Slithering around.
Meanwhile, at the Washington Post, I'm reading "Pelosi joked about a jail in the Capitol’s basement. Is there a House slammer?"
According to the office of the Architect of the Capitol, which preserves and maintains the buildings and grounds of the Capitol, no jail or detention area has existed on the campus since 1877. That’s when, according to a description in the Congressional Record, two Louisiana election officials were jailed in “a little room in the basement of the Capitol, with but two windows, opening upon no sunlight, but upon a narrow confined court into which no gleam of sunshine can ever enter.” (Not even a gleam!) It gets worse. The room was so dark and foul that, according to the Congressional Record, the room smelled “like the den of some foul reptile, a room where thieves arrested around the Capitol are kept.”The second-highest-rated comment:
"The room was so dark and foul that, according to the Congressional Record, the room smelled “like the den of some foul reptile, a room where thieves arrested around the Capitol are kept."
Sounds like a perfect place to put Barr and Mnuchin.
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
In my vast experience mammals smell worse than reptiles.
It's time for the Democrats to either shit or get off the pot. Do it and do it now or just piss off. Enough is enough.
WaPo comments are mostly delusional excess from people with a severe case of TDS. Nothing I would want to spend my time on.
"The room was so dark and foul that, according to the Congressional Record, the room smelled “like the den of some foul reptile, a room where thieves arrested around the Capitol are kept."
Sounds like a perfect place to put Barr and Mnuchin.
I no longer think it's hyperbole to say that a significant portion of the electorate - represented by the commenter and the upvoters - is literally and dangerously insane.
Is that lizard looking creature by any chance a newt?
If they would try such a stunt, I strongly think the President would send in the Armed Forces Seal Teams, the Secret Service, etc. and it wouldn't be pretty.
A newt? He got better.
The only way these writers and commenters could prove their sanity, vis-a-vis all things Trump, would be to publish their past concerns and demands for justice when various Obama administration individuals were held in contempt.
There is a reported case where Congress jailed a guy for contempt in a hotel room.
The Capitol Hill Police have a real jail. When Lois Lerner was in contempt of Congress, I advocated that she be lured to Capitol Hill and jailed there.
This whole thing is absurd. Barr can't release the full report and Nadler knows it.
Democrats would know all about the 'reptile room'. It's where they keep their kiddie porn.
I seem to recall the Lame Stream Media© and Democrats (but I repeat myself) getting the vapors and their undies in a bunch when Republicans said they wished to see the Obama agenda fail.
The Republicans are amateurs compared to the no holds barred, by any means necessary tactics the Lame Stream Media© and Democrats (there I go, repeating myself again) have deployed against Trump AND his family.
As posters have mentioned before on other threads, we have now entered the era of endless investigation. Any sane person would have dropped this whole Russia collusion thing with the publishing of the Mueller report, if not before. It's well past time to move on.
The Democrats are taking a huge chance that their shenanigans favoring the loony left will not turn off millions of old style Democrats. Is that why Biden,. with all his baggage, leads the polls ?
Is that why Mayor Buttplug is getting funding from Hollywood?
Kim Strassel states the dilemma they have.
The rage-on strategy holds electoral risks for the Democrats. Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Nadler and other committee chairmen come from safe districts and don’t have to worry about re-election. But the more red meat they throw, the more the base will demand impeachment—and the more swing voters will wonder what, if anything, Democrats have to offer beyond this fraudulent show.
How do they get off this ledge for the general election?
Nothing so foul-smelling as the NYT.
Democrat, Left, globalist, anti-native, transhuman-fueled election interference over, what, 8, 12, 16 trimesters. The persistent witch hunts (e.g. NYT, WaPo-style close associations) and warlock trials (e.g. trials by press) are a clear and somber indication of progress.
To impeach or not to impeach. What do the Dem-media complex purse string holders want? What does Carlos Slim want? What do Soros and Steyer want? What about Bezos? After all, they're the only votes that matter here.
Bill the Lizard is a juror for the trial of the Knave of Hearts. The real world has too many characters trying to be the Red Queen, yelling, "Off with his head!".
dropped this whole Russia collusion thing
They're past the collusion thing, other than to use it as a colored, persistent association to rationalize witch hunts that will create indirect leverage over the warlock they have targeted. Something similar happened with their warlock trial when they went hunting witches and committed massive collateral damage while targeting the "white" Hispanic for retributive change and political leverage. And other hunts and trials to justify and fund their diverse stable of common causes.
Trump should threaten to run for both the Republicans and Democrat nomination. Throw the entire process into chaos.
In my vast experience mammals smell worse than reptiles.
And Democrats stink worse than either.
remember back in the Olden Days? Back when Democrats still pretended to believe in democracy?
"I cannot concede that. But my assessment is the law currently allows no further viable remedy"
"This game's not over until we win."
"Donald Trump Is Not My President"
“We cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump”
"Trump should threaten to run for both the Republicans and Democrat nomination. Throw the entire process into chaos."
Better yet, switch parties! Legit apoplexy would afflict the leaders of the Left, and the GOPe could shout "I Told YOU SO!!!".
Popcorn futures up big time.
Bill Barr has been officially cited as in contempt of Congress. I would pay good money to get an official document, signed by Nancy Pelosi, recognizing my contempt of Congress. I would hang it above my bathroom throne.
You're going to like that he's a mayor
Of a town no one has been to that is, if you can be arsed to google it (I'm not, really, but others have) is beset with problems, and barely cracks six figures in population. Big frickin' whoop. It's not an accomplishment, really.
No one cares about Pete other than fag hags.
Slithy toves
The times they are a changing. The Dem gang is so flustered by the rate of Trump's victory after victory over their best laid plans, that they are falling into a state of panic. But Trump refuses to interfere while they are losing.
On Morning Joe this morning, the tones of voices and the desperate counter talking among the
most cool kids in DC as they tried out fresh slander Trump angles, that all fell flat, was almost funny.
Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Nadler and other committee chairmen come from safe districts and don’t have to worry about re-election.
Used to be true. Now if you aren't rabid enough you get primaried from the left.
So far the Dems have managed to run on Anti-semitism, Marxism, no borders, raising taxes, legalizing infanticide,ending free speech and confiscating our wealth to stop bad weather.
The illustration looks like a common salamander. They don't smell and don't slither, but scurry very fast to avoid getting nailed by birds or your house cat.
It's not even an impeachment. It's just a continuing refusal to accept the result of the election in 2016. The election is where it started, and it never stopped. They wanted him out the night of the election. It was an overwhelming emotional mass hysteria, and they are still in the stages of grief. I don't know if they can ever get to acceptance. They can't allow even the possibility of a Trump second term. They will do anything they can to stop it, no matter the damage to the country or even themselves. It is mental illness, so reason will have no effect. Expect continued and expanded lying, cheating, and overreach. Only two things might put an end to it: 1) Somehow getting Trump out, or 2) a massive loss in 2020 all down the ticket. After seeing this behavior, I can't imagine a majority of the voters giving them what they want, but they voted for Hillary, so?
"It's time for the Democrats to either shit or get off the pot."
Well, no. They prefer to keep s**ing. It's what they do.
But good for Giuliani to call them on it.
Of course, the circus keeps the prog troops riled up. Of course, a number of Dem leaders and followers are crazy. But a question still lingers over the whole affair: why do they raise the stakes with such weak hands? The whole collusion business was predicated on a next to nothing. Now impeachment is predicated on next to nothing.
The fact that they do, and sort of get away with it, bespeaks their enormous arrogance, and their unquestioned assumption that they control the means of propaganda. But the left has now gambled repeatedly in a manner that seems to go beyond obvious calculation. Why?
To impeach a member of the Judicial Branch or an Executive Officer, ya gotta have "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
It'd be nice if these House Democrat idiots would spell out the allegations. There certainly ain't no treason or bribery. Is obstructing injustice an impeachable offense?
Maybe the Republicans in Congress should introduce Articles of Impeachment. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.
Normally when you accuse someone of a crime and express that you want to jail them/throw them out, you have a specific claim. You can enunciate the charges of a specific crime, the evidence gathered to date, and a subsequent course of action.
NOT HERE!
We no longer have a claimed crime. Instead we have proposed charges - obstruction of justice being the new favorite after collusion was dropped - without any real specifics.
Would it be ok if the Attorney General said "I think Jerry Nadler is guilty of the following felonies and we're going to investigate fully to find supporting evidence"
I am constantly amazed at how unprofessional Ann covers the Russian collusion and obstruction investigation. She constantly cites unprofessional and partisan analysis
and coverage by the usual hacks-NYT and WP. She never cites an in-depth judicial analysis from legal professionals like Andrew McCarthy or give an in-depth analysis herself. You would never know she is a career lawyer and was a law professor. As she would love to say, that's weird.
What is the leftists exit strategy? The have troops on ground. How do they get out and save face.
This whole hoax was always a PR strategy. It started with private contractors as early as 2014 accessing the data base of all private communications of citizens. This abuse/illegality was exposed by Admiral Rodgers, and shut down. These private contractors (fusion gps) had already been spying (backward lookups) on Trump and his contacts. Admiral Rodgers visited President Elect Trump and informed him of what was going on. Obama fired him for his honesty. From that point forward it became paramount the Intel community,FBI, DOJ, and the State Dept develop a scenario, reversed engineered to justify their actions. Those actions were using spies from Britain, Australia and maybe other nations, to spy on US citizens on US soil, and run spies on Trump associates on foreign soils. They needed a predicate. That Predicate was twofold. Running Mifsud at Popadopalis, to tell him Russia had dirt on Clinton's wife, and then run Downer at Popadopolis and get him to repeat the supposed intel. (after work hours, drinks, pretty girl honey trap)Downer then forwarding the interaction to the US through the State Dept of both nations, to get passed on to the FBI. GPS Fusion, being paid 7$figures by the DNC and Clintons wife's campaign, invent a dossier, using some of the back looking data found early to include in the dossier,(Cohen going to Praque, except it was a different Cohen, that's how we know where the info came from). At the same time, Steele is leaking intel to the media (Isokoff), those stories are used in the FISA warrant to substantiate the dossier to get the FISA warrant.
All of this mechanization is in place to give cover for the spying AG Barr is informing the Democrats about. The Cover up continues at the highest levels as 5/4/2019 FBI Director Wray has just classified a document from the State Dept that proves a portion of the spying scandal, for 25 years.
I have been having the same thought as Giuliani.
These subpoenas are without merit or justification, they are fishing expeditions not only in substance but in form.
The House can pass a resolution charging a committee (either a standing committee or create an ad hoc one) to investigate and make recommendations on specific, credible allegations of impeachable offenses by named individuals, and then that committee can issue subpoenas clearly tied to the offenses listed in the authorizing resolution. Than, at least there is a formal purpose that can legitimize all this.
Otherwise they should all just STFU and get ready for the 2020 campaign.
Adam Schitt says impeachment and courts are too slow. Congress needs to hold it's own "mini-trials".
Google Adam Schiff/mini-trials if you think I'm kidding.
I am constantly amazed at how unprofessional Ann covers the Russian collusion and obstruction investigation.
A professional gets paid for her analysis.
It’s all a fishing expedition. Some of my recent comments in other threads:
We had a discussion a day or two ago about Speaker Palsi complaining that Trump was trying to get the Dems to start impeachment proceedings before they were ready. Impeachment Constitutionally requires High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Of course, in reality, impeachment is a political and not a legal remedy. Which means that the Dems don’t Actually need to show that crimes had been committed, BUT starting impeachment before they have evidence of crimes is a big problem politically. Crimes had been credibly alleged for both Nixon and Clinton. All they have right now on Trump is OrangeManBad. They were wishing and hoping, desperately, that Mueller’s team of rabidly partisan prosecutors could find the requisite crimes. They failed, and all that they might have had were the extraordinarily strained theories of Obstruction found in the Mueller Report. Except that they don’t have the underlying evidence to support even that, esp with the invocation of Executive Privilege. And without proof of underlying crimes, they are not that likely to win in court against Trump’s attorneys asserting Executive Privilege. Their response to Wadler and the Dems citing Ken Starr’s overcoming Executive Privilege is that that instance already had proof of an underlying crime. In this case the Executive would merely be protecting itself against a fishing expedition. While that wouldnt have been sufficient to overcome the highly aggressive Obstruction theory that Weissman, etc were trying to use, it is decently likely to work in court, where wishful thinking interpretations of criminal statues is much more problematic.
And then there is the political side. Starting impeachment without a real crime other than OrangeManBad is not going to play very well in districts where Trump won in 2016. And most of the seats that the Dems flipped in 2018 had districts that Trump won two years earlier. They ran as moderates in 2018. That would be negated by condoning starting impeachment for nothing more than OrangeManBad. And losing both the House and the Presidency next year is a serious risk for the Dems to take by starting impeachment without a crime, and they are unlikely to find a real crime before starting impeachment, absent the underlying Mueller investigation evidence that is now off limits to them.
Couldn’t happen to a more worthy bunch of criminals and degenerates.
Andrew McCarthy writes about the House's stupendous cynicism in their arm-waving attempt to make A.G. Barr's refusal to break existing law into something worthy of a contempt citation (quoting…):
But let’s pretend that the House was not too embarrassed by the patent partisanship of its contempt vote; let’s pretend lawmakers went to court.
The first thing a judge would point out is that what Congress is demanding that Barr do is illegal – namely, disclose grand jury material to Congress. In Wednesday’s circus of a hearing, Chairman Nadler pointed out that there was a time when federal prosecutors would have joined with Congress to seek a court order permitting disclosure. Yes … but what Nadler conveniently neglected to mention was that this was before last month, when the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court – whose jurisprudence controls the dispute between Congress and the attorney general – decided McKeever v. Barr.
That case holds that a court has no authority to order disclosure unless it is pursuant to an exception to grand-jury secrecy explicitly spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (which governs grand jury matters). In the old days that Nadler was talking about, there was a theory in the law that a court has residual “supervisory” powers over the grand jury that empowered judges to order disclosure outside Rule 6(e). McKeever rejects that theory.
District judges in Washington are bound to follow McKeever. So a court could not order disclosure. Then there is the other embarrassing point a judge would make. Rule 6(e) is Congress' own law. Meaning Congress has the power to amend it. Any judge would, therefore, have to ask House Democrats, “While you were doing all this ranting and raving and holding the attorney general in contempt, have any of you fine lawmakers proposed a two-line amendment to Rule 6(e) that would authorize disclosure to Congress in special counsel investigations?”
Of course, the answer is no. That is because Nadler & Co. do not really want the grand jury material. They want to try to make Barr’s refusal to disclose it look like Watergate.
Congress is not going to court. And it is not going to seek help from the executive branch. It will keep the contempt gambit in its own playpen and hope people won’t notice that it’s a cynical game.
(/unQuote)
The other thing about privilege is that the Mueller prosecutors were desperately trying to find a way of indicting Trump for Obstruction of Justice (using that very aggressive/expansive Obstruction statute I have labored over here before). They apparently shifted into high gear with that about a year ago. Trump’s attorneys realized that when the prosecutors quit talking to them. In any case, the problem that the Mueller team faced (beyond their greatly expanded Obstruction interpretation- which they likely figured they would lose in court, but they would have done their political duty by indicting him) was that they could argue Actus Rea with their interpretation, but not Mens Rea. And they could never prove intent w/o interviewing Trump. So, one of the ways that Trump’s attorneys got around this was by shoveling mass quantities of evidence at the Mueller team. Then, if the Mueller people went into court demanding a personal interview, his attorneys could show that they were being more than cooperative, and he didn’t have time, given his job. The failure to assert Executive Privilege was key to preventing Weissman and his buddies from getting a personal interview with Trump, where everyone, from past experience, expected him to screw up. Now, of course, with the Mueller investigation legally over, and Trump no longer vulnerable to BS Obstruction charges, there is no real reason not invoke Executive Privilege.
This is a classic example of Wadler and the Dems getting greedy, and ending up with nothing. They very likely expected almost a seamless transition between the Mueller investigation and their House investigations. We predicted last fall after the election, after the realization of how much money they spent, and how many norms they violated to get their House majorities in order to control House investigations. All that legally is required to happen is that the special counsel gives his report, in secret, to the AG, and he then tells the public what he, in his sole discretion, decides to tell us. There was no legal obligation to release the Mueller report. None. AG Barr decided to, for transparency. But Wadler is demanding all the underlying evidence, including hundreds of witness interviews and over a million pages of documents. Nope. He wants to see huge amounts of evidence that didn’t lead to criminal charges being filed. That massively violates DoJ policy for protecting the innocent. Dems don’t care, if they can get Trump. So, in the end, the House is going to lose access to the redacted non grand jury information from the Report, that is available in Congressional SCIFFs (which only a couple Republicans bothered to look at). And made building an impeachment case almost impossible to build from the Mueller investigation.
Finally:
The Dems are in a pickle now. The Mueller investigation had two jobs, and only two jobs. Everything else was peripheral. The first was to stall the investigation into Spygate, hopefully beyond the 2020 election. Only worked long enough to get through the 2018 election and elect a Dem House. The other was to indict Trump for something criminal. Anything would have worked. They got out lawyered, and completely lost on that one. Which puts them in a position of having to open their much anticipated impeachment investigation without a visible high crime or misdemeanor (excluding OrangeManBad) to justify the opening of the impeachment investigation. Impeachment has always been at least partially political, but without an underlying high crime or misdemeanor, it is obviously 100% political. And that makes it obvious that if the Dems actually proceed here towards impeachment, that they will, rightfully, look like sore losers, and are trying to override or invalidate the 2016 election. Meaning that they are essentially unAmerican cheaters.
District judges in Washington are bound to follow McKeever. So a court could not order disclosure.
It's cute how some still think America is governed by rule of law.
Judge demands unredacted Mueller report in Roger Stone case ...
-Politico
Browndog: Have you checked to see if that judge's demand falls within the listed exceptions in Rule 6(e)? It appears to me that it may (see, e.g., Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i)).
Rocketeer said...
I no longer think it's hyperbole to say that a significant portion of the electorate - represented by the commenter and the upvoters - is literally and dangerously insane.
pfftt.
They have been deranged animals for some time.
NYT readers celebrate Steve Scalise getting shot.
Top rated comment:
dEs joHnson
Forest Hills, NYJune 14, 2017
"I condemn this violence unreservedly. But as GOP members bemoan their inability to go about a sacred America ritual without fearing for their lives, I must point out that the vast majority of Americans cannot now go to bed, or get up in the morning, or go to work without the threat of GOP cruelty hanging over them. My Medicare! My Social Security! My country once more to be dragged into a war of political and profiteering convenience! Let's have some proportionality here! And let's have some civilized gun safety laws."
63 Replies 4338 Recommend Share
There are dozens like this will thousands of likes.
“like the den of some foul reptile, a room where thieves arrested around the Capitol are kept."
Sounds like a perfect place to put Barr and Mnuchin.
**************
So...Barr and Mnuchin are "thieves" for NOT GIVING UP privileged information to the House.
Forget it, Jake it's Crazytown.
Impeachment: A love that dare not speak its name.
@ Browndog:
Rule 6(e) gives criminal defendants access to grand jury transcripts related to the charges against them.
I think Democrats will bluster and put out nuisance subpoenas as part of nuisance, and thoroughly phony, “investigations.” But impeachment threatens the seats of moderate Democrats in districts where Trump is popular. Do they vote the way their constituents see it and hold onto their seats in November 2018? Which might preserve the current Democrat majority. Or do they vote their party line, and go the way of the moderates and Blue Dog Democrats in 2010?
I know what I would do.
Rule 6(e) gives criminal defendants access to grand jury transcripts related to the charges against them.
Wouldn't that be pursuant to the court filings in the Stone indictment?
The Mueller report is not a legal document.
@Big Mike
I expect that Speaker Palsi has the power to force the Trump District Dem Reps to vote her way, since she was able to force them to in 2010 to pass Obamacare. I think that most everyone knew that if they voted for Obamacare, their seats were forfeit. Yet, she forced them to, and she lost her oversized gavel later that year which is why she probably desperately is hoping that this goes quietly away. But I don’t think that she has as much control this time around. Popcorn time.
>>They have been deranged animals for some time.
That is grossly unfair.
To animals.
“Judge demands unredacted Mueller report in Roger Stone case ...”
Answered with:
“Rule 6(e) gives criminal defendants access to grand jury transcripts related to the charges against them.”
Pointing out the obvious, that the Dems are not Roger Stone. So won’t help them. And I think that Stone is unlikely to get access to the entire unredacted Mueller report. Just maybe the portions that directly affect him. No doubt, if there were segments in there involving me, I could get access to them in any related criminal matters. But, since I have never been indicted, that isn’t really useful. Now, maybe if some Dems had actually been investigated for their admitted Russian collusion, and then indicted for it, then the Dems in the House might have possibly leveraged that into an unredacted copy. Except that they couldn’t see the 6% that is classified (available in the Congressional SCIFF) but just the 2% that is grand jury testimony. But it is the 2% that they are trying to hold AG Barr in contempt for.
I often learn something, or see my ideas expressed with a clarity I had not yet found, in the Althouse comments. On this page, hat-tips to Bruce Hayden, Michael McNeill (bringing us Andrew McCarthy), and bagoh20 ("it's not even impeachment").
The tag 'Trump troubles' is misapplied. It's the Dems who have the trouble.
Browndog said: It's cute how some still think America is governed by rule of law.
It's always a close call. Every generation has to reclaim the founding virtues for themselves, or not.
"Impeachment: A love that dare not speak its name."
Impeachment: A love that doesn't know when to just STFU and move on.
Boy that "Trump is a bankrupt loser" story of NYT didn't have any legs did it? I can't even find it on my Yahoo feed any longer.
I don't think the democrats are very satisfied with this phony outrage show. Its as satisfying as diet pudding. They know in their gut no one buys their b.s except other democrats and where is the fun in that? The democrats I know are having a harder time convincing Uncle Ed not to vote for Trump again. This politicized circus just makes it worse.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा