Michael Bokar
@bokarmic.bsky.social
Former NJ Senior Deputy Attorney General. I applaud people who mistakenly voted for Trump in 2016 but had the good sense and decency to go the other way in subsequent elections.
It’s true that blacks continually vote Democratic in much higher percentages than whites.
But as I suggested to Earl in the post below, this doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for Trump—white, black or otherwise—must be a racist or a villain.
bsky.app/profile/boka...
But as I suggested to Earl in the post below, this doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for Trump—white, black or otherwise—must be a racist or a villain.
bsky.app/profile/boka...
I detest Trump as a person and as the leader of his country and party no less than you. But I think it’s wrong to assume that everyone who voted for him must ipso facto be racist or morally bankrupt, although some—perhaps many—surely are.
November 29, 2025 at 10:33 PM
It’s true that blacks continually vote Democratic in much higher percentages than whites.
But as I suggested to Earl in the post below, this doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for Trump—white, black or otherwise—must be a racist or a villain.
bsky.app/profile/boka...
But as I suggested to Earl in the post below, this doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for Trump—white, black or otherwise—must be a racist or a villain.
bsky.app/profile/boka...
I detest Trump as a person and as the leader of his country and party no less than you. But I think it’s wrong to assume that everyone who voted for him must ipso facto be racist or morally bankrupt, although some—perhaps many—surely are.
November 29, 2025 at 8:33 PM
I detest Trump as a person and as the leader of his country and party no less than you. But I think it’s wrong to assume that everyone who voted for him must ipso facto be racist or morally bankrupt, although some—perhaps many—surely are.
Making broad judgments about people’s moral character based on their race, as seen here, is just another form of racism.
Are all the millions of people who voted for Trump because, for instance, they couldn’t afford the price of groceries or were fed up with mass illegal immigration racist or evil?
Are all the millions of people who voted for Trump because, for instance, they couldn’t afford the price of groceries or were fed up with mass illegal immigration racist or evil?
November 29, 2025 at 4:50 PM
Making broad judgments about people’s moral character based on their race, as seen here, is just another form of racism.
Are all the millions of people who voted for Trump because, for instance, they couldn’t afford the price of groceries or were fed up with mass illegal immigration racist or evil?
Are all the millions of people who voted for Trump because, for instance, they couldn’t afford the price of groceries or were fed up with mass illegal immigration racist or evil?
The fate of the ACA subsidies is a crucial part of the tale of the eight renegade Democrats, but not the only part.
Millions were struggling to feed their families. Federal employees weren’t being paid. Flying was difficult and dangerous. And there was no indication that Republicans would cave.
Millions were struggling to feed their families. Federal employees weren’t being paid. Flying was difficult and dangerous. And there was no indication that Republicans would cave.
November 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
The fate of the ACA subsidies is a crucial part of the tale of the eight renegade Democrats, but not the only part.
Millions were struggling to feed their families. Federal employees weren’t being paid. Flying was difficult and dangerous. And there was no indication that Republicans would cave.
Millions were struggling to feed their families. Federal employees weren’t being paid. Flying was difficult and dangerous. And there was no indication that Republicans would cave.
Michelle is wrong. It sounds like she’s creating phony covers for not wanting to run.
Hillary’s three-million vote margin over Trump in 2016 shows that a woman could indeed win the presidency. And the two victories by Michelle’s husband are proof that skin color is no barrier to success.
Hillary’s three-million vote margin over Trump in 2016 shows that a woman could indeed win the presidency. And the two victories by Michelle’s husband are proof that skin color is no barrier to success.
November 16, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Michelle is wrong. It sounds like she’s creating phony covers for not wanting to run.
Hillary’s three-million vote margin over Trump in 2016 shows that a woman could indeed win the presidency. And the two victories by Michelle’s husband are proof that skin color is no barrier to success.
Hillary’s three-million vote margin over Trump in 2016 shows that a woman could indeed win the presidency. And the two victories by Michelle’s husband are proof that skin color is no barrier to success.
The law isn’t quite as stated in the post:
Section 287(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes ICE agents to interrogate “any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.” This authority “applies in all areas of the country.”
Section 287(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes ICE agents to interrogate “any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.” This authority “applies in all areas of the country.”
October 11, 2025 at 3:25 PM
The law isn’t quite as stated in the post:
Section 287(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes ICE agents to interrogate “any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.” This authority “applies in all areas of the country.”
Section 287(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes ICE agents to interrogate “any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.” This authority “applies in all areas of the country.”
Trump and his minions deserve condemnation for advocating the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel and the cancellation of Stephen Colbert.
But a strong case can be made that primary anger should be directed at ABC and CBS for caving to the wishes of tyrants disguised as government officials.
But a strong case can be made that primary anger should be directed at ABC and CBS for caving to the wishes of tyrants disguised as government officials.
September 20, 2025 at 9:23 PM
Trump and his minions deserve condemnation for advocating the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel and the cancellation of Stephen Colbert.
But a strong case can be made that primary anger should be directed at ABC and CBS for caving to the wishes of tyrants disguised as government officials.
But a strong case can be made that primary anger should be directed at ABC and CBS for caving to the wishes of tyrants disguised as government officials.
You DO need constitutional amendments to change the existing qualifications for the presidency or the maximum time in office of members of Congress.
September 20, 2025 at 7:35 PM
You DO need constitutional amendments to change the existing qualifications for the presidency or the maximum time in office of members of Congress.
There must be something in the air in South Carolina that produces jurists like Judge Gosnell and legislators like these:
September 17, 2025 at 9:37 PM
There must be something in the air in South Carolina that produces jurists like Judge Gosnell and legislators like these:
It seems a bit hyperbolic to say SCOTUS “lifted the ban on racial profiling” in its immigration detention order. Here’s Justice Kavanaugh’s explanation of the Court’s ruling:
September 10, 2025 at 6:15 PM
It seems a bit hyperbolic to say SCOTUS “lifted the ban on racial profiling” in its immigration detention order. Here’s Justice Kavanaugh’s explanation of the Court’s ruling:
Trump is doing exactly what you suggest, releasing evidence that exonerates him.
The only problem is that the evidence he is releasing—the Ghislaine Maxwell tapes for example—is selective, self-serving and false.
The only problem is that the evidence he is releasing—the Ghislaine Maxwell tapes for example—is selective, self-serving and false.
September 4, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Trump is doing exactly what you suggest, releasing evidence that exonerates him.
The only problem is that the evidence he is releasing—the Ghislaine Maxwell tapes for example—is selective, self-serving and false.
The only problem is that the evidence he is releasing—the Ghislaine Maxwell tapes for example—is selective, self-serving and false.
Rhonda and all the others who voted for Trump in 2024 had eight long years to learn what kind of president and person he is.
They deserve no sympathy for any regrets they now have.
They deserve no sympathy for any regrets they now have.
August 27, 2025 at 3:44 PM
Rhonda and all the others who voted for Trump in 2024 had eight long years to learn what kind of president and person he is.
They deserve no sympathy for any regrets they now have.
They deserve no sympathy for any regrets they now have.
@dearlstephens is right when he says in the post below that it’s wrong to keep treating Trump outrages as “distractions” from other Trump outrages.
Aside from the fact that there’s no way to really know if one thing is a distraction from another, each indignity stands on its own (de)merits.
Aside from the fact that there’s no way to really know if one thing is a distraction from another, each indignity stands on its own (de)merits.
📌"We aren’t distracted, you nitwits, we are wide awake, and furious about ALL OF IT, and wondering when the hell it is people like you will stop worrying about us being 'distracted.'"
📌My latest is up. I mean, if you aren't currently being distracted ...
📌My latest is up. I mean, if you aren't currently being distracted ...
I have grown sick and tired of the word, "distraction.
August 25, 2025 at 8:31 PM
@dearlstephens is right when he says in the post below that it’s wrong to keep treating Trump outrages as “distractions” from other Trump outrages.
Aside from the fact that there’s no way to really know if one thing is a distraction from another, each indignity stands on its own (de)merits.
Aside from the fact that there’s no way to really know if one thing is a distraction from another, each indignity stands on its own (de)merits.
Many of us despise Trump as much as you do, Sarah.
But my reaction to Mark Cuban’s far-fetched hypothetical is that I would gladly lie and compliment Trump for the wonderful things he’s done if the consequence of the falsehood would be a Democratic sweep of Congress.
But my reaction to Mark Cuban’s far-fetched hypothetical is that I would gladly lie and compliment Trump for the wonderful things he’s done if the consequence of the falsehood would be a Democratic sweep of Congress.
August 24, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Many of us despise Trump as much as you do, Sarah.
But my reaction to Mark Cuban’s far-fetched hypothetical is that I would gladly lie and compliment Trump for the wonderful things he’s done if the consequence of the falsehood would be a Democratic sweep of Congress.
But my reaction to Mark Cuban’s far-fetched hypothetical is that I would gladly lie and compliment Trump for the wonderful things he’s done if the consequence of the falsehood would be a Democratic sweep of Congress.
This case is far from over. On procedure, SCOTUS said the challenges to the NIH grant terminations should have been filed in the Court of Federal Claims, not the District Court.
But SCOTUS left in place the District Court’s order declaring unlawful the policy documents justifying the terminations.
But SCOTUS left in place the District Court’s order declaring unlawful the policy documents justifying the terminations.
August 23, 2025 at 2:31 AM
This case is far from over. On procedure, SCOTUS said the challenges to the NIH grant terminations should have been filed in the Court of Federal Claims, not the District Court.
But SCOTUS left in place the District Court’s order declaring unlawful the policy documents justifying the terminations.
But SCOTUS left in place the District Court’s order declaring unlawful the policy documents justifying the terminations.
In his contemporaneous 2020 statement shown below, Bolton explains why for legal reasons he didn’t testify at Trump’s first impeachment hearing.
As for the upcoming Senate trial, he stated: “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”
As for the upcoming Senate trial, he stated: “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”
August 22, 2025 at 6:53 PM
In his contemporaneous 2020 statement shown below, Bolton explains why for legal reasons he didn’t testify at Trump’s first impeachment hearing.
As for the upcoming Senate trial, he stated: “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”
As for the upcoming Senate trial, he stated: “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”
“Lukewarm” about a governor “doing invaluable, necessary work” against Trump and MAGA? About the one governor right now with the guts to respond in kind to the GOP’s gerrymandering assaults on democracy?
Wishy-washy attitudes like this about strong, courageous Dems aren’t the way to win elections.
Wishy-washy attitudes like this about strong, courageous Dems aren’t the way to win elections.
August 21, 2025 at 9:20 PM
“Lukewarm” about a governor “doing invaluable, necessary work” against Trump and MAGA? About the one governor right now with the guts to respond in kind to the GOP’s gerrymandering assaults on democracy?
Wishy-washy attitudes like this about strong, courageous Dems aren’t the way to win elections.
Wishy-washy attitudes like this about strong, courageous Dems aren’t the way to win elections.
Garner, an escaped slave hiding in a relative’s home, was on the verge of capture by Union officers when she killed her 2-year-old child but didn’t have time to stab her 3 other children.
If she had surrendered, the family would have been freed a few years later by the Emancipation Proclamation.
If she had surrendered, the family would have been freed a few years later by the Emancipation Proclamation.
August 20, 2025 at 4:32 PM
Garner, an escaped slave hiding in a relative’s home, was on the verge of capture by Union officers when she killed her 2-year-old child but didn’t have time to stab her 3 other children.
If she had surrendered, the family would have been freed a few years later by the Emancipation Proclamation.
If she had surrendered, the family would have been freed a few years later by the Emancipation Proclamation.
Melania’s jacket inscription, “I really don’t care, do U?,” was fluent enough, I suppose. But like the letter to Putin it was vague. (It was later explained as a reference to her disregard for “fake news.”) And like the letter, we don’t know if it was written by her or, instead, for her.
August 18, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Melania’s jacket inscription, “I really don’t care, do U?,” was fluent enough, I suppose. But like the letter to Putin it was vague. (It was later explained as a reference to her disregard for “fake news.”) And like the letter, we don’t know if it was written by her or, instead, for her.
Assuming it wasn’t AI-generated, the awkward writing in Melania’s letter to Putin is understandable given her unfluency in English.
The problem is the letter’s vagueness. If the topic is the murder of Ukrainian children by Russian missiles, why omit any direct reference to Ukraine or its children?
The problem is the letter’s vagueness. If the topic is the murder of Ukrainian children by Russian missiles, why omit any direct reference to Ukraine or its children?
August 18, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Assuming it wasn’t AI-generated, the awkward writing in Melania’s letter to Putin is understandable given her unfluency in English.
The problem is the letter’s vagueness. If the topic is the murder of Ukrainian children by Russian missiles, why omit any direct reference to Ukraine or its children?
The problem is the letter’s vagueness. If the topic is the murder of Ukrainian children by Russian missiles, why omit any direct reference to Ukraine or its children?
In its 2019 Rucho opinion, SCOTUS said federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide partisan (as opposed to racial) gerrymandering cases, leaving the issue to Congress and the states.
This practice is loathsome, but since Republicans continue to engage in it Democrats have no choice but to retaliate.
This practice is loathsome, but since Republicans continue to engage in it Democrats have no choice but to retaliate.
August 17, 2025 at 7:40 PM
In its 2019 Rucho opinion, SCOTUS said federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide partisan (as opposed to racial) gerrymandering cases, leaving the issue to Congress and the states.
This practice is loathsome, but since Republicans continue to engage in it Democrats have no choice but to retaliate.
This practice is loathsome, but since Republicans continue to engage in it Democrats have no choice but to retaliate.
“Bought-off” denotes acceptance of bribes in exchange for favors—usually illegal or corrupt—to the briber.
Whatever one thinks of Jeffries as a person or as a politician, in what realistic sense can he be called bought-off?
Whatever one thinks of Jeffries as a person or as a politician, in what realistic sense can he be called bought-off?
August 16, 2025 at 3:15 PM
“Bought-off” denotes acceptance of bribes in exchange for favors—usually illegal or corrupt—to the briber.
Whatever one thinks of Jeffries as a person or as a politician, in what realistic sense can he be called bought-off?
Whatever one thinks of Jeffries as a person or as a politician, in what realistic sense can he be called bought-off?
It’s too early to celebrate. The Maryland federal court struck down the Administration’s DEI guidance for schools only on procedural grounds, saying APA rulemaking requirements weren’t followed.
In any event, appellate courts including SCOTUS haven’t been shy about overturning lower court rulings.
In any event, appellate courts including SCOTUS haven’t been shy about overturning lower court rulings.
August 15, 2025 at 6:44 PM
It’s too early to celebrate. The Maryland federal court struck down the Administration’s DEI guidance for schools only on procedural grounds, saying APA rulemaking requirements weren’t followed.
In any event, appellate courts including SCOTUS haven’t been shy about overturning lower court rulings.
In any event, appellate courts including SCOTUS haven’t been shy about overturning lower court rulings.