November 24, 2019

Somebody signed Maureen Dowd up for A.Word.A.Day email and she noticed a pattern.

"Friday’s word was vulgarian, following close after bareknuckle. Others included rodomont (a vain boaster), grobian (a buffoonish person) and Sinon (one who misleads and betrays). Also chirocracy (a government that rules with a heavy hand) and froward (difficult to deal with or contrary)."

From "Trump’s White Whale/Trump will not stop until he brings down Trump" (NYT). Funny. But why is Dowd exposed to other people signing her up for email? I mean, I understand spam, but she says "someone signed me up." I'm amused by the language stuff, and I do think the implicit attack on Trump is intentional. And it's a big week for using circumstantial evidence to decide what in another person's head.

But on to the "Moby-Dick" business. There's this idea that Trump is really out to destroy himself, and I've got to wonder whether it's a genius defense move, making your opponents believe that you've got a death wish. He says he wants a trial, and what does that mean — that he does or he doesn't? Which is the best move for the House Democrats — to give him that trial or to deny it to him?

115 comments:

Kevin said...

Which is the best move for the House Democrats — to give him that trial or to deny it to him?

Exactly what they’re wondering as tell the nation this charade has nothing to do with partisanship.

Bob Boyd said...

Without Captain Ahab, Moby Dick is just another whale.

Kevin said...

Shorter Dowd: Fine, I signed myself up. But it was only to feel the daily satisfaction of knowing I could still ace the SAT’s.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Dems have been lying for a long time. So many Huey Long aspirants. Generations of 'em. Dynasties. A trial would shred em like cedar bark. JUST DO IT.

AllenS said...

If there is to be a trial, I don't believe that it will be held in the House. The Senate is where the trial would take place. Am I correct here?

michaele said...

As with everyone else in her circle, Dowd gets enthralled with utterances delivered with a British accent....hence, her reverence for everything Fiona Hill had to say. What if Trump sounded like this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUGT30gGtiI

David Begley said...

The Dems would be total idiots to impeach Trump and give him a trial.

CJ Roberts would preside. Trump gets his witnesses. No hearsay. Trump’s lawyers are better. No time limits on questioning. Eric C is exposed and destroyed on cross. Total bloodbath.

Oso Negro said...

A trial implies a proceeding conducted according to a set of rules. In the minds, at least, of Americans, the right to be confronted with witnesses and evidence, plus the right of cross-examination and introduction of exculpatory evidence, and eventually to be judged impartially against the same. Contrast this to the current proceedings of the House.

jeremyabrams said...

If Roberts imposes the federal rules of evidence, so that all the hearsay and opinion from the Schiff hearings is ruled inadmissible, and if at least Hunter Biden and hopefully Ciaramella, Chalupa, Joe Biden, and Schiff are called, it would be trial of the century, and a vindication of Trump.

WisRich said...

The best strategy for the Dem's is not to impeach but censure.

Bob Boyd said...

Can Roberts exclude witnesses and say what is admissible or do the Republicans get free reign?

Amadeus 48 said...

Based on what we have seen so far, the ringmaster of the Greatest Show on Earth should want a trial, particularly one where the jury is stacked to acquit.

Villains (Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, the Bidens, Romney), heroes (Trump, the Senate Republicans), damsels in distress (Rep. Elise Stefanik, Melania, Ivanka), death-defying acts of verbal outrage, wild animals (the CIA, the Deep State) brought to heel by the World's Greatest Showman, plus the most rollicking, asinine crew of clowns the world has ever seen--the House Democrats. Laugh your troubles away as you watch them squirt themselves with seltzer, hit themselves with slapsticks, and paste each other with cream pies aimed at POTUS.

What America needs now is an impeachment trial.

rehajm said...

and I do think the implicit attack on Trump is intentional.

Jeez, ya think? I wonder if there's been other efforts to plant thoughts in our heads just when the left wants us to be thinking those thoughts? #MeToo

rehajm said...

Let's all sign Maureen up for more emails. For that special someone...

Amadeus 48 said...

The world would be a different place if the nuns had let Maureen Dowd be the editor of her high school newspaper. Instead, she has been writing that snarky "confidential" column ever since. Some people never leave Immaculata High School, even though it closed.

rehajm said...

The best strategy for the Dem's is not to impeach but censure.

Yes, I find it hard to fathom them allowing a trial in the Senate given all their bombshells have been duds.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Democrats don't want a trial It may not happen even if they pass the hot potato to the Senate.

The House votes to send an indictment to the Senate and then they either hold a trial or vote to deny the indictment the Senate "has the power" to hold a trial. It doesn't say that they must or have to do that. It is possible that the Senate could decide to abrogate the House indictment.

But....the real reason they don't really want a trial is that if that happened the Senate and Republicans would have subpoena power and many people like Shiff and Biden and a whole lot of underground people would be forced to surface and testify under oath. It would be very very difficult to keep the real dirt and real collusion under wraps.

The Dems just want a big show to fool the LoFo voters into thinking that Trump is a Bad Orange Man and not to vote for him in November. The longer the show can go on.....they think.....the more people they can sway.

I think the Dems are wrong and people are getting sick of their antics, their duplicity and that the Dems are doing doodley squat for the voters in their Districts. Plus the more they pile on Trump, Manafort, Giuliani etc etc the more those guys look like underdogs. People will vote for the underdog.

BONUS: Guiliani recently claimed he has a "dead man switch" of documents hidden away about the corruption by Dems/Bidens/Deep State, just in case he disappears. Does an Epstein. He is afraid that they want to kill him. Not out of the realm of possiblity

Jeff Brokaw said...

Maybe we should ask focus groups whether to have a trial or not. They already told us what the charges should be.

Heck, let’s save time and money and make them judge, jury, and executioner.

Amadeus 48 said...

Dowd probably sends herself private texts, and then claims she is being stalked. Remember when she thought sex addict Michael Douglas had a real thing for her?

madAsHell said...

“Noticed a pattern”

Great punch line, but nobody believes it,

Quaestor said...

If there's a trial Viktor Mykolayovych Shokin, the former chief prosecutor of Ukraine will be called to testify. I believe he will accept. He will be asked whether Hunter Biden was a target of his investigations of Burisma Holdings. He will answer, Yes.

Next, Joe Biden will be called to testify. One question will destroy him: Were you aware that your son was a target of the investigation conducted by Shokin, the man you insisted must be fired else the United States would withhold one billion dollars in military and economic aid? Any answer he provides makes him look either corrupt, mendacious, or demented.

The next witness that will be called by Trump's defense counsel will be Obama, who will be asked what he knew and when did he know it regarding Biden's dealing with Ukraine. Any answer he gives will reveal either his corruption or his incompetence.

Pelosi knows these witnesses will be called and the questions that will be put to them, which is why Trump will narrowly escape impeachment in the House. Several Democrats from districts won by Trump in 2016 will be given leave to vote Present.

Tank said...

1. As someone who tried a good number of cases to judges and juries, I can say that a lot of people who thought they wanted to "go to trial" were surprised by the outcome. No matter how prepared both sides are, things can easily go sideways or get out of hand at trial. Shorter story: stuff happens. Watch out what you wish for.

2. I don't believe a trial in the Senate would involve live testimony with cross examination; I believe it's presented based upon depositions taken beforehand (where, of course, there would be testimony and cross, but most of the drama is lost later in reading it out to an audience). Pretty sure that's how the Clinton trial went.

samanthasmom said...

They shouldn't have pushed to have "Song of the South" banned. Two generations that have no idea about Brer Rabbit and that briar patch. Well, zippity doo dah! Go ahead and give Trump a trial, but they might want to check out the movie first or read some Uncle Remus.

iowan2 said...

Why do I want to call bullshit on this? Sounds too contrived. Nothing but a device she can use to advance a narrative.

Quaestor said...

The "pattern" neatly describes Dowd and her fellow perfidious creeps at the NYT.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Another typical Trump move. He knows they are bluffing, that they don't want the trail due to all the reasons others have mentioned above, but he can look like he wants full exposure by challenging them to have a trial. His instincts are right, as usual. I didn't vote for him, I voted libertarian in MS because I knew he was going to win the state by a landslide and wanted to endorse a different path, and he was one of my least favorite GOP candidates, but he absolutely wins 90% of his skirmishes with the media. I hate the media because I believe that if the media truly reported objectively, then the country would vote for a much more limited government etc., and I appreciate Trump so much for exposing these shills.

Beasts of England said...

Having the House vote to censure the president may be the best way out for the Dems, and they could produce a televised Censure Spectacular. All the Dems could dress in dark colors; dim the lights; get a few congresscritters to sob for our country - the whole nine yards.

There’s one major drawback to that approach: Trump wins. And he’d skewer Nancy with claims that she chickened out of impeachment. He’d remind her that she failed, even though she had a comfortable vote margin on her side.

Scylla and Charybdis.

Equipment Maintenance said...

For the democrats the question is: Does the stigma of being impeached by congress outweigh the humiliation done to congress at the senate trial once Trump can fight back? They're delusional if they think there is a national institutional respect anymore. More like contempt.

rehajm said...

From the A.Word.A.Day website:

What words describe you or people you know or people in the news? To describe unique beings we need unique words. In this week’s A.Word.A.Day we feature five words to describe people.

gongoozler


Quaestor said...

Pretty sure that's how the Clinton trial went.

Tank, you surprise me. The impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson involved sworn testimony in the Senate Chamber.

jnseward said...

The Democrats would be crazy to impeach and allow a trial in the Senate. So there's no doubt they will do it.

David Begley said...

Who would be the House Managers? Schiff? Nadler? Al Green? Maxine Waters?

Bloodbath.

Laslo Spatula said...

"There's this idea that Trump is really out to destroy himself, and I've got to wonder whether it's a genius defense move, making your opponents believe that you've got a death wish."

There is a difference between simply wanting to die, and being willing to die if necessary when barreling down the path you believe to be best.

The latter looks like a death wish to people who can't fathom believing in yourself enough to floor the pedal.

You gotta listen to Super Soul to know the Truth, people.

I am Laslo.

iowan2 said...

Amadeas48, you bring a smile to my face on a Sunday morning. What a spot on description!

Annie C. said...

https://outline.com/j5Sxxr

This piece in Front Page Mag by Bruce Thornton has some things to say about Ms. Noonan. She and Dowd seem to have similar afflictions in the "I'm so much better than you" vein.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amadeus 48 said...

Of course, the Senate will set the rules for any trial. I wonder who controls the Senate?

The GOP may be a bit constrained by McConnell's feelings about the traditions of the Senate, but I am sure he'll find some way to make the Dems look like idiots by giving them something they have said they want. I personally can't wait to see the landmines and whoopee cushions that the GOP plants in the trial. Nadler, Schiff, and the other House impeachment managers better not sit down anywhere near a microphone. Rep. Eric Swalwell has shown the way forward.

Trump is loading up on gas jokes. Flatulence never had it so good. Something stinks about this whole impeachment gig, but what better way to make that real than a Swalwell soundtrack? And there is no reason not to enhance the sound a bit, is there? It will give Rachel Maddow another mystery to solve.

Yep. Christmas could come early this year for Trump. The House might impeach him.

Laslo Spatula said...

It's the end of fucking 'Vanishing Point', people! Wake your shit up!Fuck You To The Man!

Schiff ain't got no bulldozers! Pelosi ain't got no bulldozers!

Trump's coming out on the other side, bitches, and he is gonna be one pissed Zen motherfucker!

I am Laslo.

Ann Althouse said...

"If there is to be a trial, I don't believe that it will be held in the House. The Senate is where the trial would take place. Am I correct here?"

Yes, but it is the House that will decide whether to impeach, which would either send him to trial (in the Senate) or deny it to him.

If the House impeaches, there is a way for the Senate to still deny the trial (by granting a motion to dismiss), but the Senate cannot choose to go to trial unless the House impeaches. That's why the House is making the decision. I presume the House Democrats are desperately trying to figure out whether to keep control and just censure Trump or to relinquish control and let the GOP Senate do what it wants.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Too bad they don't teach much of anything in schools anymore. IN addition to Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby and the briar patch....the Dems should have learned about Hobson's choice.

This is what Trump is doing now. Tar Baby for the Dems. A sticky situation. Briar Patch tactic for Trump... Hobson's choice! This is what he seems to be a master of and why he is a Billionaire.

Hobson's choice is a great tactic in politics and in international diplomacy. Also pretty good when dealing with your hormonal rebellious teenager or little kids :-)

Tar Baby "In modern usage, tar baby refers to a problematic situation that is only aggravated by additional involvement with it."

Hobson's Choice ".. is a a choice in which someone is offered the opportunity to decide between two distasteful options. In reality, a Hobson's Choice is not a choice at all, since the individual must decide upon the lesser of two evils, or settle for something rather than nothing

Ann Althouse said...

"If Roberts imposes the federal rules of evidence, so that all the hearsay and opinion from the Schiff hearings is ruled inadmissible, and if at least Hunter Biden and hopefully Ciaramella, Chalupa, Joe Biden, and Schiff are called, it would be trial of the century, and a vindication of Trump."

I'm almost certain Roberts will take the kind of minimal role Rehnquist took in the Clinton trial and let the Senators make whatever rules they want. What constitutes a trial within the meaning of the "sole power to try" clause is a matter for the Senate to determine and not a judicial decision. That's what the Supreme Court made clear in Nixon v. United States.

Ann Althouse said...

"Watch out what you wish for."

Also don't assume that what people say they wish for is what they actually wish for.

Does Trump want a trial or is he game-playing when he says I want that? Yeah, I hope you do attack me, because then I get to fight you. That's something you'd say to someone when you DON'T want to fight. But it might also be something you say when you can't start the fight, but you do want to fight.

WisRich said...

Ann Althouse said...

I presume the House Democrats are desperately trying to figure out whether to keep control and just censure Trump or to relinquish control and let the GOP Senate do what it wants.



They're going to be conducting and watching a lot of polling in the next couple of weeks. The Marquette and Emerson poll are indicators that impeachment is going sideways for them. We'll see.

Nancy was willing to sacrifice control of the House in order to pass Obamacare. She could do it again.

rhhardin said...

Nobody has sent her windbag.

AllenS said...

Question: Are the House Democrats afraid to hold a vote on impeachment, because they are afraid that a lot of them from Trump country will not vote to impeach? This House Kangaroo Court Show Trial does not seem to be generating much enthusiasm in most of the country.

gilbar said...

here's my $0.02 worth

Dems NEVER thought that it'd come to this
Dems Never thought that Trump would release the transcript
Dems Never thought that Gordon Sondland would be asked about quid pro quo
Dems NEVER thought that Sondland would ADMIT that there was No quid quo pro

Dems NEVER thought that Mitch McConnell would allow a trial

Dems thought that they would score their hits, and leave a wounded Trump to face Certain Defeat next Nov. They KNEW that they couldn't remove him, and just wanted to besmirch him

HOWEVER!
Trump Refused to play their game (that Darn Trump!)
once he released the transcripts, the Dems were screwed. But, they don't know how to pull back. Their only path forward, is over the cliff

More people are opposed to impeachment Now, than when they began
More people support President Trump Now, than when they began

Sebastian said...

"to give him that trial or to deny it to him?"

That's what a rational person would wonder. But is it a question for actual Dems? Do they recognize Trump's moves as moves?

While Trump is smart enough to figure out the Dems, thus far the Dems haven't shown themselves smart enough to figure out Trump. I think they think they don't have to: they prefer their own bubble, their own certitude, their own contempt for Trump and you and us. Sure, in the end Nancy will check the numbers -- but even that does not mean paying attention to Trump.

Amadeus 48 said...

A censure vote has its own charms for Trump. It is a total fizzle for Team Donkey. Trump gets to say whatever he wants, and I think the fart soundtrack overlaid on various news commentary should get the message across nicely that something smelled about the whole operation.

And then there's the whole "chicken out" meme waiting to be exploited. I am sure that Team Trump is scratching it's head over how to maximize mockery of Team Donkey and Chick-Fil-A while standing strong with the Salvation Army and the fighting men in the ranks of our military.

"Donkeys, come out and play!"

gilbar said...

AllenS said...
Question: Are the House Democrats afraid to hold a vote on impeachment, because they are afraid that a lot of them from Trump country will not vote to impeach?


I think that Nancy would be able to strong arm those wavering Dems to Vote; even though it would probably cost them their jobs next Nov

Nancy's Biggest fear (now,) is that NO republicans will hop on.
Will Chuck's alter ego, the turncoat from detroit vote to impeach? Probably, since he's not running for reelection. But how many others?
Does One pathetic loser from detroit make things bipartisan? I'm asking You, Chuck?

Darrell said...

So the people behind her word-of-the-day email are chosing words that supposedly reflect on Trump and THAT is Trump's fault and folly?

Get bent, you washed up hag.

Comanche Voter said...

What's the word for lonely cougar sitting at the end of the Oak Bar in the Plaza hotel each night hoping someone will hit on her and never scoring? "Dowd"---from Word A Day.

But then Maureen Dowd and Peggy Noonan have been infected with the lace curtain Irish syndrome concerning Trump for a long long time. "He's not our sort dear".

Guildofcannonballs said...

"Also chirocracy (a government that rules with a heavy hand)" is insane to think with regards to Trump compared to what proggies have done, do, and will continue to do.

Insane.

I wonder who else sees this insanity? Who else knows what I do? Can I trust those blinded to not blind others?

Rusty said...


"Which is the best move for the House Democrats — to give him that trial or to deny it to him?"

"Does Trump want a trial or is he game-playing when he says I want that? Yeah, I hope you do attack me, because then I get to fight you. That's something you'd say to someone when you DON'T want to fight. But it might also be something you say when you can't start the fight, but you do want to fight"

Look at his position on the board. If he takes either route he can't lose. Now look at the other sides position on the board. They have to be very careful in their next move even though , in the long run, they will lose. There is no positive outcome for the other side. They have painted themselves into a corner.
e

Quaestor said...

Is there anyone more fearful of the truth than Maureen Dowd?

narciso said...

Miss hill was proud obama dudnt se d weapons to ukraine, because regional war but #hashtags and food rations fine. John henry tipped me off to miss jarezko who was steering the financial barge in ukraind and got on board in puerto rico

narciso said...

Didnt she wasnt aware of any of the details john solomon turned up or apelbaum. They all rely on smith barney i mean fusion gps.

narciso said...

Now they do seem to be raising a #mob against nunes.

tim in vermont said...

He has to be on record as wanting a trial because if he is denied one, the MSM will claim that he wasn’t exonerated on the facts, but on a partisan basis.

Did you guys know that it’s against the law to investigate a Democrat running for President?

https://twitter.com/FalsusInOmnibus/status/1198166782449782784

Clearly not against the law to do same against a Republican though or the jails would be full!

narciso said...

Adam schiff seems to be the ahab here, chading the orange whale on behalf of pasternak?

tim in vermont said...

So the server Trump was talking about is the one purportedly used to hack the DNC, not the DNC server.

The Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike, the cyber-security company that was instrumental in accusing Russia of meddling. Its founder and head, a Russian Jew and American citizen Dmitry Alperovich is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max Boot. People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia. President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr Zelensky.

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-biden-affair-in-the-ukraine/

Jeezums our media sucks.

tim in vermont said...

Schiff as Ahab works perfectly. Ahab was mad at the whale, and obsessed with it because it was evil, it defended itself!

clint said...


The best strategy for the Dem's is not to impeach but censure.

This would have worked a year ago -- the headlines could have been that it's a historic first, the first time the House has censured the President.

Unfortunately, they did that this summer, in response to a supposedly-racist tweet about Congresswoman Omar.

I'm sure they thought that was a good idea at the time.

narciso said...

Yes i dont find that attribution helpful, crowdstrike btw took another monitoring company fireeye (which was as diligent with equifax) and applied it to a string of events, now jeff carr pointed to how pathetic their diagnostics were.

narciso said...

If you remember goldeneye, how a private hacker network sought revenge for cloudy motives, a proper analysis would track back to the source.

BUMBLE BEE said...

It is Fail Fail for the dumbocrats. That is what I call savvy leadership!!! Haven't seen the likes since Little Bighorn.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The Dems face much the same dilemma that the prosecutors of the O.J. Simpson faced. The case against Trump is clear enough. The problem is that the jury is filled with people who feel deep resentments towards the prosecutors.

narciso said...


Jessen was the one that said tsarnaev was in a fight with himself

https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/

Bruce Hayden said...

Get this out of your heads. Schifty won’t be called as a witness in a Senate trial. He will be one of the House managers for the prosecution. It would be akin to calling opposing counsel as a hostile witness - not typically allowed unless you can show hat they have information that you can’t find elsewhere. Which he really doesn’t have. He probably didn’t personally meet and conspire with the “whistleblower”. His staff did. Sure, maybe his staff did stuff here that he didn’t authorize. It doesn’t really matter who gave the Code Red, as far Trump’s guilt or innocence, and his staff setting it up is just as bad for the Dems here as if he had done it himself, esp since he never publicly repudiated their actions. But I don’t think that that will give the Dems much comfort, since the real dirt is in the setup between Schifty’s staff and the “whistleblower”.

narciso said...

Well his staff met with taylor back in aygust at an atlantic council (funded by burisma) function.

buwaya said...

Dowd is one of those women trapped by her own choices into a failed life.
She took the fools gold of the material rewards of her career, and also that glamor of New York.

These careers, and these places like New York and San Francisco, are flypaper, death traps. Clever and talented people go to these places, drawn by ambition and glamor. Many, maybe most, are trapped in the sticky sweetness only to die alone with no issue, a sterile branch, a life lived for nothing.

doctrev said...

Man, the reaction to this is disappointing. Everyone's focused on how Trump will play defense, and force the Bidens/ Schiff to testify. Which is great scrutiny of the tree, but misses the forest.

With this ludicrous impeachment as precedent, Donald Trump can indict Hunter Biden. He's such an obviously bribed, drugged-out, bastard-spawning degenerate that not even the lugenpresse could make him look sympathetic. It would be a very short jump to indicting former VP Biden. But that is all very small beer compared to Donald Trump's real target: Barack Hussein Obama. Joe Biden, John Brennan and many others will happily rat him out if it means they can avoid prison time.

Now, if Trump had tried going after the Obamas before impeachment, people would be screaming that it's Not Who We Are, So Hitler. Afterwards? Chaos benefits a guy like Trump, even if you don't like what he does. And the judicial system degenerating into accusations and counter-accusations (which are justified in the case of prosecuting the Bidens, btw) will only benefit President Trump.

Buckle in, kids. It's going to be a fun ride.

buwaya said...

It is a cruel thing to do to talented young women.

Howard said...

A little inconsequential man is intimidated by successful, powerful women... Unexpectedly

Tank said...

Q, you’ve exposed my failure to recall the trial of Jackson. After all, I was just a child at the time.

Howard said...

Allen S: Nancy will get the votes she wants. What they will vote on is anyone's guess. Everything hinges on internal polling and moneyball analysis.

Big Mike said...

Yeah, I hope you do attack me, because then I get to fight you. That's something you'd say to someone when you DON'T want to fight. But it might also be something you say when you can't start the fight, but you do want to fight.

And sometimes it’s something you say to someone when you DO want to fight but want your opponent to think you want him to back down. Wheels within wheels.

I think Peggy Noonan and the others who’ve published articles saying “it’s over, he’s guilty, get him out of here” wrote their stuff days ago as part of a coordinated campaign. But it isn’t working. Neither Trump nor Democrats can win without independents, and the latest polling says that the independents have changed from being pro-impeachment to overwhelmingly anti. It’s over, all right. Trump won.

buwaya said...

There are larger matters than the scrum of each new day.

A traditional way of winning any conflict is to embroil the opponent into obsession with a tactical point, while losing sight of the big picture, the strategic situation. All of these things go down very much like the matadors strategy with the bull.

Most players of the great game are vulnerable to this, though usually the target (if their opponents are conscious enough to deliberately play matador) is their staffs and the next levels down, which tend to be siloed and thus lose sight of that big picture. They are ambitious within their silo, seeing their immediate goals as predominant, and so are usually easily distracted into over-committing in their silo.

Francisco D said...

The case against Trump is clear enough.

Please enlighten me as to the specific charge and the specific evidence in support of that charge. I must have missed it along the way. Maybe one of the lawyers here can help you, like Schiff helped Ciamarella.

ARM is trying to sell the DNC narrative which doesn't require specificity or evidence. Its a matter of faith, just like climate change.

What is pathetic is that people stubbornly adhere to this faith. Do we really want these people to have any power over our lives?

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...

What's the word for lonely cougar sitting at the end of the Oak Bar in the Plaza hotel each night hoping someone will hit on her and never scoring? "Dowd"---from Word A Day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about "dowdy?" It's already a word and perfectly describes her.

Chuck said...

Althouse: "...Does Trump want a trial or is he game-playing when he says I want that? Yeah, I hope you do attack me, because then I get to fight you. That's something you'd say to someone when you DON'T want to fight. But it might also be something you say when you can't start the fight, but you do want to fight."

I think you are over-thinking it, Althouse.

Trump said he would go to trial in the Trump University case(s). That he would not settle. Even as lots of informed observers of the civil fraud prosecutions said that Trump would settle. Right up to the "tenth," if not "eleventh", hour. Trump said that as a defendant (he had also been the plaintiff in dozens of meritless cases that never went anywhere) he could never settle, because it would invite more lawsuits. Then he settled. And when he settled, he turned around and said that the settlement was for a tiny fraction of his exposure at trial.

This isn't complicated. Trump more or less constantly spouts untrue self-serving bullshit. What you have to do with Trump is to get him to where he has to appear under oath, and under cross-examination by a skilled lawyer. And then get the heel of your boot squarely on his throat.

Mary Beth said...

chirocracy (a government that rules with a heavy hand)

Like sneaking the Patriot Act renewal into a short-term spending bill and passing it with yes-votes from only one party?

Guildofcannonballs said...

"It is a cruel thing to do to talented young women."

I offered to help them, beyond cock-wise even, and they refused to accept my help.

Like the nun in The Blues Brothers, now they are up shit creek.

This is a link.

No sympathy for pampered haters with more privilege than sense. If they had any empathy derived from a deserved gratitude instead of their materialistic anti-harmony they wouldn't be where they are. They were warned against choosing Satanic stupidity yet chose it anyway: To be away from God.

Mary Beth said...

untrue self-serving bullshit

Oh, lordy me, imagine what it would be like if that were the norm for politicians.

rcocean said...

grobian - now that's fun word. Its just a nicer way of calling someone a Boor or a lout. As for Dowd, isn't she just going through the motions by now? Anti-Trump column number 156. And she never really "got" Trump to begin with.

rcocean said...

She was good 12-20 years ago, but like Peggy Noonan, she's well past her sell date.

rcocean said...

Of course, a trial would be good. Not too long though. But it will give Trump a chance to attack the "Whistle blower", schiff, and Pelosi. But I'm not sure if you want a POTUS being "Cross-examined" that's too far.

doctrev said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
doctrev said...

If only a limp-wristed Harvard JD could get Trump on the stand. Then we'd finally get him, lads!

Aaron Sorkin needs to be scourged, just for helping inflate the Cult of Lawyer.

Maillard Reactionary said...

buwaya @9:06 AM: Agreed and very well stated, sir.

Their lack of self-awareness is a willed defense intended to maintain a kind of stability, but at what a cost!

Separately, I'm pretty sure Trump is confident that he'll come out ahead no matter how this plays out in the House. Saying he'd welcome a trial is psy-ops; now he's got them worrying about what that might mean.

The anti-Trump left keep running and running, but never quite catch up to that tail.

A Senate trial could easily end up looking like one of the food-fight scenes from a Three Stooges finale, but the mashed potatoes are all going to be on the Dems.

Guildofcannonballs said...

There is a lot of evidence lawyers, being so very very smart and wise, have unceasingly gotten the best of billionaire potUS Donald J. Trump.

Has Trump ever not been totally destroyed by the top men that make up the legal profession?

Has he ever won anything, ever? I don't blame him for his constant never-ending failures, going up against people far, far superior to his way-less-than-mediocre self.

JAORE said...

One of the wonders of Trump is he gets his message out by his "outrageous" statements and tweets. He has a dozen was to pierce or make an end around for his messages.

The media can't help themselves and ignore him. The have to "pounce" and find themselves in the tar pit.

I suspect this is another.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

At this point, a Senate proceeding would be no more trying than the House hearing, with the advantage that Trump would have the votes to win.

JAORE said...

Maureen Dowd and Peggy Noonan have infected lace curtain Irish merkins.

daskol said...

Only one of those words, froward, can lay claim to being English. Still, some neat words: it's good to have synonyms for "vulgar" in a populist age. I'm surprised I haven't seen those words in a Roger Kimball column.

Roger Sweeny said...


In the last days before the 1968 election, LBJ had ordered a bombing halt over North Vietnam and the "Viet Cong" had indicated they were willing to engage in peace negotiations. Through back channels, Richard Nixon sent word to the South Vietnamese government that if peace talks began, Hubert Humphrey would win and he would sell them out. If it looked like talks wouldn't happen, Nixon would win and continue to support them. So the South Vietnamese government dragged their feet and Nixon won a narrow victory.

Lyndon Johnson, who was illegally keeping tabs on the Nixon campaign, knew what they had done but thought it would be too divisive to go public with his knowledge. I don't think Trump would feel the same way. If there is a trial, we might well see a lot of divisive honesty and semi-honesty.

"Sure we wanted the Ukrainians to investigate Hunter Biden's influence peddling." Etc. Etc. When people are asked, "Was it wrong for President Trump to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rival?" a majority say yes. But if the question is, ""Was it wrong for President Trump to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate corruption and influence peddling?", I bet a majority would say no. And since most people don't make $50,000 a month, I would expect Trump to bang on about "getting paid $50,000 a month when your only qualification is that the vice president is your father." "What did Buresma think it was buying? Influence with the United States government and half a billion dollars in aid."

Of course, his advisors might talk him out of it.

iowan2 said...

Lots of good information.
What I have seen discussed no where, is what Nunnes brought up Friday, his request, citing existing House Rules, for the Minority to exercise its power to hold minority hearings, calling their witnesses. I'm assuming he has properly researched his position, and for Schiff to block him create another talking point about Democrats acting against principles of fairness, decorum, and democracy. Anyone have information on this?

dwshelf said...

In Genius Move, Trump Supports Impeachment, Forcing Democrats To Oppose

-Babylon Bee

iowan2 said...

"What did Buresma think it was buying? Influence with the United States government and half a billion dollars in aid."

The Democrats are operating on two opposing talking points. It is impossible to impeach because of these two points
A.Biden(s) were investigating and cleared of any wrong doing.
B.Asking a foriegn nation to investigate your political rival is an abuse of the power of your
office.

President Trump is well within his powers to have foreign nations aide in investigating corruption. Biden has already been investigated, and cleared. Therefore Trump could not be investigating his political rival. Go ahead leftists. Is Biden corrupt or not?

Big Mike said...

@Roger Sweeney, I don’t know who bull-shat you, but you need to wipe the manure off. Nixon did not “eke out” his victory — he beat Humphrey in the Electoral College 301 to 191, with George Wallace taking five states and 46 electoral votes. Nixon won the popular vote by nearly one million votes, with nearly ten million going to Wallace. I expect that Nixon’s margin would have been much larger had Wallace not been on the ballot, as the states Wallace won were states that had been hit hard in ‘68 by the riots following Martin Luther King’s assassination. Nixon ran on a law and order platform, which Humphrey, as a liberal extremist, could not credibly do.

As to your other points, the notion that Humphrey would have sold out the South Vietnamese is plausible, but where you err is assuming they needed Nixon to tell them that. As to Lyndon Johnson, the idea that he spied in Nixon’s campaign is very plausible. But take it from a person who was class 1-A in 1968, the man did nothing for the good of the country.

Michael K said...

Howard said...
A little inconsequential man is intimidated by successful, powerful women... Unexpectedly


Yes that young female Congresswoman from NY scares the shit out of you. That's why the left is tryin very hard to trash her,.

Michael K said...

A bit more on that young woman Howard is so afraid of.

Last weekend, Kellyanne Conway’s NeverTrump husband smeared Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) by calling her “lying trash” and sharing in since-deleted tweets a clearly photo-shopped image of her.


He also called for his NeverTrump followers to contribute to her Democrat opponent’s campaign. As I noted at the time, this is a questionable request by a self-proclaimed Republican.

Clearly, Stefanik has hit a nerve. Conway himself seems to have donated the maximum amount allowable by law . . . to a Democrat.

A Democrat, by the way, who supports DACA, anti-Second Amendment gun control, “green energy” and planning for “future repercussions from climate change,” and social justice, including the claim that universal healthcare and “quality education” are rights. Exactly, in other words, the sort of politician you would expect a NeverTrump Republican to enthusiastically support.

Conway even bragged about donating the maximum allowed by law to Stefanik’s Democrat challenger.


Stefanik raised $500,000 in the next 24 hours.

Sorry, two hours.

Ultimately, she set up a site devoted to countering Rep. Adam Schiff‘s (D-CA) clown show impeachment debacle.

Within two hours, the site had garnered $500k in donations to help Stefanik’s reelection bid next year.

Yancey Ward said...

Hobson's Choice, Tar Baby, Briar Patch.

There is a concept in chess called zugzwang. It it where it is your move and any move you make loses, but with the added condition that if it weren't your move, you would be ok.

Democrats are in zugzwang here- it is their move, and they are choosing between impeaching and allowing a trial in the Senate where they won't control the rules (and the rules did matter since Schiff and Pelosi did everything to stack the deck), or bailing out to a censure vote that Trump will use to mock them relentlessly. At this point, the Republicans have no reason to even give Pelosi a single vote for censure.

Yancey Ward said...

Pelosi and the Democrats major mistake was in rigging the process in the House- that act had major consequences, and those consequences were demonstrated once the hearings went public. Non-partisans recognize unjust methods when they see them.

Bill Peschel said...

The one tactic I haven't seen discussed, possibly because it's an outlier, but I'll put it out here anyway for the heck of it.

The House GOP votes for impeachment.

If they want to destroy the Dems by subpoenaing and getting on the public record what's been going on, including calling journalists suspected of coordinated messaging from "sources," this would be the way to go.

Talk about a nuclear option!

narciso said...

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1198614833706475522

madAsHell said...

Maybe we can all chip-in, and buy Narciso a keyboard for his mobile device!

narciso said...

Its about the interview with fusion gps founder

narciso said...

Anna chenault was just a reminder of how alueless allies become to the us.

tim in vermont said...

It’s my belief that had the Democratsgiven Trump due process rights in the inquiry, they could have peeled off a couple of Republican votes. And had the Democrats NOT given Nixon due process rights, Howard Baker never would have made that trip to the White House with his delegation.

Clearly Schiff did not think his case was strong enough to withstand scrutiny.

tim in vermont said...

I often stop by a little coffee shop in Stefanik’s district. I have friends there too whom I visit frequently. I hope that all of that money they wasted on an anti second amendment candidate in a district that has more bears than people, a district that contains Dick’s Country Store, a store with 1000 guns and 1000 guitars. I am not a gun person, but the guitars, many of them are spectacular, I hope all that money gets spent there.

tim in vermont said...

“Pelosi: ‘We cannot be at the mercy of the courts.’” - CNN Chyron

tim in vermont said...

I like how Joe Biden responded to Lindsey Graham’s opening an investigation into Ukraine corruption not by saying “It’s about time!” or “Go ahead! You won’t find anything” but instead warning him that he will “regret it for the rest of his life."

narciso said...


then there's this excitement,

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/former-nyc-mayor-michael-bloomberg-enters-dem-2020-race-with-a-thud/

Bruce Hayden said...

“Clearly Schiff did not think his case was strong enough to withstand scrutiny.”

Maybe not. For me, it stinks of Lawfare involvement. What they do is cheat, but stay barely within the lines doing so. They can do so, with a clear conscience, because they are fighting the righteous cause. When Lawfare worked with Palsi, Wadler, and Schifty rewriting the House committee rules in December of 2018, they weren’t looking at what would play best with the American people, but what could they do most advantageous to getting Trump impeached, and still stay within the Constitution, statutes, and other House rules. They weren’t looking at the political side of what they were doing, but just what they could get away with. Speaker to be Palsi should have put a stop to it, but didn’t, suggesting either that her finely honed political skills have deteriorated with age, or she just wasn’t really involved. Schifty, of course, is a hard core anti Trumper, and had already shown during the two previous years that he was willing to do anything he could to destroy Trump, including leaking classified information like a sieve, and lying through his teeth on a regular basis. I have little doubt that when Lawfare came to them with a proposal to mostly eliminate due process rights for Trump and the Republicans, he became an immediate energetic proponent.

The problem, of course, is that most of the country are not fervent anti-Trumpers, where anything, any ploy, etc, is acceptable, no matter how unfair, as long as it helps destroy Trump. Which, in the end, means that Schifty and his Lawfare sidekicks grossly overplayed their hand, and are heading into the next phase with the gross unfairness of their basement star chamber hearings hanging all over their ultimate findings.

Bruce Hayden said...

Making things worse for Schifty and his Lawfare buddies, in trying to impeach Trump, is that they are very quickly running out of time. Their avowed goal was to wrap up the entire process before the end of this year. January starts the serious election season. The Dem Presidential candidates desperately want the focus on them. Feb 3 is the day of the Iowa Caucus and when CA starts early voting. That means a bare month in 2020, during which their candidates are going to want the focus on them, and not on Schifty’s fake impeachment inquiry. But the House only has ten days left this year in session, and only parts of eight days of voting. During that ime they have to address other, more important, issues.

Making things worse, impeachment motions are supposed to come out of the Judiciary, not the Intelligence Committee. The plan voted into effect by the majority Dems was for Schifty to do his investigation mostly in secret, tightly controlling the witness, limiting minority questioning of witnesses, and totally ignoring any Due Process rights of the President. Then, he would throw it over the fence to Wadler and his Judiciary Committee, which would have a perfunctory hearing, that allowed some modicum of Due Process and fairness for the President and the minority, before that committee sending the impeachment motion to the floor.

Getting the impeachment into and through the Judiciay Committee in those 10 days is highly problematic. That was where Trump and the Republicans are supposed to be able to call their own witnesses, and where they are supposed to be able to adequately question the Democrats’ witnesses. Supposedly no more Schifty telling witnesses not to answer questions that don’t advance their impeachment narrative. This is where everyone was promised that Trump and the Republicans would get their fairness and Due Process. I think that it is going to be a big oops moment for Palsi and her Dems. They can’t afford the time, nor can they afford the testimony by witnesses called by Trump and the Republicans planned for the Judiciary Committee. Making things worse, the Republicans noticed that the House committee rules that weren’t changed give them the right to call at least some witnesses in the HSCI hearing. The Minority leader has sent a letter to Speaker Palsi demanding their right, under existing and unamended House rules, to call witnesses. As with a full Judiciary committee investigation, the Democrats cannot afford either the time, nor the weakening of their case against Trump by allowing any of this at this point, esp Trump and the Republicans being allowed to call witnesses. But bypassing this, is going to require a House vote, and at that point the vulnerable Dems are going to be in a position of having found out that Palsi and her leadership got their vote for the rules and process by lying to them.

As I said, they officially have 10 days to get it all done before the end of the year, and closer to 7 1/2 days of potential voting by the House this year. Should be entertaining.