’s lobbyist, Neil Colwell, took part in an ill-conceived move by Keough’s Republican Senate colleague from Coeur d’Alene, State Senator Bob Nonini, and sponsored four Republican primary challengers to incumbent Republican state senators, she banned Colwell from her office.

Recognizing the stupid error, Avista chair Scott Morris drove to Sandpoint to apologize in person for the almost incomprehensible move. For his part Senator Nonini later apologized personally and made amends. Demonstrating a graciousness hard to fathom, Keough reportedly forgave Nonini’s egregious breach of protocal.

For someone born in New Jersey and raised in Ohio, Keough, who migrated to Idaho when she was 19, has become a true Idahoan – intelligent, independent, compassionate, conservative, a person of her word, the personification of honor, decency and competency. Idaho’s citizens are all better off because people like Bart Davis and Shawn Keough chose to answer the call of public service. They will be truly missed. When you next see either be sure and thank them for that service.

Share on Facebook

Carlson

jones

Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill, House Speaker Scott Bedke and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney are to be commended for proposing to tighten up campaign finance and ethics laws.

While there has been a great deal of discussion regarding this subject over the years, there has been too little action. I hope that the working group will look at several measures that did not appear in media reports about the working group’s first meeting – disclosure of the identity of owners of business entity campaign contributors; limitation of expenditures by parties making independent expenditures to support or oppose a candidate for public office; more frequent reporting of contributions; and establishment of an independent commission to investigate complaints of violation of the Sunshine Act and conduct studies of campaign and ethics issues.

Twenty years ago, the Legislature approved House Concurrent Resolution 27, which established a special committee to study campaign and ethics issues and to recommend reforms, much like the charge of the current working group. The five-member working group included former Chief Justice Charles McDevitt and former Governor Cecil Andrus. I was appointed to the committee by legislative leadership and ended up chairing the committee. The committee met twice to receive testimony and recommendations from the public.

The 1997 committee recommended six specific proposals to the Legislature. No action was taken on any of the proposals. House Bill 546, which provided for the creation of a Political and Campaign Finance and Ethics Commission, was printed and assigned to the State Affairs Committee, but stalled out there. This is still a good idea because, as explained at the time, such a permanent committee could “continuously review the effectiveness” of the ethics statutes and recommend needed changes. The text of House Bill 546 can be found on the Legislature’s website for the 1998 session.

Recent elections have disclosed that some individuals skirt contribution limits by funneling contributions through corporations or other business entities they own. It is not always easy to determine the true identity of such contributors. Rather than prohibiting contributions by such entities, the Legislature should require disclosure of the names of persons who have ownership interests of 25% or more in such business entities.

We have also seen sizable advertising campaigns to support or oppose candidates through independent expenditures. While independent expenditures must be reported to the Secretary of State, there does not appear to be any limitation on the amount that may be spend on such an effort. Persons or entities making independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates should be subject to the same limits as are imposed on political contributors.

More frequent reporting of contributions should be required. The 7-day pre-election report does not give the public an adequate opportunity to see who is supporting a candidate. If there is something amiss, the media is often reluctant to report it at that late date for fear of being accused of unfairness. I would suggest adding 30 and 60 pre-election reporting requirements for both primary and general elections.

Candidates should also be required to report expenses as they are incurred, not when payment of the expense is made. There can be a significant gap between the two times and candidates often try to disguise how much they are spending by only reporting an expense when the check finally goes out the door.

This endeavor to bring more transparency and honesty to the election process is a worthy one and I wish Hill, Bedke and Denney success in their efforts.

Share on Facebook

Jones

rainey

I’m someone who spends a good deal of time writing. Always have. So, I’m into words because they’re the basis of the craft. Always like to find new ones. A few days ago, I came across a dandy.

KAKISTOCRACY. It’s fun to say. Any idea what it means? Or, like me, is this the first time you’re heard of it?

Well, boys and girls, the old dictionary on the shelf defines it this way: “Kakistocracy – government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.”

Next time someone talks to you about America being a “democracy” or a “republic,” you whip out the old Funk & Wagnalls and lay “kakistocracy” on ‘em. ‘Cause the fact is, at the moment, that seems to describe us more accurately.

With any luck at all, it won’t always be that way. If the justice system doesn’t eventually get the current bunch, we’ll have to take ‘em out at the polls. At least that’s the hope at this house.

But there’s an open question. And that’s whether the liar in the Oval Office has taken America’s political fortunes to such a low level that future participants will see his as an acceptable standard. Will role models for future candidates for the presidency continue to be Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt or Eisenhower? Or Trump? Will his blend of lies, arrogance, extreme cronyism and dictatorial behavior be the norm or will the electorate turn to more traditional two-party nominees who’ll try to raise the standards of the presidency?

The answer to that, seems to me, depends on us. Not them. Will we reject this political abnormality and demand – with our votes – a return to civility, a renewed attempt at honesty and a demand for a higher moral code? Will we – with our educated support and with our ballots – select more highly qualified candidates? Maybe not.

The reason for my pessimism is based on poll after poll, survey after survey of citizens in countries around the globe. Polls and surveys measuring what people know about their system of government, their economies and their history.

The nearly unanimous result of all this statistical prying is that we Americans are just about the least knowledgeable about those basic articles of citizenship among all industrial nations. Not just poor knowledge of our governmental structure but real ignorance.

Now, there’s a new corollary showing up. Not only is the American general public more ignorant of our history and governance – we’re also the most dedicated to the falsehoods and myths associated with those categories. Put another way – many who don’t know the basic civics of how this country operates have their own “facts” and are likely to reject real information.

Adding to this lack of knowledge – or belief in mythical facts – is a growing ignorance in the national media of just these same subjects. Examples aren’t hard to come by. NBC reported last week the Governor of Illinois “passed a bill” on some subject. Legislatures “pass bills” not governors. A similar story from New York had the legislature “passing a law.” Legislatures pass bills, not laws. When signed by a governor, bills become law.

Small items to be sure. But wrong. Would you accept “small” errors from your surgeon or a pilot or your banker or your lawyer? “Small errors” left unchecked work their way into our information system and become “facts.” When repeated, more people accept them. People who hear them without knowing the difference become “wrongly” educated. So the error is perpetuated. And accepted.

The value of an educated voter cannot be overstated. But the lasting damage caused by someone ignorant of the political system he/she lives under can be disastrous. Think of all the B.S. we heard in 2016 about wanting an “outsider” for president; someone with “no political experience.” Well, if that was you, you got what you wanted. “How’s that working out for ya? “

The likelihood that significantly more prospective voters will become better informed about our civic and political structure by 2020 – much less by 2018 – is not realistic. About the best we can hope for is there is a reverse education component at work. That disappointment in the 2016 outcome and what it has wrought upon this country has been, in itself, that education.

If not – if more knowledgeable voters stay home – if we repeat the electoral tragedy of the past – we’d all better get more comfortable with that word “kakistocracy.” K-a-k-i-s-t-o-c-r-a-c-y.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

Water rights weekly report for July 17. For much more news, links and detail, see the National Water Rights Digest.

A water adjudication in the Pojoaque Basin north of Sante Fe that has been ongoing for 51 years was ended on June 14 with a final judgment and decree issued by federal Judge William P. Johnson. The adjudication, dubbed the Aamodt case after the Los Alamos researcher (R. Lee Aamodt ) whose name was first listed among the defendants, has been in the process of settlement for a long time.

South Dakota may by the only state to bar withdrawal of more groundwater than is replenished into the system – as a specific limit set by state law. The subject came up at a July 12 meeting of the state Watrer Management Board, when member said they were unaware of any other state with a similar law in place.

A plan to allow for diversion of excess water from the basins of the Platte River to the Republican River in Nebraska reached a rough agreement on July 13 with a favorable vote by the board of the Lower Republican Natural Resources District.

The seemingly unlikely legal hammer of eminent domain has become the weapon of choice for low-population Inyo County as it seeks to reclaim water from Los Angeles.

Rebecca Mitchell, who played an instrumental role in production of Colorado’s Water Plan, has been named the new director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Share on Facebook

Digests

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for July 17. Interested in subscribing? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

The United States Senate on July 12 unanimously confirmed Judge David C. Nye to serve as U.S. District Judge for the District of Idaho. Idaho Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch welcomed the Senate’s timely action in confirming the first of President Donald Trump’s U.S. District Judge nominees.

Representative Mike Simpson on July 12 said the Fiscal Year 2018 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill protects funding for the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, and cleanup activities in Idaho.

Idaho’s surging economy produced $29 million more than projected in State tax revenue in June and almost $94 million more than economists expected for the fiscal year that ended June 30, enabling the State to meet the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget while beefing up its rainy day fund.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has determined that five proposed battery storage facilities qualify for contracts under PURPA based on their primary energy source, making them eligible for two-year, negotiated contracts with Idaho Power.

Representative Mike Simpson on July 143 praised U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke for his announcement that Craters of the Moon National Monument is no longer under review. Further, the Secretary will recommend that no modifications should be made to the monuments.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has scheduled a public hearing regarding Idaho Power Company’s proposal to construct a new transmission line in the Wood River Valley.

Share on Facebook

Briefings

stapiluslogo1

In a state legislature of 105 people, the shift or departure of only a few key people can make a big difference. And with a couple of recent announcements, the Idaho Legislature may change in the next couple of years more than it has in upwards of a decade.

The majority leadership of the Senate and House of Representatives has been remarkably stable – static? – for a long time; the players hardly ever change. In this millennium, the Senate has had but two top leaders (pro tems) – longevity unprecedented in the Idaho Senate’s history. The position of Senate majority leader has been even more stable: Since 2003, that job has been held by Idaho Falls Senator Bart Davis. Next session, assuming his (highly likely) confirmation by the U.S. Senate, he will leave to become Idaho’s U.S. attorney.

That means a shift in Senate leadership, and depending on how that goes the majority caucus could wind up sounding more ideological than it has. Davis has been a cooler personality, and has been something of a cooling factor in the Senate. With his departure, that governor may be gone, or at least be diminished.

Last week came another major change in a legislative long-timer when Senator Shawn Keough of Sandpoint announced her legislative retirement. She is co-chair of the legislature’s budget-writing panel (the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee), and while she’s relatively new to the chairmanship, she was co-chair for a long time before. (Keough is in her 11th term in the Senate.) With the prospective retirement next year as well of the veteran House co-chair, Maxine Bell of Jerome, the budget committee will see some significant leadership shifts in the 2019 session.

The budget panel long has been a place for the ideological and the pragmatic to do battle – there’s never a place better to do that than on a field of money. For years, and for most of its history, JFAC has been run primarily by pragmatists. (Dean Cameron, now the state director of the Department of Insurance, was for many years Keough’s predecessor at Senate Finance.) But while the chairmanship of JFAC usually goes to the next most senior member, you can never be entirely sure of that.

And chairmanships, like other committee memberships, are determined by the Senate and House leaders. The departure of Davis in the Senate could unleash some pent-up agitation and frustration, and the possibility of serious leadership contests after the next election, of a sort more intense than the Statehouse has seen in quite a few years, is a live possibility.

And there’s one more change coming around the bend: A new Idaho governor, after a dozen years.

Probably a Brad Little governorship would not in itself lead to drastic changes at the Legislature. However, a win by U.S. Representative Raul Labrador (himself a former Idaho House member) or businessman Tommy Ahlquist could have all kinds of impacts. If one of them wins the Republican nomination many Republicans, including many legislative Republicans, are likely to read that as an overturning of the GOP establishment. And that in turn could accelerate leadership challenges and contests unlike any Idaho has seen for a while.

Things are shaking up.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus

richardson

I admire John McCain for his military service to our country but I find his political behavior extremely disappointing. Although McCain is a frequent and outspoken critic of Trump’s abhorrent conduct, he remains a reliable supporter of Trump’s agenda. McCain leads us to think he will call out the president once and for all, and then – at the last moment – scurries back into the party fold, unwilling to draw any line in the GOP sand.

But McCain has been consistently right on one point that bears special focus in light of recent events: Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer.

When Trump nominated Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state, McCain critically noted that Tillerson had received Russia’s “Order of Friendship,” award, given to foreign nationals who promote relations with Russia, directly from Vladimir Putin. Tillerson received the award after signing deals with the state-owned Russian oil company to drill in the Arctic. McCain said, “I would never accept an award from Vladimir Putin because then you . . . give some credence and credibility to this butcher, this KGB agent. . . .”
Indeed, in Putin’s Russia, political opponents – those who aren’t fortunate enough to be exiled for decades to Siberian work camps – are simply murdered. There is no concept of minority rights. The territory of neighboring countries is forcefully annexed; and brutal dictators, like Syria’s Bashar Assad, enjoy Russian military support.

Trump’s “bromance” with Putin has long been troubling. Last year, when Joe Scarborough confronted Trump about Putins’s extensive record of atrocities, Trump’s answer was chilling: “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.” He added, “I’ve always felt fine about Putin. He’s a strong leader. He’s a powerful leader.”

Now, after his obsequious conduct at the G-20 meeting, Trump has shown himself to be much more than Putin’s fanboy: He is Putin’s puppet, an apologist for the Kremlin.

An American president does not say he is “honored” to meet a foreign despot whose hands are dripping with innocent blood. An American president does not denounce another American president and disparage the American media on foreign soil. An American president does not discredit the unanimous findings of American intelligence agencies and instead countenance empty denials from the man who orchestrated an unprecedented attack on our most cherished institutions.

The president has demonstrated time and time again that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. What will it take for the likes of John McCain to stand up to Trump, to urge invocation of the 25th Amendment or call for impeachment?

By even suggesting the U.S. should work with Russia to stop cyberattacks, Trump offers to give aid and comfort to our nation’s adversary, the corrupt regime whose attack on our national election was tantamount to an act of war. Trump will not protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. Instead, he will deliver us to them. If that isn’t grounds for removal, I don’t know what is.

Share on Facebook

Richardson

carlson

Largely due to my Parkinson’s disease I have unusually vivid dreams. I don’t sleep walk, but I do sing, recite poetry, give speeches, get into fights and occasionally cut loose with a profanity.

When I awake I can recall in detail just what the dream was about.

For example, I awoke from a dream the other night by a sense that the house was moving and I was in an earthquake. There are earthquakes, and then there are earthquakes.

Turns out my dream processing was not all fantasy, that I was indeed experiencing a modest earthquake whose epicenter was only about 70 miles distant near Lincoln, Montana. Around 11:35 p.m. I snapped awake in time to see the entire house move slightly. To say the least it was surprising. As quakes go, this one was relatively weak and short (5.2 on the Richter scale and only about 15 seconds).

The dream I was having had a current context to it. Psychologists tell us we often “work on and process” challenges and problems confronting us while we sleep and dream. In my dream I was trying to work out what a probable solution could be to the debacle that Donald Trump, our 46th president, is presenting.

I’ve seen enough, heard enough and watched enough that I believe he will ultimately be impeached, and if he does not resign he will be convicted and removed as provided by the Constitution. That he lies constantly is incontestable. That he is deliberately trying to stomp on the media’s first amendment rights is undeniable.

That he has neither the historical sense nor the moral context to make decisions that could see literally millions of people die should frighten the bejesus out of any thinking person. That he is a misogynist with no respect for women has been demonstrated all too frequently.

The one due I will grant this inept and unqualified to be president individual is the obvious: he is one hell ‘uv a marketeer. He knows how to sell the Trump brand and operates on the thesis that as long as they spell his name correctly there is no such thing as bad news.

The exception though is he can’t take criticism – he can dish it out but he can’t take it.

So what’s the answer? In my dream I found the solution, but of course the cold face of reality will never see a scenario like my fantasy unfold. In the interest of promoting readers to come up with their own legal solution here is the fantasy interrupted by a real earthquake.

Take it as a given that Russian President Vlad Putin has some sort of grip on Trump. It is the classical Faustian bargain with the devil. Keep in mind that Arizona Senator John McCain characterizes Putin as a cold-blooded KGB-trained killer.

What’s the nature of the “hold?” Your guess is as good as mine. It ranges from provable material regarding campaign collusion at the very top to Putin possibly possessing film of Trump cavorting with Russian prostitutes during an early days visit to Moscow, to incriminating acceptance of Russian generated funds diverted into Trump’s campaign.

By whatever means—Putin orchestrates a leak, or the Post or New York Times uncovers “smoking gun”evidence – it all becomes public and Trump, facing impeachment, conviction and certain removal, resigns the presidency.

Vice President Mike Spence then in my fantasy becomes president just long enough to pardon Trump. Pence then resigns which means the line of succession now leads to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Ryan, however, recognizes that he, like Pence, is too tainted by Trump to try to bring people together. So he resigns the Speakership (but not his congressional seat). Now hear is where my fantasy gets “creative.”

The Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution one little known concession to the Parliamentary form of government. Believe it or not, the Speaker does not have to be a current member of the House. The House can elect any person they want as long as they meet the age and natural birth requirement.

This allows for the representatives to choose a man or a woman for the times, someone who stands out as particularly well placed to become the next leader.

It allows the Liberal Party in Canada, for example, to elect as the party leader a Justin Trudeau, give him a safe riding to represent and be elected from, and then, if his party has a majority in a national election to become the new prime minister.

So, who in my dream did I see as the successor to Trump to be the answer to the prayers of most sane people? The answer is Ohio Governor John Kasich, the only major Republican with enough guts to refuse to endorse Trump.

Now there would be a real political earthquake well worth waking up to and hope it becomes a reality.

Share on Facebook

Carlson