Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.ADDED: What's so good about that is not the legal analysis but the recognition of the priority of political analysis. I'm seeing way too much "legal" analysis that follows political opinion, and I believe that the political analysis is, for nearly everyone, prior to the legal analysis. So let's increase the chances of accuracy, honesty, and persuasiveness, by talking about what we are probably really thinking about: the politics. And I don't mean are we pro- or anti-Trump. If that's all it is, there's nothing special to talk about here. I mean the positive value and the risks of an independent FBI and positive value and the risks of a President influencing, exerting pressure on, or overriding the FBI. In that light, did Trump do something wrong?
Comey’s testimony was devastating with regard to President Trump’s credibility – at least as Comey sees it. He was also critical of President Trump’s failure to observe the recent tradition of FBI independence from presidential influence. These are issues worth discussing but they have been distorted by the insistence of Democratic pundits that Trump must have committed a crime because they disagree with what he did politically.
June 10, 2017
"Comey confirms that I'm right — and all the Democratic commentators are wrong."
Writes Alan Dershowitz.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
345 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 345 of 345It is instructive that the only people who defend Chuck are people who want trump impeached. It is almost as if the democrats and Vichy republicans are working together.
Chuck is linking to HuffPo and this makes him a "lifelong republican?"
The "birther" thing has been more all along about Obama selling himself to Harvard as an "exchange student" like his daddy did, assuming his daddy was Barack Sr. If it was his communist mentor, that is another matter and might explain the birth certificate mystery.
If Obama was not such a secret in all ways there would be little interest in the matter but he has never been vetted.
You want a bullet proof FBI immune from any political interference by anyone in Washington. Go back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, who spent years collecting dirt on anyone and every one in any way connected with government. Nobody dared cross J. Edgar.
Back in the days when homosexuality was still the love that dare not speak its name, J. Edgar and his good buddy and lieutenant Clyde Tollner used to come out to Del Mar California for the horse racing season each year. They watched the ponies. They cross dressed liking silk stockings and fancy lingerie. I don't know whether either of them ever went any further than wearing "Mommie's dresses" in front of each other. But the point is--they did it, and nobody dared breathe a word.
You get that sort of power by, among other things, putting recording microphones beneath Martin Luther King Jrs. bed. Let's just say that J. Edgar had tapes with a lot of different women pressed between MLK Jr. and the microphone. Only one of those women was Coretta King.
Now maybe you want the sort of FBI that could and did do things like that--but I'm not so certain about it. Comey was, and wanted to be, a political player. We don't need that at the head of the FBI.
wildswan said...
The issue as defined by lifelong is that he accused of "shilling for Democrats" whereas, in my opinion the general accusation is "being consistently anti-Republican" while calling himself a "lifelong Republican."
Well I was answering the charge that I was "shilling for Democrats" only because that is precisely what somebody accused me of earlier on these pages. So there's that.
As for being "consistently anti-Republican," that is yet another stupid joke. I have been strongly pro-Scott Walker and that is what originally attracted me to this blog. That, and spending time in Althouse's Regent Street neighborhood.
I have been avidly pro-Scalia. Pro-Alito. Pro-Roberts. I have harshly questioned the Lawrence-Windsor-Obergefell line of gay rights cases, and argued about it with Professor Althouse. I have been pro-conservative Republican on practically every imaginable topic on the Althouse blog. But I have been anti-Trump. And in the process, I have written so many words on the general subject, that I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly confuse my motives.
My politics are not much different from Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer or Bernard Goldberg. Or Brent Bozell, or David French, or dozens of other lifelong Republicans who have the severest of personl doubts about Donald Trump. I'm not much original, or unusual.
You all have performed badly today, in trying to make me out as some sort of closet liberal Democrat agent. You have come up with nothing. In the case of Darrell, it has been worse than nothing. Trying to find evidence of my "shilling" for Dems, he found a handful of posts where I said snarky and even nasty things about the Dems. Duh.
Michael K, there is no Obama birth mystery. And any Republican who toys with that notion hurts the Republican Party on pure credibility grounds.
Do you think that there is any Obama birth mystery? The guy grew up in Honolulu and went to school there. After two Honolulu newspapers contemporaneously announced his birth on their pages.
I want to know just how stupid you are going to play this. Are you suggesting (as even Trump has now abandoned) that there is some important mystery about the place of Obama's birth?
If you are claiming something else, just be more damned specific about it.
Oh, and I admit it may be possible, but remind me where and why did I ever link to the Huffington Post? That one I do not recall.
"remind me where and why did I ever link to the Huffington Post"
I believe Darrell already provided the context.
the-fbi-releases-text-of-its-interview.html
There is no Russia/Trump collusion mystery. And any Dem/lefty/"lifelong republican" who toys with that notion hurts is a complete idiot.
Similarly anyone who toys with rumors about the underage children of certain politicians.
Btw, Powerlines Hinderaker has a nice encapsulation of how Comey lied about not documenting his impression of any one on one meetings with President Bush.
So what we have here is Comey, "lifelong republican", only keeping notes on meetings with republican presidents and always being Johnny On The Spot in helping the Clintons avoid consequences for their shenanigans.
Well, those "lifelong republicans" are all the same, aren't they?
I respect and admire Alan Dershowitz - but have you ever noticed that just about everything confirms that he is right?
Chuck, here's the thing: You very well may have been a Republican, just like those others you named.
But now, are you? No. You are, first and foremost, an Anti-Trump person. Just like Kristol and Hayes and Bozell, who also used to be Republicans but now are anti-Trump. They have abandoned what conservative principles they had to bash Trump 100% of the time.
You are far, far more against Trump than you are for anything remotely resembling conservatism. Just like the Democrats, who spend the greatest deal of their time whining about Trump and plotting his removal from power. Just like you and those you named.
I know why the left is committing seppuku over Trump: He is actively removing the Deep State. He is fighting back. I expect commies and leftists to scream bloody murder. They would and do against any Republican.
But you? French, Bozell, Goldberg? Goldberg literally wrote the book on Liberal Fascism. Yet he's out there banging the drum of "Trump is the worst threat in the history of America!" just like you. You've joined forces with the Inga's and the Brookzene's to bash a Republican president who is actively trying to cut government; to take back our courts; and is fighting all by his lonesome against CNN, ABC and the rest of the Pravda arm of the Democrat party--an arm that you are actively promoting.
You've switched sides, Chuck. Think about it: You claim to have voted for Trump over Hillary. Ok, but here you are dreaming of impeaching Trump, just like a Kos Kiddie.
If Hillary had won, would you have been here planning her impeachment? Not a chance. "She won, fair and square, and I have to support it!"
I was a Cruz person. I liked David French, too. But is Cruz who we needed? I don't think he would have fought the media and the Democrats like Trump has. You always, always bash Trump's tweets. If only Trump would be quiet! Would stop "Lying!" Would, basically, resign and go away. Your goals are the exact same goals as Chuck Shumers: Put Pence in the white house because that means you've gotten rid of Trump--somehow. Remember how gleeful you were when that fake dossier was "leaked" and you were dancing and singing about how it was certainly the end of Trump, for sure? Not a bit of difference between your actions then and Mika on MSNBC--she was more restrained in her joy than you, in fact.
Here's the thing: you would happily have Hillary now, over Trump. You'd gladly suffer 8 years of total Democrat control as long as Trump was gone. For you, that's the big goal, and you are willing to sacrifice America to the commies to do it. So is all of those NRO people you list. Whatever Republican or conservative values you have are less important than getting rid of Trump at any cost.
So you cooperate with the left and do much of their dirty work for them: smearing Trump hand in hand with them. As best as I can tell, you'd rather lose the war than be led by a general such as Trump, and in fact you view it as your duty to join ranks with the Kos Kiddies and the DU mmies and all together join up in one great big happy side opposing Trump at any cost. And if that means total Democrat control of the US in perpetuity, well, so be it. At least you got rid of Trump! Too bad about all the freedoms you destroyed because you cooperated with the Left and its naked desires to destroy America, though.
--Vance
Chuck, so called fopdoodle, demands proof beyond any doubt for his own statements.
Chuck, so called fopdoodle, assumes the worst interpretation of any statements by Trump. Then he rejects any potential alternative interpretations offered as being without proof.
Chuck, so called fopdoodle, tells everybody what to expect going forward and is wrong at every turn.
"And any Republican who toys with that notion hurts the Republican Party on pure credibility grounds." But any lifelong Republican who toys with the idea of using a 10 year old in a political way brings no shame to Chuck, so called fopdoodle. So comments about Barron Trump are fine.
Laslo has the measure.
Drago said...
There is no Russia/Trump collusion mystery. And any Dem/lefty/"lifelong republican" who toys with that notion hurts is a complete idiot.
Similarly anyone who toys with rumors about the underage children of certain politicians.
Oh fuck off already. If you never wrote another word about me, this blog's comments pages would be feature much healthier and robust issue-conversations.
I never said that there was any Russia/Trump collusion mystery. Don't blame me for that. That is yet another area in which there might be some stray and strange imaginings that I wrote about that, when I haven't. To be honest, I do recall writing something to the effect of, "I wonder what the Russians have on Trump." That's about it. One line, of one comment. I still wonder. And to be further fair, I really don't know what if anything it is.
Let's get it straight. "The Russians hacked our election" is a phrase that should be banned from American political discussion, for want of specificity. The Russians didn't change any votes; they didn't steal any votes; and there is no proof that they influenced any votes. The Democrats ran a shitty candidate for president. Their worst nominee in two lifetimes. And what defeated them in the electoral college, is that so many of the folks who turned out in record numbers to help Obama win in 2008 and 2012, failed to turn out for Hillary. The depressed turnout is what absolutely swung Michigan to Trump.
Now, about your defaming me with "rumors about the underage children of certain politicians...
You've done this before, you creepy turd. It always ends, the way that I am going to end this now. Because you and you alone brought it up.
What I did on this blog was to offer a couple of comments which linked to stories at the website for US Weekly and Forbes.com. In those stories, reporters (not me) wrote about the threats of litigation brought by lawyers ostensibly retained by Melania Trump, to issue cease and desist orders to a man (an Aspberger's/Autism advocate) who created a YouTube video theorizing that Barron Trump shows signs of being on the Autism spectrum. I didn't say what I thought. I didn't speculate about the truth of the theory. I didn't divulge any personal health information that had not already been posted on the internet. Google the name "Barron Trump" and see how far you have to drop down before "Barron Trump autism" comes up.
So thanks to you, Drago, I expect that many more people will now Google "Barron Trump autism." Again, for the umpteenth time, this is what happens when you hit me with vague and oblique references to "the underage child of a certain politician." What you get is more clarification about the Barron Trump story, such as it is.
Hit me, I hit back ten times as hard, eh?
"Oh fuck off already. If you never wrote another word about me, this blog's comments pages would be feature much healthier and robust issue-conversations."
Chuck is an advocate for kids with autism. Or at least having autism.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Oh fuck off already. If you never wrote another word about me, this blog's comments pages would be feature much healthier and robust issue-conversations."
Its not my fault you have embraced every insane lefty conspiracy theory and in particular the fake russian "dossier" and the wild-eyed rumors about a young boy.
But that's just you isn't it?
"lifelong republican" Trump: "You've done this before, you creepy turd."
I'm afraid the only "creepy turd" is the one who traffics in rumors about underage children of certain politicians.
I noticed you joyfully provided all the details again, didn't you?
You can't help yourself. Obviously. Some sort of sickness with you.
When you "hit back" in an online forum by using the term defamation between anonymous commenters, you sound ill-educated, at best. Words mean things. You cannot pretend they mean some other thing that you strongly desire them to mean.
Stop it.
Paco Wové said...
"remind me where and why did I ever link to the Huffington Post"
I believe Darrell already provided the context.
the-fbi-releases-text-of-its-interview.html
Oh yeah! I remember that now!
I am glad that I linked to that. That was a very nicely-written summary explaining the Obama-publisher literary pamphlet, which Birthers seized upon as "proof" that Obama had somehow admitted to having been born in Kenya. Except that it was shown by all parties concerned, that Obama didn't write the pamphlet.
And there are few places on the 'net, that cared enough about the already-ridiculous "Birther" controversy to even do the story. Because some dead-ender Trumpkins here were prattling on about that pamphlet, I posted that link. I still like it. Are there any substantive criticisms of that column?
Do you assholes really want to re-litigate Birtherism? Trump gave up. That ought to give you a clue.
And really, I want to put on my Obama Derangement Syndrome hat here, and try to help you out. Just maybe, the Obama/Kenya pamphlet story contains a grain of dishonesty on Obama's part. He sure as hell didn't know that he was going to be President someday, back then. Maybe he was just testing the waters to see how far he might be able to get, as a Kenyan-born object of exotica. (Why, I can't guess, because he didn't need the affirmative-action kickstart that Professor Elizabeth Warren shameless and probably fraudulently used. But whatever.)
You overplayed that hand. You could never make the case that Obama was being too clever by half, because a doofus like Donald Trump was going around and lying about truly dumb crap such as his claim that he had sent private investigators to Hawaii who were finding amazing things on Obama.
It's so fascinating, how in the year 2017 all of the "stupid" roads lead back to Donald Trump.
"lifelong republican" and "Joyful Trafficker in Rumors Regarding Underage Children" Chuck:
"So thanks to you, Drago, I expect that many more people will now Google "Barron Trump autism."
Well, once you write an entire paragraph once again trafficking in your unsubstantiated rumors about an underage child.
Sick, sick, sick.
"lifelong republican" and "Noted Online Rhetorical Attacker of Children" Chuck: "Hit me, I hit back ten times as hard, eh?"
Yes, I'm sure the child in question is very impressed with how hard you "hit" him.
I imagine that since "lifelong republican" Chuck has been wrong about every single thing re: Trump that lashing out at his son somehow provides comfort for our MI bound "attorney".
There really is no other explanation for it.
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Trump: "You've done this before, you creepy turd."
I'm afraid the only "creepy turd" is the one who traffics in rumors about underage children of certain politicians.
I noticed you joyfully provided all the details again, didn't you?
The last time you pulled this stunt, Drago, I promised you I'd respond in the same way.
I didn't start this today. You did. As a result of your posting, Barron Trump's name is again linked with autism. I never started it; I never originated any rumors. I only linked to what is online, including a statement by the Trump family lawyers which states in no uncertain terms that "Barron Trump is not autistic." So there. We have made it clear. According to Trump family lawyers in a letter delivered to US Weekly's publisher, Barron Trump is not autistic. And when Barron and Melania move into the White House and reporters get to interact with Barron on a close and personal basis, they might agree.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "The last time you pulled this stunt, Drago, I promised you I'd respond in the same way"
This is the 'don't make me kill that child'! Strategy.
Interesting.
So, just to summarize for those turning in, our very own "lifelong republican" enjoys trafficking in rather nasty rumors about children. When this is pointed out he responds in 2 ways and in this order:
1) No I don't!!....
2) ...and here are all the details!!
Well played counselor!
I think I'll leave Chuck alone now so he can continue to play with his dolls...the ones that he likes to pull the legs off...."accidently".
I'll note in passing that Chuck was shilling for Obama on this very page: defending him passionately about "Birtherism" when we all know Hillary was the founder of that strategy.... yet Trump gets the blame from Chuck. Funny, isn't it? You always manage to find yourself defending Democrats and attacking Republicans. "It's all honesty!" Well, guess what--your first and last instinct is always, always to defend Democrat's virtue while you never, ever defend a Republican against scurrilous attacks from the left. Pelosi or Schumer goes around saying that all Republicans are Nazis who should be punched out? Your silence is deafening. Someone says Hillary has a drinking problem, or a medical issue? Here comes Chuck, white knight, to defend and uphold Hillary's honor.
--Vance
Vance, I might not be able to even finish an argument about Birtherism with you. Such is my distaste for the whole subject and all of its proponents. You live in a weird fucking place, if you think that objecting to "Birtherism" is "shilling for Obama. That is too stupid for words.
There are some words for your notion that "Hillary was the founder of that strategy [Birtherism]." The words are, "No, she wasn't." A Clinton campaign aide may have floated the story. Hillary never breathed a word about it, except to denounce it. Again, if you want to fight about this, then prove it with a link. Something other than InfoWars, please.
And on that subject, Vance, I notice that you haven't done any better than any of the other loser commenters on this blog, in coming up with the dynamite quote from me that proves I am a shill for Democrats. I didn't say or imply any of the shit in your unhinged post. I've never "defended Hillary's honor."
You are a particularly stupid shithead, Vance, as I have noted before. Why don't you just forget about me too? This blog would do better without your personal sniping at me.
And don't worry about me. My responses usually only come after the second, third or fourth personal insult aimed at me. There's a cushion. I'll overlook the first few insults. Only the most banal and insulting mischaracterizations (Vance is a leader in the clubhouse) stir me up.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
When you ask to re-litigate an issue that is really just an online argument between anonymous posters, you sound like a self-important jerk. Words mean things. Quit pretending you can make them means things you want them to mean.
The back and forth with Chuck on items beyond the scope of this thread is ruining the thread for me.
I thought Michael K had some great comments.
On Gorsuch being Trumps only great accomplishment so far. I guess the question is that qualifies as great. Being President has a huge amount of power. Does great refer to only items that can't be over turned by the next President? Do the 20 lower court nominees not count? The destruction, probably mutual, of the Presses non partisan credibility? His cabinet appointees? The reset in international relations?
I see a lot of what is being accomplished by Trump, being overshadowed by the Trump show /battle /war / soap opera against Washington's culture.
On Russia turning to influence the election? Of course they are going their best to hurt the US reputation. And succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. Putins trolling was grandmaster level "Russian patriots may have..."in the interview with Megyn Kelly. Russian bots and blog posters. Classic disinformation techniques.
As political observer I have no idea where we will be at the end of Trumps term. Or where the independent counsel will go. It appears the Russian control part is dead. As Scott Adams wrote, we seem to have moved from Trumps Hitler to he's incompetent in making Washington work. Comey's testimony appears to have been a dud, or even exploded in his face, but with the team assembled by the independent counsel time will tell. The press credibility and fake news are other big trends. The censure of anti Trump reporters / entertainers I feel is something big, but I am not sure on the true root cause. Perhaps because the Internet never forgets? Rise of alternate media? Culture of zero tolerance?
"lifelong republican" and "Defender of Dems" Chuck: " A Clinton campaign aide may have floated the story. Hillary never breathed a word about it, except to denounce it."
LOL
Sidney Blumenthal himself, super duper close Hillary confidante and sycophant and employee and "hanger on" floated the birtherism story to the McClatchy Washington Bureau chief!
Good old Chuck. This is a Richard Blumenthal redux with "lifelong republican" Chuck taking time out from trafficking rumors about children to once again, ONCE AGAIN, minimize Hillary's culpability.
Un-ex-pect-ed-ly.
Ray: "On Gorsuch being Trumps only great accomplishment so far. "
Trumps actions on regulations have been as good as it could get from a conservative point of view with more to come.
@ Ray
Why would anybody but Leftists want Washington, D.C. to work? It has worked to absorb more wealth from productive Americans and deliver it to bureaucrats. 8 of the 10 richest counties in America are now D.C. suburbs. That was not true even 20 years ago.
Disrupting that comfortable situation REQUIRES a disruptive force that challenges the powerful institutions that prefer the status quo.
Chuck seems determined to misunderstand every other comment that is not his.
I said if Obama had been properly vetted, like every president since Lincoln, there would not be this mystery about him.
Tell me, what were his grades at Occidental ? Columbia ? Harvard Law ?
Why is the birth certificate that has been put out a "duplicate ?" Father's name ?
Frank Marshall Davis ? How long did Obama Sr know Stanley Dunham ? Did she know about his wife in Africa ?
I know. If anyone wonders how we got Obamas as a president, the Republican Party will collapse.
How did Axelrod get the judge to open sealed divorce records on Jack Ryan ?
There are a lot of questions about Obama aside from where he was born, which I know was Hawaii.
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" and "Defender of Dems" Chuck: " A Clinton campaign aide may have floated the story. Hillary never breathed a word about it, except to denounce it."
LOL
Sidney Blumenthal himself, super duper close Hillary confidante and sycophant and employee and "hanger on" floated the birtherism story to the McClatchy Washington Bureau chief!
Good old Chuck. This is a Richard Blumenthal redux with "lifelong republican" Chuck taking time out from trafficking rumors about children to once again, ONCE AGAIN, minimize Hillary's culpability.
Un-ex-pect-ed-ly.
Let's get this straight, Drago.
Are you saying that Sidney Blumenthal's floating the "Birther" issue was a terrible thing for him to do?
Or are you saying that it was a smart and clever political play on his part?
Think carefully about an answer, because for every one time that Sidney Blumenthal may have made a crafty private mention of any such theory, there are a dozen times that Donald Trump went on broadcast outlets and screeched about it.
So I don't know if you are chastising Blumenthal (and then Trump) for Birther rumors. Or are you giving Blumenthal a pass, because you also gave Trump a pass?
Sid Blumenthal never claimed that he had sent private investigators to Hawai'i and that that they were finding amazing things that would soon be revealed. Trump did that. And of course there was never any reveal, either.
For the record, I dislike all of the people involved.
I voted for McCain and volunteered for the Party in 2008. The same in 2012, for Mitt Romney, the best president we never had. I never trusted Obama, I abhorred his judicial nominations, and I certainly never voted for him.
Even more despicable were the Obama insiders. Axelrod, Plouffe and Jarrett. Chicago scumbags, all of them.
Scumbags only to be exceeded by Sid Blumenthal. Not once in my life have I ever voted for a Clinton. Never.
Of the names mentioned so far, the only one I ever voted for was Trump.
And here we see classic "lifelong republican" Chuck, deflecting away from his Hillary "precious".
Sorry Chuckie.
Once again your claim that some "campaign staffer" for Hillary only might have mentioned it is a well established lie.
Which you swallowed whole.
'cuz you are all "lifelong republican-y".
Drago said...
Laslo: "The Chucks will win in the end"
Well, the dems will win in the end which means the "Chucks" will win in the end, since they are one and the same.
6/10/17, 12:28 PM
Laslo, No!
Drago, Nevermore, not now, these Dem operators, colluders and traitors to a nation and principles under the laws, ruthlessly raiding their rivals' private conversations to agrandize more power. .. these dems and their scripted NewsTheater messengers of 2017 Must.Go.Down. Mara liason npr, so many propagandists on the hyper-focused Script -- breathtaking they think so little of their nation, believe so little in its wholesome mechanisms created by a fearlessly free and good-aiming Men to govern a free peoples.
Lois Lerner, really we have to go back at least to there. Many must go, like the top third of most recent IRS obamabots. frozen pensions if any more than already garnered is fair to the taxpayers that fuND it. She is one who should be dragged through the streets, if the nation's laws are not going to make things right.
I have been considering, Truly, pitchforks. It would take years to intimately handle a gun, and the knife is just too potent and close for me to bare, but a pitchfork might serve my needs in this future coming, if i have to quickly defend myself or others, or where I might have to take some stand.
Yeah I do believe a pitchfork will be exactly right.
(The 21st century continues to surprise.)
godspeed.
Drago - agree on the regulations.
I wish congress would do more on reigning in the power of regulations / interpretations. This has Reduced congress power tremendously. Of course this make it easier for them to dodge responsibility.
Another great Trump accomplishment, he is surviving and not a lame duck. And with all the forces against him, I find that amazing.
Uh oh cf. You've mentioned Lois Lerner.
"lifelong republican" Chuckie will not take that lying down! He will immediately rise to defend Lois because, lets face it, her only "crime" was to abuse IRS rules in targeting conservatives.
I doubt Chuckie will care much for that. After all, didn't Trump have an unpleasant tv interview sometime in the 1970's?
Ray: "Another great Trump accomplishment, he is surviving and not a lame duck. And with all the forces against him, I find that amazing"
And there you've hit on it.
Trump's greatest accomplishment has been simply to survive this onslaught from dems/far left/media/"lifelong republicans".
Throw in the courts and regulations and the rest is can be considered gravy given that the republicans in congress are unlikely to do much in terms of actual legislation to slow down the growth of the state.
I think Laslo is right about that. Trump is the speedbump on the road to "France-ville".
Michael K said...
Chuck seems determined to misunderstand every other comment that is not his.
Let's see how I do with this post of yours.
I said if Obama had been properly vetted, like every president since Lincoln, there would not be this mystery about him.
Tell me, what were his grades at Occidental ? Columbia ? Harvard Law ?
Hmm. Good questions. I'd like to know. But there isn't any doubt about his birth. That was the point. The one and only point. Do you doubt the time and place of Obama's birth? Yes or no.
Why is the birth certificate that has been put out a "duplicate ?" Father's name ?
Frank Marshall Davis ? How long did Obama Sr know Stanley Dunham ? Did she know about his wife in Africa ?
I don't know. Those might have been good questions. Too bad they got subsumed in a truly idiotic topic; that Barack wasn't born in the USA, or that he was otherwise disqualified to run for president under Article II.
I know. If anyone wonders how we got Obamas as a president, the Republican Party will collapse.
Geeze, I hope the plural "Obamas" was a typo. One was enough for me.
How did Axelrod get the judge to open sealed divorce records on Jack Ryan ?
I am just guessing here, Michael, but I think it was by some sneaky, evil sub-legal method. And I don't think it was the first time that Axelrod pulled that shit in Chicago, either. I expect that you and I view the Jack Ryan divorce records story in exactly the same way. With all-out suspicion of David Axelrod.
There are a lot of questions about Obama aside from where he was born, which I know was Hawaii.
And again, I was unconcerned about those. Did you ever hear Trump make a reasoned, detailed case for "other" questions about Obama? All Trump ever did, was to go all-Orly Taitz on the subject. All the usual Trump bluster and showmanship, with all of the ultimate Trump empty promises that something would come of it. Maybe the biggest nothingburger of Trump's life, which has featured several business bankruptcies, a failed professional football league, and two earlier failed marriages.
How'd I do in comprehending your post this time, Michael K?
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "For the record, I dislike all of the people involved.
I voted for McCain and volunteered for the Party in 2008. The same in 2012, for Mitt Romney, the best president we never had. I never trusted Obama, I abhorred his judicial nominations, and I certainly never voted for him.
Even more despicable were the Obama insiders. Axelrod, Plouffe and Jarrett. Chicago scumbags, all of them."
These are all dems out of office now so Chuckie feels okay about lobbing insults their way.
What about the dems that are actively involved in opposing Trump and republican policies now? Chuckie is shilling for them.
The Chuckie rhetorical tactics are as transparent as they can be.
Chuck,
A while back after the commenting kerfuffle I defended you by saying I thought you were being poorly treated on this board - even though you bring a lot of it on yourself. I know you think President Trump is not the right man for the job, but your TDS (and it is pretty obvious TDS) is strangling your reason. I know from our brief conversation you can be a reasonable fellow, but you show it so rarely. You are knowledgeable and smart, why are you acting like Inga?
As an aside you are never going to get the best of Drago. Ignore him for all our sakes. The man is a wit machine.
@Birkel
My hope is Trump will use his experience to make D.C. More functional. one time he had a comment about water saving shower heads that wash hair poorly. I hate being forced to buy stuff due to government regulations that does not work.
And the business climate in the us is horrible, and in Ca worse, and I hope he helps that.
My worry is Trump is not a movement. So his achievements could be gutted by the next President, as he is doing to Obamas. Tea party was a movement, but it got attacked by all sides and slimed. Much as Trump is. Joel Kotkin write about this and compared it to peasant revolts that had little long term impact.
Drago said...
Uh oh cf. You've mentioned Lois Lerner.
"lifelong republican" Chuckie will not take that lying down! He will immediately rise to defend Lois because, lets face it, her only "crime" was to abuse IRS rules in targeting conservatives.
I doubt Chuckie will care much for that. After all, didn't Trump have an unpleasant tv interview sometime in the 1970's?
I'd like to see Lois Lerner charged with a crime and prosecuted. Among the many scandals of the Obama Administration, the IRS/501(c) approvals scandal ranks at the top.
As for Trump, I'm with that large bipartisan majority of voters and members of Congress who think that Trump should release copies of his Tax returns for all of the years that might be relevant to his holding the office of President. Trump is not required by law to produce them, yes; but there is also no legal reason why he cannot release them. And I think Trump is lying, when he claims that he has been "audited" every year such that he'd be in legal jeopardy if he did release copies.
...and the knife is just too potent and too close for me to BEAR. . .
Kevin, what are you talking about?
There were several people present, when Blumenthal asked Gorsuch about the Trump judge comments. Blumenthal then made it clear to the public. No one who was there has ever disputed Blumenthal's characterization. And then, to hammer the point beyond any dispute, Blumenthal asked Gorsuch about it, in Gorsuch's nomination hearing.
What are you not getting? There is video of Gorsuch saying, verbatim, what Trump tried to claim was a "misrepresentation."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/neil-gorsuch-trump-criticism-disheartening/
Here's what I'm talking about. This instance, like so many others, is not a clear-cut case of (a) everyone else clearly telling the truth, and (b) Trump clearly lying.
Blumenthal said: "[Gorsuch] said very specifically that [Trump's Tweets] were demoralizing and disheartening and he characterized them very specifically that way," Blumenthal said of Gorsuch."
Here was CNN's headline: Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch calls Trump's tweets 'disheartening'
To which Trump took offense and Tweeted: "Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?"
Kelly Ayotte who sat in on all the Gorsuch meetings said: "Judge Gorsuch has made it very clear in all of his discussions with senators, including Senator Blumenthal, that he could not comment on any specific cases and that judicial ethics prevent him from commenting on political matters. He has also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, and while he made clear that he was not referring to any specific case, he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing."
And then Blumenthal asked specifically about Trump's comments under oath: "Gorsuch said he found any attack on the integrity, honesty or motives of a federal judge "disheartening" and "demoralizing." Blumenthal pressed Gorsuch on whether the judge's remarks applied to Trump, to which Gorsuch responded, "Anyone is anyone."
So Blumenthal made Gorsuch's remark about "any" attack into an attack by Gorsuch specifically on Trump. Trump, knowing that Gorsuch gave a general response and not a specific one, knew Blumenthal was playing politics in his comments specifically about Trump. Ayotte backs up Trump's version. When asked under oath, Gorsuch gives the general answer. When specifically prodded by Blumenthal in a follow-up, he again doesn't name Trump, but replies in the affirmative that it applies to "anyone".
Here is how NPR reported it: Gorsuch also appeared uncomfortable in an exchange with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who pressed him to publicly address Trump’s criticism of the courts last month. Gorsuch had done so in a private meeting with Blumenthal in February, saying he found Trump’s attacks on federal judges who had blocked his original travel ban “disheartening and demoralizing.”
This isn't what he said. He never mentioned Trump in his conversation with Blumenthal or in his Senate testimony. If there is anyone stretching the truth of what was said, it is those turning his general comment into a personal attack on the president. The NPR report and CNN headline misstate what Gorsuch said.
Now let's go back through your comments:
1. There were several people present, when Blumenthal asked Gorsuch about the Trump judge comments.
True, including Kelly Ayotte who said Gorsuch never mentioned Trump in this or any other interview.
2. Blumenthal then made it clear to the public.
Blumenthal turned a general statement into a personal attack by Gorsuch on Trump.
3. No one who was there has ever disputed Blumenthal's characterization.
Ayotte refuted it in her public statement, and undoubtedly her comments to Trump formed the basis for his Tweet.
4. And then, to hammer the point beyond any dispute, Blumenthal asked Gorsuch about it, in Gorsuch's nomination hearing.
Blumenthal asked for the specific, Gorsuch answered in the general. Blumenthal followed up with the specific. Gorsuch answered in the general.
At no time during the confirmation process did Gorsuch say anything specifically about Trump. Blumenthal stretched Gorsuch's words to make it appear that he personally attacked the president, which he - neither in Blumenthal's office and in open questioning - refused to do.
And this is so clearly a lie that you feel it should form the basis of your unprovoked attack on Donald Jr, should you ever have dinner with him, to include the phrase:"Your dad is a real fucking asshole. Do you have any excuse for him?"
"There are some words for your notion that "Hillary was the founder of that strategy [Birtherism]." The words are, "No, she wasn't." A Clinton campaign aide may have floated the story. Hillary never breathed a word about it, except to denounce it. Again, if you want to fight about this, then prove it with a link. Something other than InfoWars, please."
You lose credibility when you say things like that. Your "Clinton campaign aide" was Sidney "Sid Vicious" Blumenthal, long time Clinton hatchetman and purveyor of dirty tricks. And starting the birthed rumor was probably the big reason that of all the hanger ons that Crooked Hillary wanted to bring with her to the State Dept, Blumenthal was the one the Obama White House denied her. Which meant that he was being paid by a company looking for security contracts in Libya, along with the Clinton Foundation, when they were exchanging classified information in the run up to Benghazi. (Somehow no one ever figured out how he got classified information, that he sent to her within hours of its creation, long before she would have gotten it otherwise - despite not having a security clearance).
So, no, you don't get away with claiming that Clinton was an innocent bystander with the birtherism. Blumenthal was her alter-ego, allowing her to appear clean, while he slung the mud. But the fact that he took money from the Clintons from when they were in the White House all the way up through, at least, her tenure at Foggy Bottom, is enough to tar her with his actions. Campaign aides come and go, but he stayed close to her throughout.
And before you give me some version of "Oh, we all knew what Gorsuch meant", consider this: It is exactly as true that Gorsuch was personally attacking Barack Obama for his State of the Union statements to the Supremes.
Blumenthal would never characterize Gorsuch's statements as being personally aimed at Obama. NPR and CNN would never turn Gorsuch's statements into a personal attack on Obama.
But it was exactly as much an attack on Obama as it was on Trump.
So who's really lying here? Blumenthal or Trump?
Drago said...
...
What about the dems that are actively involved in opposing Trump and republican policies now? Chuckie is shilling for them.
So where to begin?
Chuck Schumer? The most dangerous place in Washington is in between Chuck Schumer and an open mic.
Nancy Pelosi? A joke. She will never, ever again be Speaker of the House. And the Democratic bench backing her is also a joke. Honest to God, who is Pelosi's heir? The only reason she hasn't been kicked to the curb already is because she has been a good (maybe not great, but very good) fundraiser. And because their is nobody to take her pathetic place.
Keith Ellison? Haha. I'd vote for Keith Ellison as Minority Leader, as Party Chair, as whatever. For the sake of electoral vandalism.
Tom Perez? You can't be a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal (as I am) an not loathe Tom Perez.
How about my own two Dem Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters? Years ago, Washington Monthly did a massive poll of the thousands of congressional office staffers. Anonymously. They still do it, periodically. The winner of the "Most Clueless" Senator was (the recently deceased) Jim Bunning (R-KY). Bunning was then suffering from the early onset of dementia. Second place was Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Gary Peters' picture is in the Yiddish dictionary next to the word "putz."
Any other Dems you'd like me to comment upon?
You can be sure if the president's tax returns had anything in them, we would have had them leaked long ago.
It is a diversion, more Slow-walking by the police state baton-twirlers.
And it deflects from focus on examining evidence of serious crimes against the citizens of the United States by the officials of the last administration, where privacy protections meant nothing.
ManyMust.Go.Down.
Chuck, you still ignore the fact that a lot is not known about Obama and he and Valerie may have put us on a fatal course with Iran.
Why ?
What happened to the Khalidi tapes ? Why ?
Why weren't Muslims upset at his abandonment of Muslim religion after Indonesia? He is an Apostate. Don't they care ? Or do they know something.
Of course Obama is not alone in leaving Islam. Seven out of ten converts do.
Just interesting.
By the way, I don't think any other GOP candidate would have beaten Hillary.
It was that kind of year, as Theresa May just found out.
I remember Chuck gleefully repeating the slimy rumors about Barron Trump. That's when I knew beyond any doubt that Chuck is (a) a moby, and (b) a dirtbag. Also a noted cyber-pugilist, but I realized that much earlier.
Oh Kevin give it up. The only controversy with Gorsuch was created by the one and only Donald Trump, when he claimed in a Tweet that Blumenthal "mischaracterized" Gorsuch. And then, weeks later Gorsuch testified and used the exact same words, in a similar question from Blumenthal on the record in an open hearing.
Blumenthal mischaracterized nothing. Do you get that, Kevin? Blumenthal did not mischaracterize Gorsuch. There were witnesses to the conversation. Kelly Ayotte was there. She confirmed it:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/02/09/kelly-ayotte-confirms-that-gorsuch-was-disheartened-by-trumps-treatment-of-judges-n2283632
I happen to adore Justice Alito; and I think he was right, to be pissed about Obama's State of the Union address in which Obama butchered a recitation of Citizens United.
But Gorsuch was answering a question put to him by Senator Blumenthal, about Trump comments toward judges.
What is it going to take with you, Kevin?
Calling another's father an ass hole in such a direct manner would generate enough animosity that one might say worse than you smell of elderberries. Only a sibling of the child, an ex-wife of the father or the paternal grandparents, uncles, and aunts of the child have earned that sort of privilege.
Personally, I would remove such a questioner, bodily and with malice, from my dinner table.
Michael K:
Where did you get the crazy idea that I was accepting of the Iran deal? Where did I ever weigh in on any of those other topics you mentioned? I don't even know about some of those topics. Why raise them with me?
I don't know, and you don't know either, if another GOP candidate would have beaten Hillary. You think no other could have beaten her. I think any of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination could have beaten her. We can't settle that hypothetical.
I think Kevin just demonstrated mypoint about Chuck. He demands proof to a metaphysical certainty for his own comments. But he rejects every reasonable, alternative interpretation of every Trump comment.
For the record, I think Kevin's interpretation of Gorsuch's comments is reasonable. The interpretation Chuck offers requires Gorsuch to be exceptionally thin-skinned and imprudent to boot.
Chuck will never accept a reasonable, alternative explanation. His visceral dislike overwhelms whatever fleeting logic he might bring to bear.
Birkel said...
Calling another's father an ass hole in such a direct manner would generate enough animosity that one might say worse than you smell of elderberries. Only a sibling of the child, an ex-wife of the father or the paternal grandparents, uncles, and aunts of the child have earned that sort of privilege.
Personally, I would remove such a questioner, bodily and with malice, from my dinner table.
lol. The notion of my roughing up Don at a dinner table reminds me of another great Trump story. The time that bully boys picked on Donnie at the Comedy Cellar in 2002, and The Donald threatened a lawsuit with some other choice words:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/papa-trump-foaming-beer-bash-article-1.501337
I note Chuck vigorously defending Clinton hatchet guy Blumenthal here. "Where do I ever defend Democrats?" Twice on this very page. Kevin laid out a very good timeline with precision, and Chuck only runs from it and smears Trump--completely falsely, it looks like. You avoid Blumenthal as the source of Birtherism; you are completely shilling and defending the plain fact that Birtherism was birthed in the fetid mind of Hillary Clinton.
You'd think a lifelong Republican would be happy to say, "I was wrong about President Trump--he in fact was right in this case, and I was wrong in believing Democrat talking points!"
Words that Chuck has never uttered. By the way, I concede defeat to you: You are clearly a much better master of bad language and name calling; it appears to be your natural state. You are far better at cursing than I am. So congratulations!
--Vance
Putting the Trump issues aside, I am astonished by the poor quality of the work product that Comey apparently was providing to his employer, the United States. I have hired and managed plenty of “Harvard types” and equivalent, but on the technical side. They all know that if I suggest something unsound, their job is not to make me happy or to exchange looks with me, their job, their professional obligation, is to tell me the truth about my suggestion, and it is my professional responsibility not to take it personally. Nor do they expect me to have knowledge about their area of expertise. (In fact, it is my experience that the engineers delight in illuminating my ignorance, but that is a different comment.) If we need to go out for a drink after work to reassure everyone that we are still friends and respect each other, we could do so (has never needed to happen), but that option is far secondary to professionalism. If after millions of dollars of development, a project were to fail, and the engineer admitted he knew all the time it would fail but had not told me about it, in fact he had instead scurried back to his desk to write down his conviction that the project would fail – at the very least, he would not work in the industry again.
Birkel there was just one issue in the Gorsuch/Blumenthal kerfuffle: Did Senator Blumenthal "misrepresent" Gorsuch's words concerning Trump's disparagement of federal judges. That is it. That is all of it.
Here is the Trump Tweet, in a story from The Hill:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318646-trump-blumenthal-misrepresents-what-gorsuch-told-him
Trump said Blumenthal "misrepresented" Gorsuch's remarks. Kelly Ayotte confirmed that they had been accurately reported. Nothing about Obama, or that SOTU speech. And then to cap it all off, Blumenthal asks Gorsuch weeks later at his confirmation hearing. And Gorsuch uses the exact same words.
Honestly, what is open to any interpretation here?
Unknown said...
I note Chuck vigorously defending Clinton hatchet guy Blumenthal here.
...
--Vance
Vance, you poor, preposterous mouth-breathing shit head.
You are mixing up tow different Blumenthals.
Sidney Blumenthal, for whom I had scathing words just a few posts up, was the Clinton insider.
It was Senator Richard Blumenthal, who had the conversation with Judge Gorsuch. And it was Senator Blumenthal who was maligned, falsely, by Trump, during the Gorsuch meetings in individual Senators' offices.
Keep up with the rest of the class.
You are mixing up tow different Blumenthals.
No....I remember you defending Sid also...in fact it was the final straw for me, because as I noted, no true lifelong Republican would ever do that...he might ignore an attack on Sid, but would never defend him.
On the other hand:
"First of all, if you haven’t already looked at Obama’s birth certificate at whitehouse.gov, you need to see with your own eyes that it is a forgery. The easiest way to tell this is to zoom to at least 800% into the alleged signature of his mother “Stanley Ann Dunham”. You can clearly see the difference in the different sections of the signature. For example, you can see what was a photocopy of a hand-drawn section connected to a computer-drawn solid black graphic section. The “State Registrar Stamp” is also a giveaway that it is a forgery, just look for the “X” instead of the “H” in the word “THE”. This anomaly did not exist until Obama’s alleged birth certificate was posted at whitehouse.gov.
Also, because this “Obama birth document” is allegedly typed in 1961, all of the typefaces should be the same for each typed letter. Look at the word “Student”; the lowercase “t’s” are completely different shapes. And in the name “Hussein” under the father’s name, the “U,I,N” are larger than the other letters. Someone working for Obama has lessened the quality and the sharpness from the original, so these differences are harder to see than in the original. The below snapshots are from the “birth document” posted at whitehouse.gov as of 11/4/12.
The “t’s” ARE DIFFERENT IN THE SAME WORD"
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-birth-announcement-microfilm-reels-are-very-different/
Lifelong republican Chuck in a nutshell:
There are some words for your notion that "Hillary was the founder of that strategy [Birtherism]." The words are, "No, she wasn't." A Clinton campaign aide may have floated the story. Hillary never breathed a word about it, except to denounce it. Again, if you want to fight about this, then prove it with a link. Something other than InfoWars, please.
And on that subject, Vance, I notice that you haven't done any better than any of the other loser commenters on this blog, in coming up with the dynamite quote from me that proves I am a shill for Democrats. I didn't say or imply any of the shit in your unhinged post. I've never "defended Hillary's honor."
Get that? In the first paragraph he defends Hillary's honor, and in the second paragraph he denies that he has ever defended Hillary's honor.
@Althouse, you asked whether Trump did something wrong? [ Emphasis yours.]
Do keep in mind what your fellow liberals have been telling the rest of us since the days of Joe Stalin: you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
should you ever have dinner with him, to include the phrase:"Your dad is a real fucking asshole. Do you have any excuse for him?"
jesus. of all the childish shit. Grow the fuck up.
Gahrie said...
You are mixing up tow different Blumenthals.
No....I remember you defending Sid also...in fact it was the final straw for me, because as I noted, no true lifelong Republican would ever do that...he might ignore an attack on Sid, but would never defend him.
Bullshit. I am calling bullshit on you, just like the other shit heads today who couldn't come up with a quote from me, to prove their false claims about me.
I think your memory, Gahrie, is as bad as the others. I have just gotten through saying that Sid Blumenthal was a nasty piece of work. When did I defend him? Quote me. Then, start working on your apology for mischaracterizing me.
Blogger Chuck said...
lol. The notion of my roughing up Don at a dinner table reminds me of another great Trump story. The time that bully boys picked on Donnie at the Comedy Cellar in 2002, and The Donald threatened a lawsuit with some other choice words:
Yeah, Obama nd the boys roughed him up at correspondents dinner. He got even by becoming president.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
When I say you will never allow another reasonable, alternative explanation and you do exactly what I describe two comments later, while denying what I said, I realize that you may be unstable.
Your 8:07 PM comment is pathetic.
Godammit, Gahrie, it is a statement of fact.
If Hillary did initiate "Birtherism," I'd condemn her too!
That's my question for TrumpWorld: Since Donald Trump is among the greatest proponents of "Birtherism" that the world has ever known, is that a good thing (and therefore Sid Blumenthal may not have been so wrong) or a bad thing (in which case Trump is an asshole)?
I condemn all the Birthers.
If Sid Blumenthal was a Birther (there is some very scant evidence on that), he's an asshole. There are a thousand other reasons why Sid Blumenthal is an asshole, by the way.
If Hillary Clinton was a Birther (there is zero evidence on this), she's an asshole. There are a thousand other reasons why Hillary is an asshole, too.
If Donald Trump was a Birther (Really? Any questions? There are whole YouTube channels devoted to this), he's an asshole. Oh yeah, he's an asshole. There are ten thousand other reasons to go with, "Donald Trump is an asshole."
The big problem is for those of you who want to label Sid Blumenthal as an asshole for being a birther, but who want to give Donald Trump a pass for being a Birther. (And a Truther, and a Vaxxer.)
Oh, and then your 8:38 PM demonstrates the accuracy of my position that you defend metaphysically certain proof.
Parody, thine name is fopdoodle.
Demand, not defend
And now a demand for metaphysical certainty when it comes to a Chuck defense of Hillary Clinton.
After investigations, Trump has concluded Obama was born in America. So, what is the problem? There was scant evidence readily available when it was a question. Thanks to Trump and others, evidence was presented. Trump should be applauded for persevering.
I am asking you, Birkel, as one of the really offensive assclowns on this blog, what is the other, competing narrative for the Trump/Gorsuch/Blumenthal fight? I have explained it in considerable detail. You didn't offer any counter explanation. Kevin's formulation was just garbage.
Obama isn't involved. Blumenthal was asking Gorsuch about Trump comments.
Again, for the record, I'd have been highly critical of the Obama SOTU speech. I am sympatico with Justice Alito.
None of that, however, explains Trump's provocative and fundamentally incorrect Tweet attacking Senator Blumenthal.
FullMoon said...
After investigations, Trump has concluded Obama was born in America. So, what is the problem? There was scant evidence readily available when it was a question. Thanks to Trump and others, evidence was presented. Trump should be applauded for persevering.
After wasting the nation's time for years with his idiotic rambling, and after falsely promising that he had private investigators in Hawai'i who were finding "amazing things" and who would shortly be producing their findings, and after nothing at all was produced, and nothing new ever came of any of it, I'd say that Trump is just a colossal fool.
In the end, with nothing to shoe for it, and under pressure from his campaign staff to bury the issue, Trump just folded. And in true Trump style, he blamed somebody else (Hillary) for the mess.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
Calling another theory that fits the known facts "garbage" just illustrates the point. Your theory requires Gorsuch to be uniquely thin-skinned and imprudent.
I asked from the beginning why you believe Neil Gorsuch is such a quoting violet, with contempt for the First Amendment, that he would act in the way you suggest.
But your hatred of Trump has left you unable, if ever you were so able, to think of alternatives that do not fit your preconceived notions.
@ Full Moon
Chuck, so called fopdoodle, believes Trump was able to waste the nation's time as a private citizen. Trump has also developed all the prime real estate in Chuck's head and lives their rent free.
(shrinking violet, above)
There...
Autocorrect has been off its game.
We're in a war here. Much of the federal government is fighting against Donald Trump and everything he is trying to get done. The Russia investigation and the hoopla over it is part of that fight. Everything is part of that fight.
If Donald Trump is going to win, he needs to fight as fiercely as they do. He can't afford to tie his hands.
I'm sorry about all your pretty institutions, but the other side doesn't really care about them either.
Birkel, you so-called fuckhead.
It doesn't matter what you think, or what Gorsuch thought.
Blumenthal quoted Gorsuch, in speaking to the press about their meeting. Blumenthal said that Gorsuch used the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" to describe his feelings about Trump's comments about "the Mexican judge" in the Trump University civil fraud case, and the "so-called judge" in his immigration order case.
Trump jumped on that story, insulting Blumenthal and then questioning whether Blumenthal misrepresented Gorsuch.
But Blumenthal didn't misrepresent Gorsuch. Gorsuch later confirmed those words. Explicitly.
And as to the substance, who can blame Gorsuch? Trump blabbering about a "Mexican judge" (a sitting U.S. District Court judge or a "so-called judge" is inexcusable. Personally, I wouldn't have been so polite as Gorsuch. (Actually, if I had been nominated for the Supreme Court, I might have been.) My gut tells me that I'd have said, "Yeah, can you believe what a jackass Trump is?"
No, Trump did not do anything wrong. Period. End of story. Let it go.
@Chuck, Donald Trump is of course an asshole. So are you, and you are an even bigger asshole whose "lifelong Republican" shtick has flat worn itself out. Because, you see, ignorant one, Trump is our asshole, working on causes important to real people, while you're a phony asshole who gets paid by some organization funded by Tom Steyer or former Nazi sympathizer George Soros who is trying to stop him. You're a phony, and a failure.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
Kevin laid out a theory of the facts. Your hatred of Trump obscures your ability to see that it is a reasonable alternative.
Why are you so unkind in your analysis of Gorsuch? Why do you think he is a shrinking violet? Why is he so mentally weak to think comments about other judges are so demoralizing?
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
You finally called me "so caled" and as a reasonably well adjusted adult I was not demoralized at all. The insults you hurl - even the homophobic and sexist ones - don't make me disheartened.
So why would I assume Neil Gorsuch is so flappable as to be disheartened and demoralized by comments Trump made about a so called judge? There is no reason to believe your interpretation.
Birkel you asshole I am not "interpreting" anything.
Senator Bumenthal asked then-Judge Gorsuch about the Trump comments concerning judges.
Gorsuch answered, in what I (and everybody else, seemingly) presume was restrained language. Gorsuch said it was "disheartening" and "demoralizing." Blumenthal heard it. Kelly Ayotte heard it. Blumenthal reports the exchange to the press. They report it. No doubt, Trump reads about it.
Then Trump waddles into the mix on his Twitter account. He insults Blumenthal and then suggests that Blumenthal "mischaracterized" Judge Gorsuch.
But Blumenthal mischaracterized nothing. He asked Gorsuch about it, in public and on the record in the confirmation hearing. Gorsuch used the exact same words.
Those are the facts.
If you do want my "interprestation," I think that the other "d" word that Gorsuch could have employed was "dickhead." As in, "Yeah, we all know what a dickhead Trump is, and we are all disgusted by those comments. It really seems like Trump knows just enough law to be dangerous. But he nominated me, so I think I will stick with 'disheartened' and "demoralized,' and hold off on anything stronger."
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
Kevin alleges Kelly Ayotte said Blumenthal and Gorsuch talked past one another. Accordingly Blumenthal asked a question that Gorsuch sidestepped artfully, according to Kevin's teling, and answered an unasked question that did not betray Gorsuch's views on political issues.
I'm that telling Gorsuch is not unmanned so easily as he is in your story.
In that telling...
So Birkel where does Kevin get that, about Kelly Ayotte's interpretation?
I have posted this once already:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/02/09/kelly-ayotte-confirms-that-gorsuch-was-disheartened-by-trumps-treatment-of-judges-n2283632
It almost doesn't matter, since all doubt was erased by Gorsuch's confirmation hearing testimony under oath. He used the exact same words.
It is amazing to me, in arguing with Trumpkins, the extent to which you have to have your boot squarely on their throats, before they will concede even the most basic of facts.
@ Chuck
The testimony before the Senate Judiciary Commitee aligns with what Kevin suggests above. Watch it without your personal blinders.
Blumenthal asked a poor question and Gorsuch answered a different question.
Senator Ayotte's official statement:
"Judge Gorsuch has made it very clear in all of his discussions with senators, including Senator Blumenthal, that he could not comment on any specific cases and that judicial ethics prevent him from commenting on political matters. He has also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, and while he made clear that he was not referring to any specific case, he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing."
That fits with Kevin's outline above. Gorsuch said nothing specific about Trump.
Did you read your own link, Chuck?
"You all have performed badly today, in trying to make me out as some sort of closet liberal Democrat agent"
Aww, Vichy Chuck is chastising everyone. While your posts about your violent sexual fantasies of shoving things down men's throat does indeed lead me to speculate about you being in the closet, your liberal democratic agent status is absolutely out and proud.
Lifelong Republican Chuck. He's here, he is a moby, Get over it.
It is amazing to me, in arguing with Trumpkins, the extent to which you have to have your boot squarely on their throats,
Another Kinsley gaffe. it is the Left who is constantly attempting to place their boot on people's throats......the Right believes in freedom and individualism.
I wonder if Neil Gorsuch found it disheartening and demoralizing when people criticized the integrity and independence of Alcee Hastings.
Because federal prosecutors in the criminal trial of Hastings for bribery certain unsigned his integrity and independence. So did the House when it impeached and the Senate when it convicted.
Somebody should ask Alcee Hastings (D -Florida) what he thinks.
Because either that interpretation is correct or Neil Gorsuch is more nuanced than Chuck allows in his interpretation. Why would Chuck impugn a Justice he wanted, and who was the only reason he voted for Trump?
Something doesn't jibe.
Unsigned --> impugned
I don't think you can separate out the legal analysis from the political analysis. Whether you think Trump's conduct vis-a-vis Comey was an abuse of power or not depends to a great deal on whether or not you think the claim that Trump conspired with Russia to be a legitimate claim that the FBI either was or should have been pursuing, or a false claim made in bad faith. If the latter, then Trump's pushback is a lot more sympathetic and not at all corrupt. If the former, then it is corrupt. So I think the two analyses are intertwined and inseparable.
Chuck said...
You all have performed badly today, in trying to make me out as some sort of closet liberal Democrat agent
You've done this before, you creepy turd.
Vance, you poor, preposterous mouth-breathing shit head.
Bullshit. I am calling bullshit on you, just like the other shit heads today who couldn't come up with a quote from me, to prove their false claims about me.
I am asking you, Birkel, as one of the really offensive assclowns on this blog, what is the other, competing narrative for the Trump/Gorsuch/Blumenthal fight?
Birkel, you so-called fuckhead.
Birkel you asshole I am not "interpreting" anything.
teabaggers
Barron's autism
Has anyone ever seen Chuck say a cross word to the other Trump haters on the left? Why does he have no arguments with anyone on the left? Ever.
Vichy Republican.
Chuck, you are in a class by yourself. I don't know anyone else who thinks like you do.
Good fortune to you. Please consider whether the name-calling adds to or subtracts from your argument (although I understand the personal satisfaction gained from venting). I don't think that Once Written, Twice adds much to his argument by calling many commenters here "the Althouse Hillbillies". That might have been mildly amusing the first time he said it, but that was about five years ago.
Thank you Birkel. You got the point I was making to Chuck.
Here is Ayotte's statement, from Chuck's very own link. I will highlight the relevant portion here for people who might be inclined to skim.
"Judge Gorsuch has made it very clear in all of his discussions with senators, including Senator Blumenthal, that he could not comment on any specific cases and that judicial ethics prevent him from commenting on political matters. He has also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, and while he made clear that he was not referring to any specific case, he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing."
That's not cover your ass language. That's SOP for judges undergoing confirmation. They will not engage in politics.
Judge Gorsuch did not say - use the words, utter the sentence - "I was disheartened by Trump's treatment of judges". He did not and would not comment on Trump at all. He made it clear before his interviews, he made it clear during his interviews, and he made it clear during his testimony that he would not comment on political matters.
So if Blumenthal had limited his question to Trump, and only Trump, Gorsuch would have refused to answer. Judicial ethics required him to refuse to answer such a question.
And when Blumenthal pushed for a specific answer during Senate testimony, Gorsuch answered a different question.
Blumenthal MISCHARACTERIZED Gorsuch's conversation as a political one. He MISCHARACTERIZED his answer as specifically targeting trump. He MISCHARACTERIZED the comments as PERSONAL ANIMOSITY to Trump AND TO NO OTHER HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET BUT TRUMP.
Let me say that again. Blumenthal MISCHARACTERIZED the comments as PERSONAL ANIMOSITY to Trump AND TO NO OTHER HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET BUT TRUMP.
Trump was actually being very careful by calling it a mischaracterization. It was a well-chosen word. It was a well-designed response.
The stated words back up Trump's version. You can only get to Blumenthal's by inference and exclusion of fact.
Trump, in this case, was telling the truth. It was Blumenthal who was stretching Gorsuch's words to make them fit his narrative. I won't go so far as to say he was lying. Because I think lying is a high bar to clear. But he certainly mischaracterized them for political show, and he certainly misrepresented what Gorsuch told him - both in his chambers and in open testimony.
LMFAO, Kevin.
Gorsuch testified under oath, "When anyone criticizes the honesty or the integrity or motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening; I find that demoralizing."
Blumenthal then asked immediately after the completion of that sentence, "Anyone, including the President of the United States?"
To which Gorsuch replied, "Anyone is anyone."
Now, as I understand it, your Trumpian formulation of that is that because Gorsuch didn't name President Trump by name, it could rightly be called a "mischaracterization" to say that Gorsuch found Trump's comments to be "disheartening" and "demoralizing." Because, hey, there was a time once in a State of the Union Address that Barack Obama criticized the Citizens United decision.
Of course I already conceded that I thought Obama's criticism was erroneous, ignorant and unseemly. Bullshit, in short. But of course even I couldn't claim that Obama had gone after "the honesty or the integrity or the motives" of the Citizens United majority.
So bringing any president -- other than Donald Trump, who very notably went after the honesty and the integrity of two federal district court judges, shortly before Judge Gorsuch met with Senator Blumenthal in his Senate office -- into this story is so far out of left field that it beggars description.
And yet you persist. I gather that we are to assume that in TrumpWorld, Gorsuch thinks that BOTH of Trump and Obama made "disheartening" and "demoralizing" remarks about federal judges. And so because Obama is implicated along with Trump, that makes Trump no worse than Obama. Talk about a low bar.
And let's be clear about Kelly Ayotte's statement. What she did, was to confirm that the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" were used. She certainly did that, and later there would be no doubt about the words used because Gorsuch used them again, specifically, under oath. The Trump-Campaign crafting of her statement after the Senate meeting confirmed that fact.
So you think that there were other presidents to whom Gorsuch was referring? Because Blumenthal specifically asked Gorsuch about "the president of the United States" as he wrapped up his questioning in the hearing. (I have no doubt Blumenthal asked Gorsuch specifically about "Trump" in their private meeting.) Which recent presidents -- outside of long-ago historical artifacts -- have attacked the integrity, the honesty and the motives of federal judges? Who else is there to talk about, other than Trump, who attacked two district judges on the bizarre grounds of one being "a Mexican judge," and the other being a "so-called judge"?
"So you think that there were other presidents to whom Gorsuch was referring?"
From his own testimony he was referring to "anyone". That would include other presidents and other non-presidents. As such, it would even refer to Blumenthal himself.
an·y·one ˈenēˌwən pronoun: anyone
1. any person or people. "there wasn't anyone there" used for emphasis. "anyone could do it"
2.a person of importance or authority. "they are read by anyone who's anyone"
"Which recent presidents -- outside of long-ago historical artifacts -- have attacked the integrity, the honesty and the motives of federal judges?"
"President Obama took the extraordinary step in Wednesday's State of the Union address of slamming the Supreme Court for last week's decision striking down limits on corporate spending on political advertisements, ruling that the Court had "opened the floodgates" to special interests and foreign corporations in elections.
And it appears that one of the Justices in the audience didn't agree.
As Obama spoke, Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and appears to mouth the words, "not true."
It's really rather simple that the word "anyone" includes Trump but does not refer specifically to Trump.
If I said, anyone who makes ad hominem attacks on other commenters should stop doing so. And then someone said, "Hey Chuck, Kevin said you should stop making ad hominem attacks."
I would reply that, "No, I never said Chuck. I said anyone."
I really don't know how to make that more clear to you. Because I really don't know how to make it more clear to anyone.
Kevin you are not telling me anything I didn't already understand.
So we are left with the notion that Judge Gorsuch condemned "anyone... including the President of the United States," who challenged the basic integrity, honesty and motives of the federal judiciary.
And there is only one person of note in American political leadership who had done that, in the run-up to the Gorsuch confirmation. And while making his own stupid criticism of Citizens United, Obama did not stoop so low as to challenge the Supreme Court on any basis of integrity, honesty and motivations.
And by all accounts, while meeting with Gorsuch in his Senate office, Richard Blumenthal specifically asked Gorsuch about Trump's anti-judiciary comments. To that question, Gorsuch answered that he found such comments "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
Your best-case scenario, Kevin -- and it is a wild, almost incomprehensible stretch to do so -- is that Blumenthal "mischaracterized" Gorsuch, because Gorsuch may have been criticizing Obama as harshly as Trump.
Beautiful.
Why does anybody forward an argument that requires Neil Gorsuch be such a shrinking violet, so craven, as the interpretation offered by Democrat Blumenthal and parroted by Chuck, so called fopdoodle?
If I were Neil Gorsuch I would not need enemies with friends who demeaned me so.
The argument about "anyone" ignores - and falls directly into the trap I set - the Alcee Hastings criminal trial, impeachment and conviction.
I doubt Gorsuch was disheartened by those events. Meaning, Gorsuch crafted a non-answer answer that left him maximum wiggle room. It was designed to let Democrats like Blumenthal or Chuck, so called fopdoodle, hear what they wanted. And they persist.
Kevin, who else besides Trump has been in the news in the last year, for making notable public comments challenging the integrity, honesty and motivations of federal judges?
I'll acknowledge the example -- your shitty, virtually irrelevant example from more than seven years ago -- of Obama chastising the Citizens United majority.
What else? Who else would likely and credibly be counted among your "anyone"? Who else's name was brought up, in the Gorsuch Senate meetings, or in his confirmation testimony?
Finally, you must acknowledge this; that while you insist that Gorsuch was fudging with "anybody," in his answer, and may (so you say) have been referring to more than one person whose judicial commentary was "disheartening" and "demoralizing," you would at least concede that Trump was among those to whom Gorsuch was referring. Yes? There may have been others (who?) whose comments were "disheartening" and "demoralizing," but in any event, Trump's own comments were "disheartening" and "demoralizing," according to Gorsuch himself. Correct?
Query: Who else would likely and credibly be counted among Blumenthal or Chuck's "anyone"?
ANSWER: Nobody. That was only Trump.
Query: Did Gorsuch answer Blumenthal's question?
ANSWER: No. He carefully sidestepped the Leftist nonsense of Blumenthal and Chuck, so called.
So we are left with the notion that Judge Gorsuch condemned "anyone... including the President of the United States," who challenged the basic integrity, honesty and motives of the federal judiciary.
Gorsuch never said "...including the President of the United States". Like Blumenthal, you're putting words in his mouth.
You like your version of events. Fine. It doesn't square with the transcript. And because it doesn't square with the transcript, you're left filling in his words with your conjecture
Like: "And there is only one person of note in American political leadership who had done that...", to rule Trump in.
And: "Obama did not stoop so low as to challenge the Supreme Court on any basis of integrity, honesty and motivations", to rule Obama, for one, out.
You can't stop at Gorsuch's words, because he never used the word "Trump" or the words "President of the United States".
To get to Trump, you have to surmise. I could surmise too. I could surmise that Gorsuch was more offended that the President would offer a rebuke to the Supremes during the SOTU where they are forced to sit there silently in a non-political capacity, than he was by a Tweet
I could surmise that. But Gorsuch didn't say it. So by saying it's what Gorsuch meant, I'd be taking liberty with what he actually said.
So surmise away to get the result you like. But don't pretend you're not doing it.
you would at least concede that Trump was among those to whom Gorsuch was referring.
I wouldn't concede but agree that Trump would be among those people. I have never said otherwise.
I would disagree that Gorsuch was referring to any specific person when using the word "anyone".
And you would agree that Blumenthal's statement left out the "anyone" and specifically and exclusively named "Trump" and no others.
Even when there are probably hundreds of people who disparage the judiciary every day. Some who cover the court for the NYT, for just one example.
You know, the liberals who take pot shots at Clarence Thomas for being a "house negro". I guess you find "so called judge" such a singularly disheartening thing that it crowds out "house negro".
"Samuel L. Jackson plays crusty, waxen Stephen as a vision of depraved loyalty and bombastic jive that cuts right past the obvious association with Uncle Tom. The movie is too modern for what Jackson is doing to be limited to 1853. He’s conjuring the house Negro, yes, but playing him as though he were Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes or Herman Cain or Michael Steele, men whom some black people find embarrassing.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336585/house-negroes-clarence-thomas-jonah-goldberg
That was from the Boston Globe, by the way.
Kevin said...
So we are left with the notion that Judge Gorsuch condemned "anyone... including the President of the United States," who challenged the basic integrity, honesty and motives of the federal judiciary.
Gorsuch never said "...including the President of the United States". Like Blumenthal, you're putting words in his mouth.
Oh, certainly I think Blumenthal was, at the hearing, trying to put words in Gorsuch's mouth. That is Blumenthal's job in that setting. To get clarity. To force words on otherwise unwilling witnesses.
After Gorsuch responded, Blumenthal asked if "anyone" included "the president of the United States." And Gorsuch replied, "Anyone means anyone."
So we are down to it now. You agree that Gorsuch was referring to "anyone" who criticized the integrity, honesty and motivations of federal judges. You agree that "anyone" included, naturally, President Trump. And it was Trump's comments that prompted the entire interchange between Blumenthal and Gorsuch in the first place. Gorsuch was referring to anyone who made such comments, and that included Donald Trump.
This business about it being merely a general statement from Gorsuch, and nothing more, is mind-numbing. Yes, Gorsuch has his own general rule on the subject. And he applied it to Trump.
To say that Gorsuch found Trump's comments about federal judges to be "disheartening" and "demoralizing" is a true statement. Maybe there are other, unnamed persons that Gorsuch has given similar thought to. If so, it would not be surprising, but no other comments similar to Trump's were ever mentioned, were they? Gorsuch, under any formulation, was referring to Trump's stupid comments. It may have been a principle that could be applied to other stupid criticisms of federal judges, but since there were no other stupid criticisms in popular circulation at the time, it is absolutely fair to say that Gorsuch was including Trump, and almost certainly speaking squarely to Trump's commentary.
And while making his own stupid criticism of Citizens United, Obama did not stoop so low as to challenge the Supreme Court on any basis of integrity, honesty and motivations.
Careful, someone who didn't know that you were a lifelong Republican who never defends Democrats might get confused and think you were defending a Democrat here.
@ Chuck
Blumenthal's job was not to get clarity. His job was to exact an answer that could be reliably used as a cudgel against President Trump. And Leftists everywhere have jumped on the opportunity.
@ Chuck
Do you believe anyone includes Alcee Hastings, who was tried criminally, impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate?
Let me say one more thing in closing on this subject.
One of the really nauseating things about most Trump Tweets and other stray comments, is the vague, loose casualness of his language. Trump rarely says anything with precision.
For the most part, I think it is because of Trump's own blustery fake-knowledge of governmental issues. As with health care reform. He never talks about hard specifics; instead he talks about nonsensical things like, "We're going to have great plans; you are going to love your health care."
But in a smaller part, since he is a guy who has been in more lawsuits, and has faced more hostile reporters than anybody you can think of, he's learned the hard way how to not say anything that will pin him down.
Sometimes that habit comes out in laughably stupid ways. Like suggesting that Comey had better worry if there are tapes of his conversation, and then later refusing to say if there was a recording at all. And then suggesting that we will all find out later, and we'll be disappointed. WTF? Why is that such a hard question? Why can't clear language be used to explain things and then move on to other business?
Birkel said...
@ Chuck
Do you believe anyone includes Alcee Hastings, who was tried criminally, impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate?
Was Alcee Hastings' name brought up in the Blumenthal office meeting, or in the confirmation hearing?
I think that calling ex-Judge (now Rep.) Hastings a "crook" would be fine. I think that calling Judge Curiel a "Mexican judge" and that calling Judge Robart a "so-called judge" is ignorant and disgraceful.
And if I had been nominated by Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court, I would have substituted "ignorant and disgraceful" with "disheartening and demoralizing" for the sake of public relations. And to keep the notoriously unhinged Trump on an even keel. As much as is possible.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
I agree with you that Trump should be much more specific in his language. After all, if he was precise all the time Democrats would stop criticizing him and his political difficulties would be fewer. Senate Democrats would then vote for legislation that would decrease the size and scope of government. Dogs and cats could live together peacefully.
/sarc
You cannot imagine that Trump's strategy is to keep his enemies off balance? You cannot imagine that you and Trump's Democrat detractors look unhinged with your incessant attacks? You cannot free yourself of your own preconceptions.
Try this: Imagine you were a litigator. Imagine you were tasked with defending somebody for whom you had personal animus, somebody you thought was likely guilty but deserves a zealous defense.
@ Chuck
So you admit with your Alcee Hastings comments that anyone does not, in fact, mean anyone?
Gahrie, what the fuck is wrong with you?
I think that Citizens United is one of the great, important, admirable decisions of our time.
I think that Obama was stupid and wrong to criticize it as he did. And that his method, with some of the Court members assembled in front of him, was churlish.
I think that Justice Alito's reaction, furrowing his brow and mouthing the words "That's not true," was spot-on. I'd have done the same.
And from that, you get that I am a defender of Obama and/or liberalism? Now of course none of that was on the table when Blumenthal asked Judge Gorsuch about Trump's own dumb comments, which were on a different level of "crude stupidity" from Obama.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
"Was Alcee Hastings' name brought up in the Blumenthal office meeting, or in the confirmation hearing?"
So only people whose names were specifically mentioned by Gorsuch are to be included in our analysis? Or do you take the view that only names mentioned by Democrat politicians count?
I warned you it was a trap. And here we are.
Gorsuch named no names. Therefore, as Kevin argues, that could but does not necessarily include Trump's specific statements.
And once you allow that Hastings might not be included in what Gorsuch said, you either must admit the same of Trump or call yourself a liar and a political operative in favor of Democrat Blumenthal.
Birkel said...
...
Try this: Imagine you were a litigator. Imagine you were tasked with defending somebody for whom you had personal animus, somebody you thought was likely guilty but deserves a zealous defense.
I have seen some of Trump's deposition transcripts. He is a monstrously bad client. If I had been retained by Trump's insurer to defend him in a claim, I would write to the adjusters and say, "This guy is unmanageable as a witness. He's terrible, under oath, and under cross-examination. I have no idea what he might say. What are our policy limits, and what is my settlement authority?"
So we are down to it now. You agree that Gorsuch was referring to "anyone" who criticized the integrity, honesty and motivations of federal judges. You agree that "anyone" included, naturally, President Trump. And it was Trump's comments that prompted the entire interchange between Blumenthal and Gorsuch in the first place. Gorsuch was referring to anyone who made such comments, and that included Donald Trump.
This business about it being merely a general statement from Gorsuch, and nothing more, is mind-numbing. Yes, Gorsuch has his own general rule on the subject. And he applied it to Trump.
To say that Gorsuch found Trump's comments about federal judges to be "disheartening" and "demoralizing" is a true statement.
Chuck, the start of this thread was you saying that Trump lied. Specifically, you asserted that Trump lied in his Tweet that Blumenthal mischaracterized Gorsuch's remarks to Blumenthal. Remember that? You said it was something to the effect of a perfect example of Trump's lies.
That's what we're discussing. The truth or lack thereof of Trump's Tweet.
My entire point has been that Blumenthal DID MISCHARACTERIZE Gorsuch's remarks. He paraphrased. He twisted them. He extrapolated to make them into a personal attack by Gorsuch on Trump, which Gorsuch never made.
From above: Blumenthal's statement left out the "anyone" and specifically and exclusively named "Trump" and no others.
That is a mischaracterization of what Gorsuch said. Plain and simple. Because he turned a general discussion into a personal and exclusive attack.
Trump never said Blumenthal lied. Or that the substance of his remarks was untrue. He said Blumenthal mischaracterized it into a hit job by Gorsuch, which it wasn't.
"Gorsuch finds Any attack on the Judiciary "Disheartening", just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Gorsuch finds Trump's Tweets "Disheartening". It might better reflect his actual feelings and statements, but it doesn't have the same ring to it.
Unfortunately, one is true and the second, as Donald Trump correctly Tweeted, is a mischaracterization of what he said.
It was not a lie. It was most definitely the truth.
@ Chuck
Nice try. Now imagine that Trump, who has very deep pockets, waives the protections of insurance and is in control of settlement. And imagine that you cannot drop him as a client because the firm for which you work needs him as an ongoing fee generating machine.
And get to the Alcee Hastings trap and spin some lie that excuses you.
Kevin, what Blumenthal stated to the press was that Gorsuch used the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" in their discussion of Trump's comments. In fact, when you look at the reporting from February (before the confirmation hearing, where the words were used again), you will see that Blumenthal said that he was disappointed that Gorsuch had not been more specific and more harsh in his choice of language.
I keep asking you, Kevin, exactly what did Blumenthal "misrepresent"? Can you please quote Blumenthal?
"I keep asking you, Kevin, exactly what did Blumenthal "misrepresent"? Can you please quote Blumenthal?"
Yes. Can you please tell me whether the defense attorney has the right to object when a general statement by the witness is turned into a specific allegation by the prosecutor?
No, Kevin; maybe this is the choke-point in this argument. You seem to be arguing that Blumenthal, despite correctly telling reporters that Gorsuch used the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" to describe the sorts of comments aimed by Trump at federal judges, nevertheless somehow "misrepresented" something.
What? What did Blumenthal misrepresent? What did Blumenthal say about his conversation with Gorsuch, that amounted to "misrepresentation"? I am suggesting to you very specifically that you come up with a quote. I hope you can come up with whatever quote I was that Trump was Tweeting about. I realize that is hard, because Trump is so relentless vague and opaque about this stuff. And because I don't think that Trump has ever answered questions about what he meant. That makes it hard for you, I know. Trump makes a lot of stuff hard, even for his supporters. But since you are so certain that Blumenthal "misrepresented" something as Trump alleged, please clear up for us exactly what the misrepresentation was.
Out and proud in his defense of the Vietnam war hero Blumenthal.
Lifelong Republican Chuck.
"The Connecticut Democrat said Wednesday that during a meeting with Gorsuch, the federal judge told him that Trump's comments about a Seattle judge who blocked his orders on immigration were "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
"But I think that telling me that he finds these attacks to be demoralizing or disheartening behind closed doors is not enough," Blumenthal told CNN Thursday. "He needs to make that statement publicly and condemn this attack on the independence of the judiciary and show the American people that he will be independent." "
So Blumenthal misrepresented the general comments as Trump-specific comments.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Blumenthal-Comments-Trump-Gorsuch/2017/02/09/id/772730/
"Gorsuch used the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" to describe the sorts of comments aimed by Trump at federal judges, nevertheless somehow "misrepresented" something."
Nope. No problem with the words Gorsuch actually said. Those were not the misrepresentation.
The misrepresentation is in the courtroom example. You're not going to object?
Kevin, again I ask you to be specific and state clearly, with a quote from Blumenthal, what exactly it was about his conversation with then-Judge Gorsuch that Blumenthal "misrepresented."
"Kevin, again I ask you to be specific and state clearly, with a quote from Blumenthal, what exactly it was about his conversation with then-Judge Gorsuch that Blumenthal "misrepresented."
Oh I have. We are arguing over the definition of "misrepresented".
When I get stuck on a point with someone, I find it often helpful to remove us both from the specific situation so as to see more clearly. Once we work through the definition of misrepresentation we can go back to Blumenthal's words.
Did the prosecutor misrepresent what the witness said to the jury? Would you object in a courtroom, or would you let it go if you were the defense?
The question gets the the facts in Bkumanthal v. Trump.
Birkel:
No. Your quote proves my point. Again, what you quoted:
"But I think that telling me that he finds these attacks to be demoralizing or disheartening behind closed doors is not enough," Blumenthal told CNN Thursday. "He needs to make that statement publicly and condemn this attack on the independence of the judiciary and show the American people that he will be independent."
Later, that is exactly what Gorsuch did. He made it clear, publicly, that he found such attacks on the federal judiciary to be "disheartening" and "demoralizing." He said that, and used those words, in his hearing testimony.
Gorsuch did not say in so many words, "I think Trump is a demoralizing and disheartening source of aggravation for the federal judiciary." That Gorsuch did not say so disappointed Blumenthal. I might have enjoyed hearing that, myself. But nowhere in any of that is there a B;umenthal "misrepresentation."
You guys seem to want to hang your hats on the notion that, "Well, uh, Gorsuch could have been talking about other people too!" But Blumenthal didn't ask about anybody else. He did ask about Trump. And that was Gorsuch's answer. If Gorsuch actually thought, "Anybody who makes comments like the ones that Trump makes, would get the same opinion from me..." then so be it. Doesn't matter. The fact is that Blumenthal misrepresented absolutely nothing about Gorsuch.
Umm, I barely even see people acknowledging that the Founders made the Director of the FBI the head of all three branches of government. That position is the top of the chain of command.
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial are all underneath the Director of the FBI.
It's why the founders were so smart - they knew great men like J Edgar Hoover and James Comey would come along and use their constitutionally-granted power as ur-head of our Republic to indict people that personally offended them.
What a great institution the FBI is. Always there to settle petty personal spats.
Comey was certainly right to inject himself into politics, both back in October against Hillary and now against Trump, as the buck truly stops with him, just as the Founders intended.
In no way is the FBI "completely out of control" or "way, way outside its designated bounds of duty".
Comey is, and should remain, the effective king of the United States.
I'm taking out some comments here that are in the category of "back and forth."
Stay on the substance under discussion. Stop naming other commenters. Don't make it personal. It degrades the discussion and is very off-putting to most readers.
Hell, Birkel, all I wanted from you was the quote from Blumenthal where he "misrepresented" Gorsuch.
What I know about the Blumenthal/Gorsuch office conversation was that Blumenthal asked Gorsuch about Trump's comments on federal judges, and Gorsuch replied using the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
Do you know more, about what exactly was said?
When Blumenthal went to the press, what I know so far is what you quoted. I remember seeing video at the time, as well. Blumenthal was disappointed that Gorsuch hadn't made his feelings about the Trump comments known publicly, as opposed to a private Senate office meeting. And Blumenthal repeated the two words "disheartening" and "demoralizing." Which Gorsuch then re-repeated in his testimony.
Back to you. Or Kevin. Or both of you.
How exactly did Blumenthal misrepresent Gorsuch?
Is it not at all interesting to you, that when Gorsuch testified in his confirmation hearing, that he never said, By the way, Senator Blumenthal, I'd like to correct something about how you misrepresented me last February...President Trump Tweeted about it,
and I'd like to correct you on the misrepresentation he pointed out...
It's because there was no misrepresentation.
when Gorsuch testified in his confirmation hearing, that he never said, By the way, Senator Blumenthal, I'd like to correct something about how you misrepresented me last February...President Trump Tweeted about it,
and I'd like to correct you on the misrepresentation he pointed out...
It's because there was no misrepresentation.
No, it's because he was trying to get 60 votes and had some sliver of hope the Dems wouldn't blackball him and force the nuclear option. The cost of him saying that might far outweigh the benefit of him doing so.
You don't "correct" Senators on the Judiciary Committee when you're up for the Supreme Court. You let your supporters in the party do that on your behalf.
I will observe the rules and shop for Amazon goods elsewhere.
I will note that the differences between appropriate inferences and implications is an important one. It is important to note, when reasoning logically that implications are often self-serving and are therefore best avoided. Further, when careful speakers and writers speak carefully and write carefully in order to avoid improper inferences we do great service to those speakers and writers when we exercise reciprocal care in our own listening and writing.
As a general matter I expect Althouse has witnessed a great number of times in her own blog comments when people improperly implied things she had carefully avoided writing. That carefulness is one of the reasons people care to read Althouse. I expect that careful thinkers such as Supreme Court justices are likely to also speak and write in hopes of limiting the logical inferences to which they might expose themselves.
Political actors such as Trump or Comey are much less precise, to varying degrees. The imprecision of their language serves a very different purpose. It seems many political animals want to leave their supporters room to believe what they want while leaving plausible deniability. That is a separate set of skills and useful for different sets of goals.
A tweet by a president that faces a hostile press can be quite useful because it focuses the conversation on friendlier political terrain. A president that could count on the supplication of a somnambulant press never had a need to use such tools.
What I know about the Blumenthal/Gorsuch office conversation was that Blumenthal asked Gorsuch about Trump's comments on federal judges, and Gorsuch replied using the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
Do you know more, about what exactly was said?
I can, but better yet let me just quote Chuck: "Gorsuch did not say in so many words, "I think Trump is a demoralizing and disheartening source of aggravation for the federal judiciary." That Gorsuch did not say so disappointed Blumenthal."
Thank you for that. Acknowledging points by others is helpful in bringing conversations to a closing point.
The misrepresentation was not in saying "demoralizing" or "disheartening". Those words were used. It was not that Trump fit the description Gorsuch made. He did. It was that Gorsuch didn't specifically call out Trump or answer and specific question about Trump, and Blumenthal made it appear Gorsuch singled out Trump.
Again, Kelly Ayotte was in the meeting: “Judge Gorsuch has made it very clear in all of his discussions with senators, including Senator Blumenthal, that he could not comment on any specific cases and that judicial ethics prevent him from commenting on political matters,” former Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who is aiding Gorsuch in his confirmation process, said in a statement Thursday morning.
“He has also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, and while he made clear that he was not referring to any specific case, he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing,” the statement continued."
This was the substance underlying Trump's Tweet. Ayotte told Trump that Gorsuch didn't say what Blumenthal said he said - that Gorsuch specifically discussed Trump and not the general case of attacks on the judiciary.
Gorsuch's team would have known questions about Trump's Tweet were coming, and they would have briefed him on how to best answer them, while retaining his integrity to not discuss individual cases or politics during his interviews or hearings.
The Tweet, which is the subject of this conversation, was made with that direct knowledge of what was and was not said, in hand. It was not "a lie" as you stated earlier. Trump had Blumenthal's statement, Ayotte's statement, and most likely Gorsuch's statement before he wrote the Tweet.
As for the back and forth in the hearing, it serves to confirm that Gorsuch didn't want to specifically address Trump, but it is irrelevant to the Tweet itself. It happened afterward, and anything it might add does not bear weight on whether Trump, at the time of the Tweet, was "lying" about the situation.
Trump was not "lying". Ayotte briefed him that Blumenthal mischaracterized the interaction.
@Birkel Well stated. I appreciated your comments, clarifications, and insights, particularly about how carefully our host writes and yet how much interpretation commenters cram into her carefully-crafted words.
I look forward to your future posts.
I will note that it was only my first comment about inference vs. implication that I know for a fact was deleted. All of the personal insults about me were left intact. I assume - without malice - that a lack of time or perhaps the difficulty of separating things in a long list of comments led to such an impasse. I hold no ill will that it was me, singly, that was deleted.
Meanwhile, and without reference to another commenter, it is rare that I offer significant logical argumentation because my best surmise, to date, is that most of the people here, operating in a low trust environment, are not worth the effort required to be thoughtful and precise. If anybody appreciates my efforts when I decide to offer more, I appreciate the sentiment. However, nearly all of my comments are mockery, sarcasm and/or silly. I rarely care to offer more because this forum discourages careful argumentation, as our host surely knows.
If anybody were ever to look forward to what I might post, they will surely be disappointed as I normally aim to please myself and nobody else. I have a wicked sense of humor and I'm unwilling to work blue, online. My humor is obtuse and difficult. That said, anybody who like anything I write is a happy coincidence and I appreciate any positive feedback. I'm no Laslo, to be sure, and I make little effort toward that end.
...anybody who likes...
Damn autocorrect. Damn it to Bernie Sanders' version of non-hell.
Post a Comment