....Ever since Andrew came to my office to ask that I appoint him to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I said NO, he has been very hostile! Also asked for pardon for his friend. A good “pal” of low ratings Shepard Smith.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 28, 2019
And here's Dershowitz:
Posts
132 comments:
Napolitano's cackle would put Hillary's to shame. It's long been a mystery to me why Fox News chose him as their legal 'expert'. What a creep.
Napolitano has lost his mind and his objectivity. Trump derangement syndrome can do that.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller never should have been the Special Counsel, because of his many conflicts of interest. Mueller was a long-time colleague, professional mentor and personal friend of "Crazy Comey the Leaker", so Mueller should not have been "investigating" and judging Trump's firing of Comey.
Mueller's conduct as Special Counsel -- in particular, his staff selections -- reinforced the perception that he was not fair and impartial.
President Trump was correct to tell his subordinates to go raise this issue with Rod Rosenstein.
Unfortunately, Rosenstein himself should have recused himself from this controversy, because of his own conflicts of interest.
President Trump was surrounded by biased, corrupt, conniving officials at the top levels of the Intelligence Community -- in particular, of the DOJ/FBI.
It's ludicrous that Jeff Sessions was compelled to recuse himself from an investigation that was managed by Rosenstein and Mueller.
Call it naivety, but I'm amazed every time I encounter people who believe a position that gives them the "power" to horse trade favors for their own benefit -- and maligning or destroying those who stand in their way -- constitutes a job much less a reputable career.
It's the Peter Principle with avarice in substitution for (or more likely in addition to) incompetence.
Trump obstruction of justice is the new bright object to distract from what the dems did.
The Day Collusion Died
... but I knew they ran out of luck,
The day collusion died.
But they kept singing,
"Bye, bye, he's a Russian ally,
Putin puppet, Russian agent
and treasonous spy." ...
The blandishments of the Deep State and its allies are irresistible to many. Napolitano may be positioning himself for a Megan Kelly-type bidding war, with MSNBC and CNN eager to add another "conservative" anti-Trumper to their stable of talking heads.
Thank you to brilliant and highly respected attorney Alan Dershowitz for destroying the very dumb legal argument of “Judge” Andrew Napolitano...
Judge Nap, lest ye be judged.
What's up with that camera angle when they were shooting Napolitano? Are they trying to make it more dramatic. It's annoying.
Dershowitz is a classic liberal who seem to be hard to find in the current Democratic party.
Dershowitz has been right on this from the beginning. He has a keen legal mind. He is a national treasure. Too bad more Democrats aren't like him.
Is there anyone who makes a living commenting on affairs, trading on their prior govt experience, who isn’t revealed as an opportunistic creep? There seems to be a devilish combination of temptation and selection bias at work here that corrupts absolutely.
"NRA" as a backdrop to a nauseating speech merits a dropkick. What an obnoxious man and organization of redneck killers. God save the Republic from such slime balls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropkick
Dersh makes the better argument by far. Neapolitan merely spits out leftwing talking points.
Well hes a Paul supporter
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/biden_the_democrats_flavor_of_the_week.html
"Trump obstruction of justice is the new bright object to distract from what the dems did."
What did we do that merits such a remark? Trump should be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Those crimes are the "bright objects" we ascertained from the Mueller Report. Get your reading glasses out and read it before you make another snarky comment.
Woah! Shep is openly gay. Innuendo with that pal comment. Low blow!
daskol said...
There seems to be a devilish combination of temptation and selection bias at work here that corrupts absolutely.
Indeed. That's why I likened it to the Peter Principle. And it's not confined to TV commentators: it's become pervasive.
As I said, I'm just astounded by the legitimacy it's accorded, especially against the "social justice" and "examination of power relationship" backdrops where so much of this flourishes, largely at public expense.
It's sickening.
Looks like Inga told one of her dumber daughters about Althouse.
I agree with Fran.
Now, Fran, could you please cite the law that SC Mueller noted President Trump broke.
I'm sure it's in the Mueller Report so you can just point me to the page number, please.
Thanks in advance.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Napolitano has lost his mind and his objectivity. Trump derangement syndrome can do that.
That, or something else.
About a year ago, Napolitano was on Fox & Friends one morning, and stated Obama's CIA used British intel to spy on the Trump campaign. Stated not as a theory, but a fact.
He was immediately suspended from Fox for several weeks, and denounced as an irresponsible conspiracy theorist others at Fox.
When he came back his 'legal analysis' took a 180 turn.
Mike said.... Mueller was a long-time colleague, professional mentor and personal friend of "Crazy Comey the Leaker", so Mueller should not have been "investigating" and judging Trump's firing of Comey.
It's ludicrous that Jeff Sessions was compelled to recuse himself from an investigation that was managed by Rosenstein and Mueller.
you'd think (well, I'D Think) that IF Sessions felt he had to recuse himself, he would have (,at least,) given a press conference stating that if HE had conflicts, Mueller CERTAINLY had
Fran Waxman is SO IMPRESSED with Trump that zhe said...
"NRA" as a backdrop to a nauseating speech merits a dropkick
so; the ref puts both hands up in the air, and awards the President THREE POINTS!
"I agree with Fran."
Thank you for your intelligent agreement with me.
Now, Fran, can you point me to the law Mueller cited in his report?
I just need a page number.
Fran - Did you read it? It was weak sauce. There are no actual crimes.
Yes Fran - do explain verbatim using actual in contextual quotes from the Muller report - what the actual crimes were committed.
Thanks.
The assumption is that Trump is Nixon, that he did something wrong and is orchestrating a cover-up. But Trump isn't as focused or as Machiavellian as that.
Like a lot of real estate developers Trump is forever asking people whether he can do things and how he can do things and if there's some other way of getting things done. There's no evidence that he did anything wrong. I suspect he regarded the investigation as an inconvenience and was wondering aloud if there were ways of getting around it.
Just as Trump isn't Lyndon Johnson and can't put through a comprehensive legislative program (what president can?), so he's also not Nixon, not the tireless conspirator.
People like Napolitano, de Genova, Coulter, get on television by saying provocative things - by being loose cannons. When unpredictability is someone's stock in trade, you can't expect predictability from them.
"President" Donald Trump seems exquisitely sensitive to criticism from within the Fox News Channel.
Which makes me think that we need to press that button as often as possible now.
Lifetime NRAer here. Nice to see lefties promoting violence as a way to prove how enlightened (woke) they are.
Especially right after their side's attempted coup on the president.
Restricting democrats from owning firearms would reduce gun crimes 80%. Or more.
But Trump isn't as focused or as Machiavellian as that.
Right. Trump isn't really a strategist but he's one hell of a tactician.
Judge Napolitano is just one character in the Fox Cinematic Universe. What Infinity stone does he possess?
Hello Fran Waxman! How are you?
Have you ever heard of the expression, "actions speak louder than words?"
Question: What action did Special Prosecutor Mueller take to PROSECUTE any American for conspiring with the Russian govt to interfere with the 2016 election?
A crime such as obstruction of justice must have both an actus reus and a mens rea. Prof. Dershowitz makes a strong case that a president exercising a function of the office cannot be committing a crime. But there is another problem with calling it a crime to ask for Mueller's firing. And that is the fact that Mueller was never fired. Where is the act of firing if he wasn't in fact fired?
Here is a common technique used to avoid escalating problems:
When someone does something highly provoking, it is common to write a highly charged letter but leave it on your desk so that you have the evening to think about sending it. Isn't that what Trump in effect did? He came in the next day and changed his mind. Shouldn't we give credit to his staff for understanding what Trump wanted to do in the first place?
On another point, "Judge" Napolitano left the bench 23 years ago for private practice. He was a trial court judge for a mere eight years. Enough with the title. Being called "Judge Jeanine" is even tackier. But I will make an exception for Judge Judy.
After Judge Wapner they should have retired the term.
Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman immortalized the man.
21st century history in the making, everyone of any nation in the whole world with an internet connection can access the thinking of the leader of the free world in real time.
In this instance, bringing our attention to the discussion and debate, Trump wins!
there are no filters for a user on Twitter, what you post is shared across the system in that moment. I tell ya, historians are going to mark this president as a Champion for conquering new frontiers in governing transparency.
About a year ago, Napolitano was on Fox & Friends one morning, and stated Obama's CIA used British intel to spy on the Trump campaign. Stated not as a theory, but a fact.
And Napolitano presents himself as a staunch libertarian, but he hasn’t uttered a public word about this or related violations of Americans’ civil rights lately. What a shameful man, and behaving as though his record isn’t right there for anyone with google.
Chuck opined...
Which makes me think that we need to press that button as often as possible now.
What'd mean "We" Chuckie?
Chuck is reduced to placing the President in scare quotes.
How scared are you Chuck?
STFU, Chuck. No one cares what you think. You're obviously either a liar or a troll if you claim to be a Republican. Go back to reading the Bulwark, that paragon of "conservative" thought.
If a person was actually a Staunch Pro-Trump person, but wanted to ACT LIKE a completely moronic idiotic never Trumping Progressive....
Could they (Would they) sound more moronically idiotically stupid than our Life Long Liberals?
Fess up, Chuck and Igna and Fran; it's all an act, isn't it?
This is a bit like when Kimberly Guilfoyle and Louise Wiehl appeared on O'Reilly as his "legal experts." Wiehl was always about the legal this and that, while Guilfoyle was about the rights and wrongs of the matter and that the legal processes are intended to puzzle that out; not just blindly follow the letter of the law against all common sense.
Or, as Mr. Bumble said: "The law is a ass!"
Or as I say: "A government of laws; not of men" is B.S. It takes men of good intent to properly interpret the laws and execute them for the good of society.
Trump is certainly the most accessible and transparent president in a long time. He gets no credit for it, nor will he, owing to his being so unorthodox in his communication style (read: Queens accent and NY wheeler-dealer style). He’s also the most authentic person in that role that I can recall, the same guy no matter the audience. These are all things we’re supposed to admire, but tragic Trump offends the sensibilities of the bien pensants so no credit for him. VDH calls him a classically tragic figure as a result, someone who even his supporters will eventually abandon once he’s done the good we needed of him. The fact that people are seriously alleging obstruction given his administration’s unprecedented cooperation with the investigation, and despite the fact he let this witch hunt run to its conclusion even though he might legally have terminated it, makes the tragic figure description apt. His only prominent defenders in the commons are figures like Dershowitz who would and did defend killers.
Bay area guy
Not American, but what about Concord Group?
That really blew up in Mueller's face when they had the effrontery to show up to answer the indictment.
The usg is still trying to figure out how to make the case go away.
John Henry
I find all these legal beagle stuff nonsensical. Hillary could set up an illegal server that illegally had classified emails and then she and her staff destroyed evidence,smash-up cellphones, etc. but that didn't rise to the level of a crime.
Meanwhile, Trump supposedly "obstructed Justice" by exercising his right as POTUS to fire his FBI director and by talking about - but never actually firing Mueller. Trump says he wasn't trying to obstruct justice, so if the law requires "Intent" where is it? In any case, the FBI investigation wasn't stopped by Firing Comey and was never intended to. And when Trump talked of firing Mueller, he wanted to replace him with a more objective Special Counsel
This "obstruction of Justice" reminds of "charlottsville". The MSM and the Left just keeps repeating a lie, even when its been debunked. Lie, Lie, Lie. Over and over -till some boobs think its the truth.
If you are being prosecuted for having done something that was not a crime, that is a miscarriage of justice.
So what "Judge" Napolitano wants to prosecute Trump for is "obstructing" a miscarriage of justice, and nitpicking about it to boot.
Trump is entitled to talk about whatever he wants to within the White House as long as nothing actionable leaves the premises. Especially since he is not a lawyer and is entitled to challenge his legal "experts" as to what is or is not lawful.
I don't know much about the legal issues or the precedent of a special counsel kicking the can on the obstruction charge to the AG, but Andrew McCarthy's take on it--that it was a contemptible, political move by Mueller to do so--is looking good in terms of what's resulted from that ostentatious indecision.
Just a few months back, "Judge Napolitano" informed us that since Jamal Kashoggi was an American citizen (he wasn't), the US has jurisdiction to investigate his murder inside the Saudi consulate in Instanbul
Yeah, the Turks and Saudis were gonna allow the FBI to come in and take over! Snort.
He's a horse's ass --- (but dead right about the CIA/British agent thing. Someone at Fox News must have whacked his peepee pretty hard over that. Maybe Shemp, given his inordinate interest in peepees.)
Blogger Michael K said...
Chuck is reduced to placing the President in scare quotes.
How scared are you Chuck?
I’m not the slightest bit scared.
And I’m not “reduced” to placing “President” in scare quotes. I did it deliberately to mock Trump after he started it with his own scare-quote attack on “Judge” Napolitano.
I would not normally refer to him as “President” Trump. I would refer to him as President Bone Spurs.
Yeah, if you no longer hold the office you shouldn't get the title forever.
Former judge at best.
Kind of like Smear Merchants are former Democratics.
I think Napolitano is a crank, but I do not believe he asked Trump to put him on the Supreme Court. He saw what happened to Miers.
Speaking of judges, I saw a photo of the arrested judge crying.
Interesting how she has learned a valuable lesson. She may now identify with some of the people who lose everything through a conviction, or a mere accusation.
Expect her to lose her judgeship, be disbarred, and perhaps spend a fortune on lawyers. Especially if the feds go all out against her and she does not plea bargain.
Althouse I was sufficiently advanced/well-prepped enough on this story that I was already conversant with Andrew Napolitano’s column. But are all readers so informed? It seems odd to me that in making this blog post, you did not link to the full text of his column. I’ll do it for your readers here and now with this .url:
https://www.creators.com/read/judge-napolitano
Someone above suggested that Napolitano wanted to prosecute Trump for obstruction, or was advocating for a prosecution. That’s purely false, as would be known by anyone who read Napolitano’s column. Napolitano isn’t talking about any prosecution of Trump at this point; Napolitano is talking about impeachment and why it is justified and the procedurally correct step.
I don't believe readering is as stupid as readwring's comments make Hxx seem.
Smear Merchants are even more stupid than readering.
That's the sort of stupid that hurts until you take the meds.
Lol. That inflatable plastic substitute host for Laura Ingraham called Judge Napolitano “Anthony.” Right after referring to Napolitano as part of the Fox News Channel “family.”
His first name is Andrew. Not the closest of families.
Chuck, there are a lot of suppositions and assumptions in that piece by Napolitano. Usually, you ask for substantiation of even the most dead obvious stuff. Why don't you demand the same of the Judge? He's alleging that the reason for Trump's obstruction of the investigation was to conceal that he instructed Flynn to break the law in his conversation with Kislyak. He also says this: ""Such a communication could have been unlawful if it interfered with American foreign policy."
So he's only supposing that Flynn broke the law, and that Trump told him to do it. His entire, weak case for impeachment hinges on whether Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was unlawful, and that Trump instructed him to have unlawful conversation with Kislyak. Flynn wasn't even prosecuted for breaking the law in his conversation with Kislyak, a recorded conversation that we know the prosecutors/investigators had access to. This is an exceedingly tendentious column, and it doesn't stand on its own premise.
I just read Judge Napolitano column, and he deserves what he is getting from Dershowitz and Trump.
Andrew McCarthy, as Chuck used to link to a lot, I have a LOT more respect for his legal analysis of.
daskol: "Chuck, there are a lot of suppositions and assumptions in that piece by Napolitano. Usually, you ask for substantiation of even the most dead obvious stuff. Why don't you demand the same of the Judge?"
Consistency and accuracy is not a "thing" amongst the LLR-Left.
I see Inga's made her way back, but doesn't have the nerve to post under her own name.
I see LLR Chuck is reeling from having Jake Tapper call Chuck a big fat liar re: the Lefty/LLR charlottesville smear.
Just think, our LLR Chuck is now firmly established to the far far left of CNN!!
LOL
Thats going to throw a big monkey wrench in LLR Chucks continuing Fake Conservative posturing!
Blogger Chuck said...
I’m not the slightest bit scared.
And yet almost every comment you make here shows us that you are scared shitless of President Trump.
You never tell us why you are scared of him but you continually tell us that you are scared of him.
What is it that scares you so badly, Chuck?
Great GDP numbers quarter after quarter?
Great unemployment numbers?
Great employment numbers?
PDJT's non-racist nature and policies?
Progress towards peace with NoKo? (Yeah, I know, 2 steps forward, 1 step back but progress)
A real chance for peace in the middle east?
Reduction in armed conflict throughout the world?
Better trade relations?
Progress toward nuclear power in the US? (Stop global whatsit, right?)
Stopping uncontrolled illegal immigration? (Or at least trying)
Complied with federal law and moved the embassy to Jerusalem. And at a fraction of the estimated cost. About a $billion and 20 years less than the experts said.
And on and on and on.
I get that you don't like PDJTs personality. That's a fair beef. I get that you don't like that he didn't serve in the military (Since you did not either, I don't see you having any standing to complain)
But what has he done as president that scares you so? Specific policies or actions please.
I really don't see a need for fear, Chuck.
John Henry
Blogger Chuck said...
I did it deliberately to mock Trump after he started it with his own scare-quote attack on “Judge” Napolitano.
One could argue that, since Napolitano has not been a judge for a number of years, it is gramatically accurate to add quotes around the title. Or call him former judge or some such.
OTOH, since President Trump IS president, putting quotes around "President" is pretty stupid/silly/childish.
Or Chuckish.
John Henry
In my list of accomplishments above I forgot to mention that PDJT is getting rid of Obamacare and replacing it.
And, best of all, not replacing it with another govt program as you seem to want, Chuck.
John Henry
I would love to suss out the pros and cons of the POTUS obstruction kerfuffle. If only those that insist POTUS is guilty of the accusation would offer up their reasons.
I can't see it myself. I have read the 10 items listed in the report. One of those is candidate Trump requesting Russia could find 30,000 lost emails from the SoS. This is supposed to be a serious fact finding investigation. Yet Mueller and his band of Democrat Party operatives is reduced to using campaign rhetoric as a finding of guilt.
If only some commenters around here,even those that claim a law degree, would use their education to mount a sustainable argument for the impeachment of President Trump, leaving the ad hominem attacks for less serious times we could get the facts aired properly.
John Henry: "What is it that scares you so badly, Chuck?"
To get a real sense for why LLR Chuck and all the other leftists supporting dems are so scared, I strongly recommend you watch Brad Parscales interview on LLR Chuck's beloved lefty hack network CBS this morning.
Its enough to make every panicky dem-supporting LLR cry in his soup.
Again, Nopalitano was "Dershowitz" and "McCarthy" before he got out in front of his skis, and spilled the beans on U.K. intelligence.
Under Obama, everyone was spied, wiretapped, survveiled, whatever you want to call it.
It's called blackmail, extortion. Been going on since Hoover. Same reason Roberts found a "tax" in Obamacare at the last minute.
For some reason, many seem to think America is above this--yet, you watch it happen is real time.
Almost as if the Russian collusion, special council, and all that entailed happened in a vacuum.
John henry said...
Blogger Chuck said...
I did it deliberately to mock Trump after he started it with his own scare-quote attack on “Judge” Napolitano.
One could argue that, since Napolitano has not been a judge for a number of years, it is gramatically accurate to add quotes around the title. Or call him former judge or some such.
OTOH, since President Trump IS president, putting quotes around "President" is pretty stupid/silly/childish.
Or Chuckish.
John Henry
What a colossally stupid comment.
First; it isn't a matter of "grammatic" correctness at all. We're not talking about grammar or sentence structure or verb tenses or hanging participles. Not grammar. Not a "grammatic" issue.
Second; if you were a lawyer (and really most educated people, lawyers and laypersons alike would get this) you would know that it is routine -- nearly standard -- to refer to retired judges as "Judge ____." We do it with other entitlements as well. Newt Gingrich goes on yet another Very Special Edition of "Hannity!" and he is called "Speaker Gingrich." We do it with former cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, retired military officers, you name it. But it is especially true with judges.
In my active legal practice of more than 30 years', I do it and see it and hear it all the time. There are occasions when we do not do it, and that is when a retired judge returns to private practice as an litigation attorney, and is therefore operating "below" and active trial judge. Still, apart from that setting, retired judges still routinely get the entitlement of "Judge ____."
So as a third point let us now assume for purposes of this argument that Andrfew Napolitano has been retired from the bench for many years and has in fact returned to private practice. As I already mentioned, that would not disqualify him from being referred to as "Judge Napolitano" in the popular media and in public speaking.
Then, there is the fourth point. If we presuppose that there is some (?) good reason to not refer to Andrew Napolitano as "Judge Napolitano," there is NO good reason to refer to him with a scare-quoted reference of "Judge" Napolitano. Trump did what he did in print for a reason. It was to mock Napolitano's status as judge or, more correctly, retired judge. You in fact acknowledged that fact. But saying "Retired Judge Napolitano" is NOT like saying, "Judge" Napolitano. Trump might have written, "Andrew Napolitano," or "Mr. Napolitano." Don't try to kid us about what Trump's intent was.
Trump's goal was to be deliberately sarcastic. Trump was being a jackass on purpose. You, on the other hand have been a jackass out of your own ignorance and your cultish devotion to the fucked up notion that Trump is never wrong.
Have I made myself clear, John Henry? How much more of a beatdown do you want, on a Sunday afternoon?
reduced to using campaign rhetoric as a finding of guilt.
Don't forget, in his campaign rhetoric, Trump called for people to vote for Him, instead of Hillary: That is LITERALLY a capital offense
"I have read the 10 items listed in the report. One of those is candidate Trump requesting Russia could find 30,000 lost emails from the SoS. This is supposed to be a serious fact finding investigation."
Holy crap, that was a fucking joke.
How can a self-respecting professional submit that?
Our Life Long Liberal admits that...
We're not talking about grammar or sentence structure or verb tenses or hanging participles.
It's about finding ways to smear President Trump, because THAT'S WHAT LIFE LONG LIBERALS DO
You know,
if someone isn't able to get their mind around the 1st rule of lying
maybe that someone should give some thought to the 1st rule of holes
Ask yourself, am i swaying people here? what IS IT that i'm Trying to accomplish?
"Trump was being a jackass on purpose."
You have to admit, John Henry, Chuck knows what he's talking about here.
John henry said...
In my list of accomplishments above I forgot to mention that PDJT is getting rid of Obamacare and replacing it.
What is Trump "replacing" Obamacare with? Be specific. Very, very specific. Trump said he would "cover everybody." Trump said that his promise to "take care of everybody" (with the federal government guaranteeing that coverage) was such a risky policy position on his part that his own party would not let him maintain it. "Everybody's going to be covered" Trump crowed on 60 Minutes. And with better care, lower deductibles, lower co-pays, etc., etc., etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8mcN0zweQE
It is by far the biggest broken promise in the history of the Donald Trump presidency, which is saying an awful lot.
It is by far the biggest broken promise in the history of the Donald Trump presidency, which is saying an awful lot.
So, a CBS interview in 2015, was the biggest broken promise in the history of the Donald Trump Presidency?
When did his Presidency start again?
Napolitano, who had opined on the law fairly and intelligently for years, started intentionally miss-stating the law starting about three months ago. In DC that usually means a person just banked a big cash deposit from Soros. And lawyers will plead the case of their paying client.
I feel sorry for him.You can see the guilt and shame on his face as he presents legal lies. I hope the money was worth it.
"Obamacare" is a product of legislators. You might want to direct some of that critique at Ryan and McConnell.
LLR Chuck is feeling quite butthurt that Trump and the republicans pulled the individual mandate.
If you want to see Chuck lose it, criticize Dick Durbin and/or obamacare!
LOL
He really hates that.
Really.
LLR Chuck: "In my active legal practice of more than 30 years',...."
LOL
BTW, what ever happened to that tendency of LLR Chuck to link Andy McCarthy for interesting insights?
It's like Andy McCarthy ceased to exist for LLR Chuck.
And on top of all his other disappointment, LLR Chuck has to deal with Jake Tapper calling him a liar and Bill Maher calling out LLR Chuck fave Schiff-ty to his face!!
Not. A. Good. Week. For. Chuck.
Blogger walter said...
"Obamacare" is a product of legislators. You might want to direct some of that critique at Ryan and McConnell.
Oh, we do.
That's how you got Trump.
As they say, you won't like what comes after Trump.
You know, it's gotta be killing Chuck that it was his very own beloved CNN that destroyed his Lefty/LLR-lefty Charlottesville smear.
Just go back and read the hilariously long and moronic Chuck offerings that have been systematically dismantled one after another.
Is there anything more predictable than the quick deconstruction and exposure of every LLR Chuck lefty/dem inspired lie/smear over the last 3 years?
The answer to that question is, of course, no.
Browndog, that was directed at Chuck. But I should add Pelo-Reid Care just provided the outlines beyond which thousands of bureaucrats ran rampant.
walter said...
Browndog, that was directed at Chuck. But I should add Pelo-Reid Care just provided the outlines beyond which thousands of bureaucrats ran rampant.
Understood. I'm more of a macro guy. Big picture. In that sense, my comment was also directed to Chuck. And his ilk.
I’m not the slightest bit scared.
And I’m not “reduced” to placing “President” in scare quotes. I did it deliberately to mock Trump after he started it with his own scare-quote attack on “Judge” Napolitano.
I would not normally refer to him as “President” Trump. I would refer to him as President Bone Spurs.
Chuck is morphing into Ritmo. I did wonder about that. Ritmo seems a bit more juvenile but maybe I was mistaken.
Anyway, we had a nice 6 1/2 hour drive home from OC today. Glad to be back in Tucson. Chuck and Ritmo seem about equally angry,.
We listened to VDH's new book, "The Case for Trump" and my wife is almost as angry as Chuck but at the Deep State, which VDH discusses at length.
What is Trump "replacing" Obamacare with? Be specific. Very, very specific. Trump said he would "cover everybody." Trump said that his promise to "take care of everybody" (with the federal government guaranteeing that coverage) was such a risky policy position on his part that his own party would not let him maintain it. "Everybody's going to be covered" Trump crowed on 60 Minutes. And with better care, lower deductibles, lower co-pays, etc., etc., etc.
I get the impressionn that Chuck is a Medical Malpractice lawyer so he knows a little bit about medicine.
He has trouble with history and recent GOPe politics, like Ryan ignoring the issue but getting on the tax cut like a duck on a June bug. Donors, you understand, Maybe Chuck is even a donor. And, of course, the dying John McCain delivering the last sting of the dying adder, with his vote not to repeal, after running for re-election with a promise to vote for repeal but what the fuck does John McCain care about promises ?
Chuck, being a lawyer and all, might even know that legislation does not come from the president. It's that Article I thing that Slow Joe does not understand.
Trump will have to get some new GOP Congress people in to write legislation, Maybe on these lines
Here is one from an Arkansas Congressman.
Title 1: Private Sector Health Insurance Reforms
Data show that a small percentage of the insured population accounts for most healthcare expenditures. This bill creates an Invisible High-Risk Pool Reinsurance Program to pay medical costs of the highest risk individuals in insured populations. It does not affect patients or the services they receive—it just shifts some of the risk of paying for care to the government, allowing insurers to charge less for all private insurance coverage.
Title 2: Medicare and Medicaid Reforms that Promote Solvency and Increase Access to Health Insurance Plans
This portion of the bill preserves Medicare while fulfilling obligations to people who have funded the program for decades. It also allows Medicaid to fulfill its original purpose of providing for aged and disabled individuals while providing able-bodied, working-age adults private insurance plans through exchanges.
Read the rest.
Blogger Drago said...
You know, it's gotta be killing Chuck that it was his very own beloved CNN that destroyed his Lefty/LLR-lefty Charlottesville smear.
You worthless slimebag. I don't usually respond to you but I am going to make an exception this time because I want to use you, to grind on Althouse's credulous linking to the Steve Cortes opinion column at the CNN website.
That wasn't any "reporting" by CNN. It wasn't "reporting" at all. It was an opinion column by Trump Apologist Steve Cortes. And that Steve Cortes column was demolished by the countering argument of Robert Tracinski published at The Bulwark. I am linking it here again, so as to highlight Althouse's folly in having subscribed to the "Charlottesville Hoax" Hoax in the first place.
Chuck, being a lawyer and all, might even know that legislation does not come from the president. It's that Article I thing that Slow Joe does not understand.
Well then, no point in calling out President Barack Obama about the 2009 and 2010 votes on the Affordable Care Act. Right?
That ISN'T any "reporting" by CNN. there Isn't any "reporting" at all. It was all opinion
fixed it for you! So, According to Life Long Liberals, anti-trump opinion pieces are newsworthy, but pro-trump opinion pieces don't even exist
No True CNN, got ya!
AAaaaand...Off we go!
Blogger Chuck said...
First; it isn't a matter of "grammatic" correctness at all. We're not talking about grammar or sentence structure or verb tenses or hanging participles.
According to Wikipedia, although not strictly correct, in general usage the term grammar includes punctuation.
So don't like my use of gramatically correct there? What word would you use? Punctuationally correct? Is punctuationally even a word?
Anyway, PDJT's use of the quote marks is (your word here) correct with Judge Napolitano. Your use of the quote marks with President Trump is not (your word here) correct.
Second; if you were a lawyer (and really most educated people, lawyers and laypersons alike would get this) you would know that it is routine -- nearly standard -- to refer to retired judges as "Judge ____."
Yes, of course I get that and I have referred to Judge Napolitano and the like for years by titles which they no longer actually hold.
It is still not technically correct, he is no longer a judge, nor is Gingrich a Speaker, nor is Obama a president. Not something I usually make a fuss about.
I would note that it is only politicians and political appointees (eg; Secretary Clinton) that this applies to. It would generally be illegal for a former engineer, attorney, doctor, or other professional to use their title. Former in the sense of no longer licensed to practice for whatever reason.
retired military officers
Different situation. Military officers do not give up their commissions on retirement. Retired General Smith is still a commissioned general on the Army's books. All s/he did was move from active to inactive service. They are also subject to recall to active service at any time until they die.
So as a third point let us now assume for purposes of this argument that Andrfew Napolitano has been retired from the bench
Is he actually retired from the bench? In the sense that he served a number of years and now draws a pension? Not that it matters for this conversation but I don't think he is actually retired.
Again, I have no problem with addressing him as Judge Napolitano. I've generally done it in the past and will probably continue to do so in the future. But, as I think PDJT was pointing out with his use of quote marks, he is not really a judge and has not been for some time. He is "Judge Napolitano" only by courtesy and custom.
Don't try to kid us about what Trump's intent was.
I thought I was clear. PDJT was pointing out that Napolitano is not really a "judge".
How much more of a beatdown do you want, on a Sunday afternoon?
A "beatdown"? Really Chuck?
You certainly have a weird way with words.
John Henry
Let me make this simpler for you, John Henry.
Trump intended his scare-quote deployment as an insult.
And so did I, with my deployment of my own scare-quotes.
Blogger Chuck said...
What is Trump "replacing" Obamacare with? Be specific. Very, very specific.
I thought I had been in this thread and in numerous others.
OK, Chuck, here is what he is replacing it with:
The free market.
Non-governmental healthcare payment.
Reducing regulations that create friction in the pre-paid healthcare/health insurance market. For example, it is now legal to sell health insurance across state lines. It is now legal for businesses to group together to get better deals on healthcare.
FDA is reducing the regulatory friction keeping many generics off the market. (See Mylan's Epipen for one egregious example of generic regulatory capture. Daraprim for another.)
I keep asking you what YOU think Obamacare should be replaced with. As far as I can tell, you think it can only be replaced by another govt program. But I don't think you have ever told us.
I don't. I think healthcare, how it is provided and how it is paid for it far to important to let the govt be involved other than regulating safety.
Not really what either of us have in mind here but the historically low unemployment rates means that more people have employer paid health insurance than a few years ago. So there is that, too.
John Henry
So which of the promises made in that 60 Minutes interview (and in a hundred speeches and statements since) is Trump going to keep? Is "everybody" going to be covered? Covfefe'd, perhaps? Is Trump going to lower premiums, deductibles and co-pays? How?
Please don't ask me how. They weren't my promises.
Blogger Michael K said...
We listened to VDH's new book, "The Case for Trump" and my wife is almost as angry as Chuck but at the Deep State, which VDH discusses at length.
I have the sample downloaded and in my Kindle stack. I like VDH and am looking forward to it.
In the meantime I am reading Manchester's "The Arms of Krupp", about 30% in, at the start of WWI. I read it once before but back in the 70's. I am enjoying it immensely.
As I read it I keep thinking about PDJT and his battles with the deep state. Krupp, Schneider, Armstrong, Vickers, SKODA and other arms suppliers were so in bed with each other with cross-licensing of deathly technologies. Krupp earned (I don't know yet whether the Vickers paid it) a royalty of 1 shilling 3 pence on each shell the Brits fired. Vickers earned money on technology that the Germans used to kill Brits. All the companies made money hand over fist.
War is a great business.
Our arms industry is a major source of income for a lot of people as well. If PDJT does away with wars, how are they going to make money?
John Henry
Blogger Chuck said...
Trump intended his scare-quote deployment as an insult.
No shit, really? Gee, I'm glad you pointed that out. But, he was still punctuationally correct.
And so did I, with my deployment of my own scare-quotes.
I never would have figured that out, Chuck. Not on my own. Not without you explaining it to me. Thanks again.
But you were still punctuationally incorrect.
And what is it that PDJT has done that you don't like? What specific actions accomplishments are you unhappy about? GDP? Unemployment? Trade? Foreign relations? Military actions?
Give us some examples.
John Henry
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "republican" Chuck: "That wasn't any "reporting" by CNN. It wasn't "reporting" at all. It was an opinion column by Trump Apologist Steve Cortes."
Nope dummy.
It was your beloved Tapper!
LOL
Just how far left do you have to go for the other leftists to start gazing downward out of embarrassment for their LLR-lefty admitted Slimey Smear Merchants like Chuck?
Just how slick with grease do you have to be for the marxists to look at you and say whoa! Too far dude!!
Too too funny.
Its so much fun watching Chuck get his lefty rear end handed to him day after day!
What an utter and complete shmuck!
Not even extra "cuddle time" with his Durbin and Maddow blow up dolls will get him over this setback.
And next week promises to be even worse for Chuck now that the long knives appear to be out for his hero Joe Biden.
Better stock up on the scotch there lefty-boy. You're going to need it!
Don't know why, I have not seen the movie in years, but yesterday I was thinking of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"
Specifically, I was thinking of this closing line of the movie.
After a long explanation of how Liberty Valence came to be shot, which is not the way legend had it, the young cub reporter says to the sage old editor something like "Wow, now we can finally tell the true story."
To which the editor replies "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact...print the legend."
We think this fake news is something new but it's been around as long as there have been newsmedia. Mark Twain said, more than 100 years ago "The man who does not read the newspaper is uninformed. The man who does is misinformed."
It occurred to me that CNN has built their entire business model around this quote. The movie quote is a bit euphemistic. I'd phrase it a bit differently.
"This is CNN, sir. When the lie becomes fact, print the lie"
Now I have to go watch the movie again. I've always enjoyed it. Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, Strother Martin, John Wayne. What's not to like?
John Henry
John Henry: "Give us some examples."
Chuck is in full operational alignment with every single democrat policy position. He is willing to lie about being pro-conservative judges because he clearly believes that is the path back to "conservative" street cred...as he whips out his next set of Reid Hoffman-inspired talking points.
Exposing LLR Chuck as a complete poseur is simply one of the many many many benefits of Trumps demonstrated conservative governance.
Pay close attention to Chuck when the dems are losing "bigly"....he goes crazy! He lacks the discipline to maintain his composure and hoax persona during those troubling times.
He was content for a bit after his dems won back the House, but the utter collapse of his desperately desired Mueller Salvation has been too much for him to bear.
Obviously.
Durbin-Cuckholster Chuck: "And so did I, with my deployment of my own scare-quotes."
LOL
The LLR-lefty dogs yip but the caravan moves on....
Am I not entertained?
I am.
Do go on....
JH: "Now I have to go watch the movie again. I've always enjoyed it. Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, Strother Martin, John Wayne. What's not to like?"
I believe Lee Van Cleef also plays one of Lee Marvins henchmen.
I would strongly recommend LLR Chuck not watch it. Too manly.
Chuck would be better served looking at obamacare pajama-boy ads.
Bob Woodward denies that the media is fake news
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMxXQKJ1ygM
John Henry
Fake conservative Chuck clearly believes that if he keeps referencing fake conservative articles at lefty-billionaire funded fake conservative blogsites that he will be able to fool actual conservatives.
LOL
LLR Chuck is under the delusion that conservatives are as easily duped as leftists like him!
I sure hope LLR Chuck is being paid by the hour and NOT by measured effectiveness!
Lets just say that when it comes time for making fact-based precedent-supported legally sound judgements about LLR Chuck's moronic collusion/obstruction "beliefs", "Judge" Eddie Munster comes up more than a bit "short"....
I really shouldnt give Chuck too hard of a time, considering the hilarious and embarrassing defeats he and Team Dem have had recently.
In fact, I am given to understand Chuck's thumb is red and chapped from near continuous sucking since Barr effectively summarized the extent of Chuck's allies Collusion defeat......defeat? Hell, it was a rout!
I wonder if potential clients notice Chuck's chapped thumb and wonder about his competence?
Lots of back and forth about grammar and punctuation. Got that all hammered out. Yessiree.
What happened to a commenter with a law degree defending the position that POTUS obstructed justice.
Want to know when a fake lawyer exposes their own fakery? They refuse to engage, and resorts on smears and ad hominem attacks.
@John Henry,
"Bob Woodward denies that the media is fake news"
Deep Throat defends Deep State.
I read it once before but back in the 70's. I am enjoying it immensely. <
I think I have it in my library. I just reread "Dreadnaught" and it is as good as I remembered from 20 years ago.
I'll have to read that one. I have been on a WWI trip lately.
Please don't ask me how. They weren't my promises.
And you have no idea how to do it. Malpractice lawyers are parasites.
You forgot thyssen which merges with krups at one point, noe seems to be involved with elevators also a source of Bush derangement syndrome in the 00s.
Well then, no point in calling out President Barack Obama about the 2009 and 2010 votes on the Affordable Care Act. Right?
Chuck, no doubt you have forgotten "If you like your doctor.,.."
Try harder. You are making it too easy,.
Oh I forgot they built the Argentine Sub that sank and the Israeli subs in contention in the Netanyahu indictment they even transferred some to egypt.
Chuck: What a colossally stupid comment.
Hah. I must say, the irony here is delicious. Chuck can't even find the courtesy to refer to the President of the United States as "President" Trump, he chooses instead to make up all kinds of juvenile nicknames for the President. Yet here he is clutching his pearls over etiquette when referring to a retired judge.
My my, those "principles" of yours sure are situational.
Narciso,
The book doesn't mention Thyssen in connection with WWI armaments.
They were a big steel company so I am sure they were involved but I don't know if they made guns and shells.
The merger with Krupp was in the 1990s, the book was published in 1964 so I doubt it is covered.
A quick Bing does turn up much about Thyssen weapons in WWI. It does turn up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica that says:
But Thyssen [ fritz Thyssen, owner], viewing fascism as the only bulwark against bolshevism, backed Hitler solely as a nationalist and anticommunist. When Hitler led Germany into war and began persecuting Jews and Catholics (Thyssen was a Catholic), the industrialist broke with the Nazis and in 1939 fled to Switzerland. Hitler promptly confiscated the Thyssen fortune (about $88 million) and stripped Fritz Thyssen of German citizenship.
John Henry
Michael K said...
"Well then, no point in calling out President Barack Obama about the 2009 and 2010 votes on the Affordable Care Act. Right?"
Chuck, no doubt you have forgotten "If you like your doctor.,.."
Try harder. You are making it too easy,.
All I want from you is a single clear answer; are U.S. Presidents responsible for sweeping healthcare legislation during their time in office? Or not?
Or are you saying that Barack Obama was responsible for everything that you disliked about the ACA, and Donald Trump is not responsible for the failure to replace it in 2017-2019?
Is healthcare legislation the sole prerogative of Congress? Or not?
LLR Chuck: "All I want from you is a single clear answer..."
LOL
Try again dem smear merchant.
Try again.
LLR Chuck will do anything he can to rescue his Obama-god from responsibility.
It's fun to watch.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the executive and legislative branches have a symbiotic relationship in such "sweeping" initiatives.
But again, the details of ACA were (intentionally) deferred to the vast cadre of inherently big gov bureaucrats to build out.
He does know that Robert creamer wrote the plan up in broad strokes
That deference being an underpinning to Dame Pelosi's "Pass it to see what's in it".
Chuck: All I want from you is a single clear answer; are U.S. Presidents responsible for sweeping healthcare legislation during their time in office? Or not?
If the House and a veto-proof Senate pass sweeping healthcare legislation, how is a President responsible for that?
How the fuck did you get through law school? Blowjobs?
The answer is not yes or no, the answer is yea AND no.
You're now making my point the way that Michael K did.
You all want to talk about Obama's lies and evil in the passage of "Obamacare."
But when I ask what is Trump doing to fulfill his insane campaign promises of great health care for everybody, you tell me that legislation is an Article I function, not an Article II function. Not Trump's problem.
" Not Trump's problem."
So what are you whining about now?
LLR Chuck seems extremely triggered once again.
Someone must have criticized a democrat!
LOL
Nothing sets Chuck off faster than criticizing a demicrat.
He really really hates that....and he loves obamacare. Desperately clings to it if you wamt to know the truth. All leftists do.
Shorter Chuck: You must be specific. Very, very specific. And when you are I will ignore your points and continue to post cherry-picked innuendo.
News flash: this is not a healthcare thread.
Napolitano responds to Trump tweets and his response sounds very credible, except the part where he predicts the two will remain friends for 30 years.
I am 33. The first of the current Marvel Cinematic Universe arc (as they are referred to) came out 11 years ago, when I was still seeing a lot of movies in theaters and dates and such. It makes sense that the characters, who are mostly funny and likeable (or at least unlikeable in amusing ways) grow on you, and you tend to see their sequels. I did not read comics as a kid, but did enjoy the movies, mostly because of the humor. If they were not funny, I imagine I would not have seen them all.
Post a Comment