Ali Velshi and the Weaponization of Culture

Veteran Television Journalist Ali Velshi talks about Culture, Identity Politics and his role in “Spotlighting the Political Circus in the United States”.

Veteran Television Journalist Ali Velshi talks about Culture, Identity Politics and his role in “Spotlighting the Political Circus in the United States”.

• Topics: USA & World, War & Peace,

On May 18, 2018, MSNBC Commentator Ali Velshi was the featured speaker at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. The event was held at the Vogue Theatre in Vancouver, B.C. A video of the speech and the Q and A that followed was released on June 5. Both are worth a look. Total viewing time is 1 hour and 30 minutes.

Random observations follow:

Ali Velshi’s 40 minute speech was polished and delivered from a written script. It’s helpful to attend these events in person. It gives you a much better take on the speaker and the audience. Even more helpful to have a few weeks to reflect on the comments before viewing them online. In these days of 24 hour news cycles and short attention spans, reflection is a scarce luxury.

Canadian author Marshall McLuhan once described television as a “cool medium”. It’s obvious that Velshi, also a Canadian, has mastered the fine art of communication. Both on TV and in person. Velshi was cool, calm, collected and an effective salesman for his point of view. It also helped that his hosts—- and his audience—-were adulatory. No confrontational rhetoric from this crowd.

Velshi opened with a disclaimer, stating that he was not an expert on the Weaponization of Culture, but a student in a continuing study of the subject. And, to that extent, the audience were test subjects and part of an ongoing dialogue.

There were few challenges to Velshi’s point of view, which centered primarily around the presidency of Donald Trump. This was not unexpected in a forum that was attended by a preponderance of older, privileged, educated Canadian folks. People who were very much in line with the premise that the Trump presidency was, as advertised, a “political circus” and represented “the apparent unraveling south of the border”.

Velshi’s detailed account of the history of Germany from 1914-1933 was interesting, although he neglected to mention the First World War and the Great Depression in his timeline documenting Germany’s plunge into chaos. He made it clear in his remarks that he was not comparing the rise of Hitler to present day politics in the United States. Of course not. But let’s agree there was, to paraphrase McLuhan, a Meanness in Velshi’s Message.

Most of the audience would like, in some intellectual way, to justify their general distaste of All Things Trump without actually calling the President a Nazi. Check out the video for some helpful tutorials.

Although “civility” was supposed to be the rule of the evening, Velshi saw no problem with throwing out verbal bomblets like, “one tweet away from nuclear war” and generous use of the standard isms….nationalism, nativism, racism, etc. to characterize the worsening situation in the United States.

Communism, with it’s well documented historical consequences, was never mentioned. Maybe because there were more Communists in the audience than Republicans. If you are playing to a captive audience that is in full agreement with you, why upset anyone about their politics?

Side note: Earlier in the day, Velshi’s old employer, CNN, posted a graphic of President Trump’s head in the scope of a rifle. Bad optics and worse timing. Particularly given the Weaponization of Culture theme of Velshi’s current public speaking tour. Velshi worked for CNN for 12 years, hosting news programs that included, “Ali Velshi on Target”. Leaving CNN for the greener pastures of Al Jazerra America and later MSNBC was a good career move for this savvy business journalist.

The best part of the program was the unscripted Q and A from the audience. The first question was the best. It elicited the only “Boos” of the evening, which is a positive sign.

The question was delivered by an obviously well-read and articulate Canadian professional in response to Velshi’s comments on President Trump’s immigration policy. The questioner pointed out that a failed immigration policy could not be attributed to one President, naming Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. etc. as examples of having done little to improve immigration policy and enforcement. Velshi agreed that all these American politicians had failed, but that President Trump was the worst because of his “weaponization”.

The questioner then threw the trigger phrase “genital mutilation” into the exchange and added that he “hoped Trump would be re-elected”. This statement was roundly booed by the audience.

Lesson: If you want to really upset an audience of Canadians, use “Donald Trump” and “genital mutilation” in the same sentence. Notwithstanding, it was a good question and genital mutilation does come to mind when you consider the cultural mores of Muslim countries.

The remaining three questions were regrettably from seniors like myself that should know better.

The first was, “What do you think of Islam”? Apparently in Vancouver this is considered an edgy question. It isn’t. It is like asking a candidate for Whatcom County Council “Why do you want to be a County Council member”? The Islam question was a marshmallow toss that Velshi easily deflected into a self-aggrandizing talking point.

A much more pertinent question would have been, “Why do you support the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero in New York City”? Velshi does. His response would have been interesting.

Speaking of immigration policy and the “weaponization of culture”, Velshi’s take on the criminal activities of Pakistani grooming gangs in England would have been a fair question. As well as whether UKIP activist Tommy Robinson should have been jailed in London without due process for the crime of speaking out against this criminal behavior. Particularly since the perpetrators are overwhelmingly of Pakistani and Asian origin.

The next questioner charged President Trump with “weaponizing incivility” and that the President was responsible for the loss of dozens of lives earlier in the week in Palestinian border clashes with Israel. Following that dubious charge, she asked Velshi when Trump was going to be impeached for promoting his “addiction of incivility” Adding, “How do we stop him”?

Dealing with this ridiculous question could have been a teachable moment for Velshi. He could have pointed out that Bill Clinton would have likely been promptly removed from office during the Monicagate and Cigargate scandals if the United States had a parliamentary system like Canada. Fortunately, we do not. Instead, Velshi played it safe, suggesting that the best solution was at the ballot box. He also offered his opinion that Trump would not be impeached, qualifying it with, “based on what I know”.

The third and final jaw-dropper came from an old gent that proclaimed that U.S. politics had been “dumbed down” since Sarah Palin’s nomination for Vice President and that “I expect my leaders to be smarter than I am.” A short, truthful answer would have been, “Well Sir, I can assure you they are”.

But by this time Velshi was having too much fun basking in the adoration of the evening, so condescension won out over candor, as well as one of the few opportunities of the evening for some gentle humor. One is left to wonder what Velshi’s response would have been if the questioner had posed exactly the same question and inserted “Nancy Pelosi”. Or “Maxine Waters”. Both of whom are arguably much dumber than Sarah Palin.

Amazing that a decade after Governor Palin shared the Republican Presidential ticket with John McCain, Canadians still enjoy making fun of her in public. Sad that Velshi decided to go along with the gag. He had an opportunity to be gallant and he blew it.

If the real purpose of the Wall Institute Forum was to promote civility and constructive dialogue, that lofty concept went down in flames with the last three questioners. And Velshi did nothing to douse the fire.

The positive news is that there were three young men in the audience that asked clear and pertinent questions about culture, social media and Marxism.

It was good to witness the clear eyes of youth lighting up the room with informed and unpretentious questions. Islands of hope in a sea of senility.

Enjoy the video.

Related Links

About John Lesow

Closed Account • Member since Mar 21, 2008

Comments by Readers

Michael Riordan

Jun 15, 2018

What evidence can you provide, John, for your claim that “there were more Communists in the room than Republicans”? Did you ask for a show of hands? Did you conduct an exit poll at the door? On what do you base your statement?

These kinds of unsupported conjectures, stated as if they were facts, are one of the things that trouble me most about our current president and his acolytes. According to the Washington Post, he has already given us over 3000 misleading statements or outright falsehoods since taking office. Broadcast through his Twitter feed to over 50 million gullible folks, many of whom can’t tell a fact from a speculation, these “alternate facts” are poisoning the political discourse in the United States.

In the current political climate, in fact, I’d rather be called a Communist than a Republican — although I am neither and never have been either. The Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower has been degraded to the point where it is now the Party of Trump. The Party of Reaction. The Party of the Past, not the future.

In his article “Legislation by Anecdote,” Dick Conoboy’ begins by quoting from Michael Hayden’s recent book Assault on Intelligence. That quote is highly germane here. And Hayden is, or at least was, a Republican.

My only reaction to this distressing state of affairs is: “For Shame.”



John Lesow

Jun 15, 2018

Good God, Michael—-Lighten Up !.....

Can’t you take a joke ? 

No, I did not take a poll.   Your query is ridiculous.

But to move from the ridiculous to the sublime,  those even vaguely familiar with the Canadian political landscape would appreciate that there were likely more Communists in the audience than Republicans, given that “Republican” is not an active political party in the Dominion of Canada.   There are, however, Communist Party members in Canada and they have been here since Confederation and occasionally run for office. 

Not that it makes any difference in the context of the joke.

What did you think of Velshi’s presentation?   That was the purpose of publishing the link.


By the way, I just purchased tickets in the “cheap seats” section of the Vancouver Trade and Convention Center at Canada Place for Bill Clinton’s Book Tour Speech on Friday,  June 29. 

 $100 a seat.   Unreserved.  Gates open at noon for a 4 p.m. presentation.  Cheapest seats available…

The prices go up quickly from there; $150, $250 and topping out at $1895 for a Premium Package,  which includes a signed copy of the President’s new book and an opportunity for a photo with Bill Clinton !  

For real die-hard Clinton fans, there’s the Super Premium Bill Clinton Fantasy Package,  which can be purchased for $2500.

 This special deal includes all of the above, plus a private meeting with the President and two Arkansas State Troopers in a hotel room in downtown Vancouver. 

Before you get the vapors, this last comment is a joke…... But the other posted ticket information is absolutely true.   






Michael Riordan

Jun 17, 2018

Not when it comes to the current US president. He is no joke.

According to your statement and my calculations, there had to be at least two Communists in the room for Velshi’s lecture. And there IS a Republican Party in British Columbia called the New Republican Party, which garnered almost as many votes in the last provincial election as the Communists, according to the election results I’ve seen online.

What I’m objecting to is not your fuzzy math, however, but your attempt to tar and feather the audience by accusing them of Communism, a tactic worthy of Joe McCarthy. And now of Donald Trump, whose purchase on the truth is tenuous in the extreme — typical of McCarthyism.

Your article did not stimulate me to view the video of Velshi’s lecture, but it left me wondering, “What is this article doing in Northwest Citizen?” What, if anything, does it have to do with the Northwest?

It would have been far more relevant had you as a Canadian-American commented upon the recent ad hominem attacks on Justin Trudeau by Trump and his acolytes after the G7 meeting — that Trudeau was “weak” and had stabbed the administration in the back by standing up for Canada’s trade interests. What did you think about that?

This is typical trumpism. He started with ad hominem attacks on his fellow Republicans to gain the GOP presidential nomination, then followed up with similar attacks on Democrats, principally Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, to become US president. Now this minority president is directing these attacks toward some of the staunchest US allies, in the process attempting to disrupt the international world order that’s been in place since World War II.

As the Financial Times put it, Trump is “crashing around the world like a hormonal musk ox.” This schoolyard bully writ large is appealing not to reason but to the rabble.

The only one who seems to be spared his invective is Vladimir Putin.



John Lesow

Jun 17, 2018

Give it a rest, Michael.    Stop digging.

And when you’ve recovered, take time to watch the video.  If you are in fact “curious”...

 If you have questions about the appropriateness of my article, take it up with my Editor.

Happy Father’s Day.


Michael Riordan

Jun 18, 2018

I’d still like to hear your reactions to the Trump & company comments about Trudeau after the G7 meeting.


John Lesow

Jun 19, 2018

My “reactions” are not important.  Neither is your question.  The G7 is last week’s stale news.  

If you want to debate the merits of  Canadian supply management and it’s effect on Whatcom County dairy farmers, save that subject for another day.   

Since you and others have expressed a continuing interest in Public Disclosure Commission violations,  I would be interested in your reactions to the recent PDC judgment against 42nd District  legislative candidate Sharlaine LaClair.

As well as the even more recent decision by the Whatcom County Prosecutor on the Voter’s Pamphlet statement of Mike Peetoom, candidate for Whatcom County Council.

Your take on the Peetoom decision would be an interesting topic,  considering there are free speech issues raised.   This larger and more fundamental  question should concern us all. 

The statements of the County Prosecutor and County Auditor on the Peetoom campaign are now available, if you want to take the time to link to them.  Your job, not mine. 

As far as the Velshi article article is concerned, the next time you start critiquing someone’s work product, take time to actually read it before you comment online.    





Elisabeth Britt

Jun 20, 2018


How would you be able to accurately determine any of the writer’s positions on PDC violations, local issues or Mike Peetoom’s voter’s pamphlet submission? 

You haven’t been to a writers meeting in a very long time. So, you have no idea what the group’s thoughts are regarding any of the issues you just raised. 

The LaClair Thurston County Court decision regarding her PDC violation has not been posted on the PDC site. So, this story is not ripe for publishing. There are no updates on Glen Morgan’s website either. 

The writer’s group discussed what happened to Mike Peetoom  at length and we agree that he was treated unfairly by the Auditor’s office. I offered to write an article and Mike has my telephone number. The local Conservative blogs covered the story early and it appears that Mike is satisfied with that coverage.  

I did watch the Ali Velshi video. But I didn’t find it as offensive as you did. I guess my time in Olympia taught me to be more open-minded and less critical of other people’s political beliefs and religious affiliation.  

FYI: 0.04 percent of British Columbia voters cast a vote for a Communist candidate in 2017. That is the highest percentage of votes cast for a Communist candidate in the last 17 years.  So, I find it highly unlikely that the majority of attendees at the Peter Wall Institute event on May 18th were Communists or Communist sympathizers.  So, congratulations on being the first writer to link Ali Velshhi and the Peter Wall Institute to Marxism and Communism. You must be very proud of your accomplishment.

And, yes. I did discuss it with the editor.   So, no need for a response. 


John Lesow

Jun 20, 2018

Elizabeth and Michael,

Re:  PDC violations:    Check the 4th Corner website.  The full text of the Complaint, Judgement, Karen Frakes memo and Debbie Adelstein memo are posted there and have been for some time.

And there are free speech issues in the Mike Peetoom case.  Let’s see how throughly they are covered by NW Citizen in future posts.    Why were they not covered in the first place?  This matter has been around for over a month.

Why do I have to raise the PDC  issue before there is some action on your part to comment? You and Michael Riordian have been on top of these PDC stories for months.  Check your posts.  

The story is, to use your interpretation,  “ripe” for publishing, if you want to do so.   We’re talking about balance here.  

The remainder of your comments about Ali Velshi and communism are irrelevant and off base for anyone who has had the opportunity to view the video and my commentary.    

However, you may have stimulated a few NW Citizen readers to read the article that would not have done so.  Let them judge for themselves on your personal take on this silly “communist” canard.   

As far as attendance at Writer’s Meetings is concerned, you and the other 15 NW Citizen writers know full well why I have not attended meetings over the past two months. 

It has nothing to do with my affection for the writers or the mission of Northwest Citizen.

I have also made monetary donations to the NW Citizen since 2008.    Most recent donation was last month.   Check with the Editor on this. 



Michael Riordan

Jun 20, 2018

Sorry, John, but the Trump regime’s treatment of Justin Trudeau is infinitely more important than PDC complaints or the Peetoom decision (of which I’m unaware, as a San Juan County resident). For the mathematically challenged, infinity is one (or any positive number) divided by zero — as in “zero-tolerance policy.”

The fact that a historically illiterate real-estate mogul who could not achieve a majority of the popular vote in 2016 is turning his back on and snubbing staunch US allies from the past 70 years is not “last week’s stale news.” It is one of the most worrisome national trends today. Along with the president’s coddling of murderous dictators like Rodrigo Duterte, Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin, as noted by Thomas Friedman in his NYT column today, “Trump to Dictators: Have a Nice Day.”

To borrow a phrase from his trade representative, there’s a “special place in hell” reserved for the Trump Enablers who helped put him in this all-powerful position. I can count a few of them in Whatcom County.


Elisabeth Britt

Jun 20, 2018

Regarding your accusations about my past PDC violation coverage. What a crock of nonsense. I have filed complaints against Republicans, Democrats and non-partisan candidates over the last 20 years. If someone beats me to the punch. I let them cover the issue. I don’t have an article quota on NW Citizen that I have to fulfill. Do you? 

Why didn’t NW Citizen cover Mike Peetoom? Mike declined the opportunity to be interviewed. Some of us would like to  speak to the individuals that we are writing stories about. Then follow up by interviewing the other parties involved in the controversy. That’s called citizen journalism. It’s based on fact. Not supposition, unsupported assertions or fuzzy math. 

As a writer and citizen journalist, I respect Mike Peetoom’s decision not to respond to my request for an interview. His decision not to be interviewed does not in any way indicate that the majority of NW Citizen writers did not find the Auditor’s decision to reject his voter pamphlet submission repulsive or a violation of his right to free speech.  That’s an assumption that you made independently, without any input from other NW Citizen writers. And, you are not in any position to state publically otherwise. Since you have not attended any of the meetings in which this issue was discussed among the writers. I don’t care what your excuse is. You are assigning blame and responsibility for coverage to other writers - while you are attending to personal business in Canada. If these issues are that important to you - why didn’t you post articles about them on NW Citizen? After all, the Ali Velshi article is hardly relevant - as a local issue. Yet you invested considerable time in it’s construction. 

You need to learn to pick your fights John. And, once you pick a fight. Play fair.  If you can’t play fair - expect to be called out for it. 

Could you please explain to me in minute detail why Karen Frakes and Debbie Adelstein would weigh in on a  PDC complaint against LaClair or any other state legislative candidate?

I’m sorry if you think I’m being rude. But I think that you have your issues mixed up. Mike Peetoom and the voter pamphlet submission rejection/free speech issue began as a local issue - and Karen Frakes and Debbie Adelstein should and would weigh in on this topic.

In regards to LaClair, AGO Ferguson, the PDC and Thurston County Court would be involved in resolving the complaint.

The PDC complaint against LaClair is was filed by Glen Morgan, who lives in Tacoma. Not Whatcom County. The complaint  was not filed by a local Republican party member or county resident. Morgan enjoys filing complaints against Democrats. In fact, it appears to be his full time job. Fine. But where do you get off stating that it is a NW Citzen writer’s job to cover this story? Who appointed you as managing publisher?   

I write about PDC violations that I file. Or, that are filed by individuals who actually live and work in Whatcom County. Professional complaint filers like Morgan don’t want or need my input. Nor does the owner of the 4th Corner blog.  

Which raises the question. Why didn’t you write about this issue, since you find it so compelling? After all, NW Citizen writers are free to choose their topics and publish at will. No one tells us what we should write about. Not even our editor.

In closing, I don’t recall anyone putting you in charge of delegating article writing duties to NW Citizen writers you have political disagreements with. I gather that this is a task that you have taken on - on behalf of yourself.

How incredibly arrogant of you.  

Oh, and thanks for the financial contribution. 


John Lesow

Jun 21, 2018


Re:  Trudeau, G7 and local relevance….

 You are all over the place on this.

First you question how Ali Velshi’s lecture could be considered “relevant as a Northwest issue”.

Since the presentation was delivered in Vancouver, B.C.  and dealt with American and Canadian politics,  I suggest my article met your “relevancy” requirement.   Plus, you are not the judge of what is published in an independent political blog. 

You then state that the Trump administration’s treatment of Justin Trudeau following the G 7 was “infinitely more important” than the decision by the County Prosecutor and Auditor on Mike Peetoom,  local Whatcom County Council candidate. 

 As I have stated before, no one up here cares much about any hurt feelings at the G 7.  

 What is clear from your many posts is that you are primarily interested in finding any niche, however insignificant,  to  comment on anything that is Anti Trump.  That includes catagorizing his “Enablers” as “McCarthyites, rabble and 50 million gullible folks”.  And deserving of a “special place in Hell”.    We get that. You’re wrong, but we get it. 

  We also understand that your continuing rants  provide  you with momentum for rocking your Anti-Trump hobby horse.  However, you are becoming tedious.    That’s why I suggested earlier  you give it a rest.  

 These ongoing rants are becoming  counter-productive. They are not helping you or your cause, whatever that is.

As far as your interest in PDC complaints is concerned,  you have shown true zeal for commenting on  State Senator Doug Ericksen’s activities that led to the inevitable PDC complaint.  Which I still consider fluff.   Just like the one filed against Sharlaine La Clair, which did result in a PDC Judgement against her last April.   And a small fine of $2500, mitigated to $1250.

 I don’t know La Clair, but I do know she was running against Republican Luanne Van Werven for the Washington House of Representatives, 42nd District.   I submit you would have ignored the La Clair Judgement completely had I not mentioned it earlier. 

 Given the hundreds of PDC complaints filed, it’s pretty clear that most are insignificant and considered the cost of running for office in Whatcom County and elsewhere in Washington.  Too bad.  These nuisances dissuade good candidates from entering the political arena.   

Maybe you and others are still angry about my suggestion, months ago,  that if State Senator Kevin Ranker had been appointed to that cushy public relations post at the EPA by a Democrat president, any criticism from Whatcom Dems would have been muted or non-existent.   

 Speculative, but no more speculative than your continued histronics over Donald Trump and what may or may not happen during his administration. 

Let’s liven up this discussion, if you  wish to do so.


 Last January, I submitted a comment to the Editor of NW Citizen on why I voted for Donald Trump.   Are you willing to step up and do the same for your chosen  Presidential candidate?   I assume it was not Donald Trump.

 Your views, particularly 6 months after the election, would inject some interest in what has become a tired diatribe.     



John Lesow

Jun 21, 2018


Same offer to you as the one extended above to Michael.   Same advice, too.   This is getting tedious. 

Did you request an interview with Doug Ericksen following the filing of the PDC complaint?  What was his reaction? 

If Council Candiate Mike Peetoom turned down your interview request, so what?

Does  that preclude you from reporting on the decision of the County Prosecutor and Auditor ?

I don’t care what was discussed at your meeting.    Besides, the attraction of Northwest Citizen is that a Contributing Writer can write about whatever he or she wants.   Provided there are no libelous statements in the submission. 

The Peetoom matter was  a “free speech” issue.  The Auditor made the wrong decision on the Voter’s Pamplet statement and it was corrected.   This matter should have been reported, thoroughly,  by independent and print journalists. 

The irony is that few, including myself, knew who Mike Peetoom was prior to the Auditor’s decision.   More people know him now, and the Prosecutor/Auditor decision is a plus for his campaign. 

Just for the record, I supported Rud Browne the day following his announcement and am included on his  list of his donors and endorsers.  




Elisabeth Britt

Jun 22, 2018


May I suggest that you schedule an appointment with a doctor?  Preferably soon. Because these unfounded personal attacks and accusations are getting way out of hand. 

First, I haven’t filed a PDC complaint against Doug Ericksen. I suggest that you visit the PDC website to confirm this fact for yourself. 

I haven’t filed a PDC complaint in years. But the last one I filed was against a local Democrat. I believe it was back in 2007. Does that make you feel better? Because  you seem particularly offended that I don’t believe that Doug is doing a good job in Olympia.  Sandy Robson was the individual who filed a complaint against Senator Ericksen. So get off your high horse. Or, better yet, direct your anger towards the person who actually filed a complaint.  

Second,  unlike you, I know Mike Peetoom. He’s hardly a stranger. He’s a close friend of my brother and they have been friends for many years. So, If Mike doesn’t want me to write an article about his experience with the County Auditor, I won’t write the article. I’ll respect his wishes - because I respect and know him. Do I need to repeat this again?  Any of the other NW Citizen writers, yourself included, can write the article, should the spirit move you. I won’t write it.  So, stop trying to pressure me into doing something that I’ve already told you I’m not going to do. 

Three, You’re a bully who is trying to shame other writers into writing articles that you don’t have the time or inclination to write.  These are ad hominem attacks designed to attack the character of your peers and embarrass them publicly. And it’s despicable.  

Contributing funds to NW Citizen  does not give you the right to publicly attack or humiliate other writers just to amuse yourself. 

Again, may I suggest that you schedule an appointment with a doctor?  



John Lesow

Jun 22, 2018


I’ve got a better idea.  

Let’s forward your comments, and those of Michael, to the Editors of some local newspapers for their review and fact checking. 

Start with the general question:  Do the comments of these three writers indicate bias ? Or are they fair reporting?    

Are there any examples of malicious ad hominem attacks?

The Editors of Cascadia Weekly,  the Bellingham Herald and Lynden Tribune just might take us up on it.    

For an academic judgement, send the article and our comments to the Journalism Department at WWU with the same questions.  Ask for an independent evaluation on the allegations and factual basis of your comments on my article.    It might make a good student project on fair and balanced news coverage.

For good measure, let’s send our comments to the Psychology Department at WWU for their views on your recommendation that, “I should see a doctor”.

This would be a good opportunity to evaluate my state of mind, which you have now called into question.  In a very unprofessional manner, I might add.

And for the record, I did not suggest that YOU filed the PDC Complaint against Doug Ericksen.  I was well aware that it was Sandy Robson’s filing.

However, in a NW Citizen Comment on March 7, 2018,  Michael reported that you both had been reviewing Doug Ericksen’s documents, “in contemplation of possible NW Citizen and PDC complaints regarding Doug Ericksen’s  improper or potentially illegal use of surplus campaign funds”. 

The term “allegedly” was not included in Michael’s commentary. 

Check out the story.  It is still posted.  

My previous offer to Michael (and you) still stands.  I was asked by John Servais last January to draft a short statement on my view of the Trump presidency one year after his election.  I did.

I was asked to keep the response confidential, pending responses of other Trump supporters.  I am still waiting for that article to be published in NW Citizen, which was the agreement.

Do something constructive.

Draft a memo on why you voted for the candidate of your choice in the last Presidential election. Then let NW Citizen readers evaluate your opinions for themselves,  one year and six months after Trump’s election.  

To comment, Log In or Register