What would James Madison think of us right now, can you tell me, professor? How about Hamilton?, what does he think, because we care about what that guy thinks now because of the Broadway musical about him. Well, this is the most impeachable thing that ever came down the impeachment trail. If this isn't impeachable, then nothing is impeachable, and any President will be able to do anything and it won't be impeachable! On the contrary! If this is impeachable, then every President will always have to be impeached!
Ugh! Such a crazy clutter! I turned away, and I'm used to absorbing legal-ish stuff like that. It's no challenge to understand. For me, it's like reading a young adult novel. It's just a matter of whether I'd want to consume something on that level. But I'm a former law professor. I taught all the separation of powers materials they were talking about. And I'm old and have lived thought not just the Clinton impeachment hearings but the Nixon impeachment hearings.
So who am I to guess at what was going on inside 100 or so million heads? What, if anything, got from that hearing into the mind of the voter? Maybe mostly just a vague sense of reinforcement in whatever level of hostility or support they already felt for Donald Trump. But I think there was one thing that rose about the chaotic verbiage: The Child!
My Google search just now (click to enlarge and clarify):
Watch the video:
CORRECTION: ‘While the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron’: Prof. Karlan uses the Trump family to outline the Constitution’s rule that there can’t be titles of nobility. (We are deleting an earlier tweet that misspelled Barron Trump’s name.) pic.twitter.com/ZLrxcbxUhk— Reuters (@Reuters) December 4, 2019
Professor Karlan, making the point that the U.S. President is different from a king, offers one example: "The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron." That's a well-crafted joke, I said out loud when I watched it. But, oh, what a mistake! I don't know if she wrote that joke all on her own or if she tested it on others, like a stand-up comedian. But I bet if she tested it, she tested it within a cocoon. I think you can tell by her demeanor that she believes it is a killer joke, and it would kill in the law-school, academic context.
It's such a neatly scripted zinger. It flew right out of the room and all over Twitter. Trump supporters immediately weaponized it: She went after the child. It's despicable!
Melania got into the game:
A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.Karlan apologized, but nobody into the original weaponization accepted the apology. The apology was just more fuel for outrage:
The LOONEY LIBERALS are mad that she apologized for attacking #BarronTrump— Terrence K. Williams (@w_terrence) December 5, 2019
THIS IS NOT A REAL APOLOGY
Pamela Karlan & the Democrats should not have dragged a 13 year old into politics!
This is not #FakeOutrage This is real outrage! Leave kids alone
pic.twitter.com/AduZVAOxXK
The anti-Trump side didn't let it go either. The lawprof's scripted joke is pushed by them too. The hashtag #FakeOutrage is trending on Twitter. Example:
Well it's safe to say @FLOTUS is the MOST disliked First Lady in history. No amount of Botox or designer clothes could fix that #FakeOutrage pic.twitter.com/OkdY8zPEkU— Camilla Kay (@RandomlyShe) December 5, 2019
My legalistic defense of Karlan would be that she targeted not the child, but the father, who had the arrogance to give his child a name that corresponds to a title bestowed by British royalty.
I see many problems with this defense.
1. In first place, I put feminism: Karlan assumes that the man gave the child his name and that erases the woman.
2. The boy's name is Barron, not Baron. (The zinger was so viral that dumb old Reuters, so eager to be a part of the contagion, misspelled the boy's name.)
3. A man who is king wouldn't have a baron for a son. His son would be a prince. If Trump's motivation were to aspire to the status of king, he'd have named his son Prince. He didn't. (And it's too late in American culture to mock the name Prince.)
4. Baron is damned low in the ranking of titles. And — from the Wikipedia article "Baron" — "The word baron comes from the Old French baron, from a Late Latin barō "man; servant, soldier, mercenary"... The scholar Isidore of Seville in the 7th century thought the word was from Greek βᾰρῠ́ς 'heavy' (because of the 'heavy work' done by mercenaries)... Cornutus in the first century already reports a word barones which he took to be of Gaulish origin. He glosses it as meaning servos militum and explains it as meaning 'stupid', by reference to classical Latin bārō 'simpleton, dunce'... but the Oxford English Dictionary takes this to be 'a figment.'"
5. Independently of all that, "Baron" is a traditional name:
In Hebrew, the fairly common Israeli surname "Bar-On" (usually contracted to Baron) means "son of strength/vigor/potency"; in many languages, "Baron" refers to the title of nobility. The name “Baron” in old English also refers to a wealthy male landowner.Wealthy male landowner — that's as apt as you can get. For Trump to call his son Barron is to identify him quite precisely, not to have an inflated arrogance about what he could become.
Let me finish up here by saying that I agree that the outrage is fake, but just about everything in the discussion of Trump is fake, and the pro-Trump side should fight hard. Karlan intended a hurtful slam, a winged zinger that would have the whole world laughing contemptuously. Watch that clip again. She believes she's got something. But it was too good of a line. Everyone noticed. And now, it's almost the only thing that was noticed in all that tangle of law/"law" that the professors strewed before us yesterday.
So it was a big fail for the anti-Trump lawprofs. The look of it from a distance was that they hate Trump and they were called by politicians who hate Trump to express hate for Trump.
Posts
404 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 404 Newer› Newest»I mean, SERIOUSLY, WHAT'D HE DO? i keep waiting for them to tell us, and they keep acting like we already know
Obviously "Abuse of power" is in the eye of the beholder.
And at this point anyone, even someone who truly despises Trump, knows damn well that this has nothing to do with whether or not Trump really did anything wrong in the specific incident (the phone call) in question.
This has to do with the increasing likelihood of Trump being reelected next year. This has to do with stopping a 7-2 conservative majority Supreme Court. This has to do with protected the progressive agenda. This has to do with protecting the members of the Deep State, the previous administration. This house to do with keeping the borders open to assure eventual progressive dominance in the future. This has to do with the faintest hope that an impeachment in the house will somehow reduce Trump's appeal enough that whoever the hapless stooge is that ends up being the Dem presidential nominee will be able to limp across the finish line.
In short, this is desperation.
"Howard said...
“You guys should be ecstatic over Nancy's Folly.”
Regardless of how much it may backfire, the problem with the Dems going so batshit over the line is that the "line" will no longer be clear. This travesty of governance will become feasable now where before it was agreed by all sides that a line did exist. You had to have a crime, you had to have evidence, and emotional charges and purely partisans procedures without that were beyond the pale. That line is gone now. All we can hope for the future is that it backfires so terribly for the Dems that the line regains it power. We may be happy that it backfires, but we would prefer to win without it, which we could have anyway. Trump being impeached is not the real danger. How and why is.
My one single comment about this hearing before it began was only my repetition of the observation that the Democrats were making a mistake by relying on card-carrying liberals from the ranks of law school academia. They should have invited some of the many Federalist/Checks and Balances conservatives who favor impeachment.
Naturally, the Althouse commentariat claimed that there were no such law profs, and I immediately listed a half-dozen off the top of my head.
Hi Elaine.
I have not read all of the comments, but in response to Howard: Yesterday the rational reaction was discussed. The consensus was that Turley won, so Trump won. Today’s discussion is about the emotional reaction. If this is where the emotional reaction is, Trump is winning this one too.
They fear their base, whereas republican office holders only have contempt for theirs.
"I took a shot at her for being *insufficiently* feminist: She assumed the father named the baby. "
Actually, for modern feminists, Trump represents The Patriarchy, so of course they would assume he named the child.
Bagoh20
Indeed. I think that also fits Althouse's attitude, judging by her plea to the Democrats to draw back from the brink. I hope she will tell us.
The old Barron as the first home-school shooter joke was good.
Clever, cute and cruel.
Barron as title falls flat; the fake outrage shows the knee-jert appeal to women, presumably the target of the dems anyway.
Know your zingers.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Prof. Karlan is a narcissist. She isn't in the least "sorry" that she made a statement that could be hurtful to a minor child.
A Narcissist's apology isn't about being sorry it is about shifting blame, transferring guilt and never having to change their ways. She is sorry she got caught
People are always saying things like that about politicians. Of course politicians are narcissists. You don't go into politics if you don't have a very large ego, and you don't stay in politics unless your inflated self-image can survive shocks and wounds. And politics makes people narcissistic. Everything is functional and transactional. What matters is what works, what wins. You apologize because you have to, not because you feel sorry.
I understand that Karlan isn't an elected politician, but she's spent enough time in Washington to understand the game. Also, behavior like hers isn't uncommon in politicized circles outside of the capital. People who have strong feelings about politics - strong hatreds - will go on feeling that way even if they are forced to apologize for what they've said. Psychological categories don't always apply to activities where winning is everything and feelings and sincerity count for little. And as people become more politicized and enter the political arena they become more like politicians.
In short, this is desperation.
Yes. One wonders what kind of "outs" that Nancy has already agreed to.
Will enough Democrat representatives not vote for impeachment?
Is there a deal with Schumer and McConnell about the Senate simply dismissing charges?
No matter how hard the Media fly air cover for the Democrats, a trial will be a fiasco.
There has to be an "out".
Appealing to women is not complicated emotional manipulation. That's all they do every day.
Howard and Shouting Thomas I beg and implore you not to clutter up the comments with personal insults between you - and then moderation comes om. Please.
Narcisco
To be fair, many of the Trumpkins on this site are little different from a right facing Karlan. The humorless bouncing bitter rage is on display daily.
Its a stylistic choice, the fact there are no ground is why they dial to eleven.
Her Joke immediately reminded me of Peter Strozk's prune face in one of his hearings. The "I'm smarter than all of you" face.
I love that Trump is daring them to impeach him. It's win win, if they don't impeach now he wins. If they do impeach him now it was his idea and he can proclaim his innocence.
I still don't understand what the Pelosi's of the world hope to achieve? She knows he won't resign, right? I guess it's her only way to keep the fancy Speaker office.
The more I learn about her, the more Pamela Karlan strikes me as the last person you'd bring in to persuade a normal person of almost anything, let alone the impeachment of a sitting president. She's pretty much a stereotypical hardcore leftist scold.
Nadler is a dummy. We (except MOBY KenB) saw him botch the first interview with Cory Lewandowski who made him look a fool. Nancy then shifted the spotlight to Schiff in spite of the precedents on impeachment. Nadler did it again. Nancy now announces impeachment before another day of hearings. She is probably worried about what he will do today.
I still think impeachment will fail.
LLR Chuck: "They should have invited some of the many Federalist/Checks and Balances conservatives who favor impeachment.
Naturally, the Althouse commentariat claimed that there were no such law profs, and I immediately listed a half-dozen off the top of my head."
There will always be a cadre of FakeCon's who are happy to be pets of the left so as not to endanger their standing invitations to all the most important soirees. Further, lefty billionaires also pay well for the services of turncoat conservatives to advance the lefty cause, as we see with the The Bulwark hacks who are now fully owned assets of Lefty Inc.
MartyH: "I have not read all of the comments, but in response to Howard: Yesterday the rational reaction was discussed. The consensus was that Turley won, so Trump won. Today’s discussion is about the emotional reaction. If this is where the emotional reaction is, Trump is winning this one too."
Without question.
But whenever the left is losing in some way, both Howard and LLR Chuck redouble their efforts to reassert the preferred left narrative.
The Dems are circling around to "It was illegal for Trump to Fire Comey"
It was "obstruction of justice!"
I still think impeachment will fail.
Do you mean you think the house vote will fail? I think it'll pass. Or at least everyone assures me that Nancy "the voter counter" Pelosi would never call a vote without knowing the outcome and she wouldn't have a vote at all that she knew would fail. The only question remains how many Dem dissenters will their be.
If you mean it'll fail in the more general sense, like the Senate, than yes.
I still don't understand what the Pelosi's of the world hope to achieve?
I've heard whispers that Pelosi wants a trial in the Senate to keep the Senators in the Dem clown car off the campaign trail, presumably as a thumb on the scales for guys like Biden, Patrick, or Bloomie.
And all the while Trump is egging them on to act in haste, the better to repent at leisure.
"They should have invited some of the many Federalist/Checks and Balances conservatives who favor impeachment."
It would still just be an appeal to authority without evidence of a crime. You can find experts of any suit willing to be your dog and pony show. No doubt more sober "experts" would be more compelling, but they still would provide no evidence of a crime. Their testimony was never needed. The Constitution is not a complex document, and the path to impeachment has always been pretty clear. Trump produced the central evidence immediately, and it is also pretty clear. All the rest of this is an attempt to obfuscate, extrapolate and spin a simple case toward partisan goals. In short, the Dems are abusing their power, as is always expected by all, some of whom welcome it.
The visuals of the twisted angry face of Professor Karlan were simply awful. If she were a TV anchor lady, her Q rating would be lower than whale dung on the bottom of the ocean.
Her voice reminded me of the old Dennis Miller joke from back in the 2008 campaign. Miller said that Hillary's loud denunciation of her opponents "sounded like my first ex wife".
Thankfully my late 1960's law school days and law career are comfortably in the past. But if I were in a Stanford Con Law class taught by Professor Karlan I would be very careful to regurgitate exactly what she thought on any exam. Independent thinking in her class would be dangerous, and crossing her would get you a failing grade. Suck it up Stanford students, do what you need to do to get past the harridan. Once out of law school (and out of coastal California) you can think what you want. But do not try that in her class.
"Chuck said...
My one single comment about this hearing before it began was only my repetition of the observation that the Democrats were making a mistake by relying on card-carrying liberals from the ranks of law school academia. They should have invited some of the many Federalist/Checks and Balances conservatives who favor impeachment.
Naturally, the Althouse commentariat claimed that there were no such law profs, and I immediately listed a half-dozen off the top of my head."
Absolute bullshit Chuck. You made that comment as the 2nd of 134. Only one person said there were none. One. The 131 comments did not.
BleachBit-and-Hammers,
Pelosi: We have to impeach him to find out what High Crimes and Misdemeanors he's committed.
It's taking me awhile to absorb the hearings but on reviewing Prof. Karlan I guess I would say that she accepts the one-sided presentation of evidence without criticizing it. She read the transcripts that were released. She then says that now she knows the evidence and that the "evidentiary basis" shows a need to impeach. But she doesn't discuss the one-sided nature of the "evidence" she has read even though the Republicans on both committees have been screaming about it day after day. Yet a one-sided presentation should suggest to a Constitutional law scholar the need to not impeach. This ties in with the latest studies of the public schools disaster which say that students can read and comprehend but only if they they read only one side. Critical thinking, being able to hear the other side and criticize the entire argument is absent in these students just as it is absent in This "scholar."
Her attack on a child and the pushback against it is just a dramatic way of presenting her lack of dispassionate Constitutional scholarship. Attacking a child's name is entirely unacceptable in the schools and such "free speech" indicates a enormous level of disrespect and an enormous feeling of privilege and an absolute entitlement to do as one pleases. One can picture what she teaches about "law," or "rights."
A certain racist fopdoodle is thinking about civility bull shit.
Maybe think more about using kids in politics.
And how you cannot articulate a criminal statute you think Trump broke.
Hey, Ken B.
How goes your daily ritual of lying about me?
Fucktard.
"Naturally, the Althouse commentariat claimed that there were no such law profs, and I immediately listed a half-dozen off the top of my head."
Chuck, I read your comment and I commented on it in the next thread yesterday- I actually checked out your suggestions, and everyone of them is a vehement NeverTrumper as seen in their essays and Twitter feeds. The only thing they could have brought to the table that Karlan etal. didn't, is that they have a past as Republicans. In temperment, it was very unlikely they would have behaved any better than Karlan did since they haven't behaved any better in their essays and twitter feeds. I can't think of a single NeverTrumper law professor that has the actual temperment of Turley- it is Turley's temperment that mattered yesterday, not so much his political affiliations (though that helped somewhat).
This is regularly one of your problems- you overestimate the power of political affiliations, and underestimate public temperment. The Democrats didn't need a Republican law professor yesterday- they needed a sane law professor, or at least one that act like one on television. This shouldn't have been a hard thing to find, but they failed.
Was yesterday really “complicated?”
Emotional yes, but complicated?
No.
Just another facet of the 3 year long hissy.
"I still don't understand what the Pelosi's of the world hope to achieve?"
I think they have simply painted themselves into a corner where abandoning it now is the only thing worse than continuing. The base would be loud and vicious and the moderate voices would be drowned out as they have been the whole way. Pelosi is no longer trying to achieve anything at this point. They are running away from the alternative.
"Blogger Francisco D said...
Will enough Democrat representatives not vote for impeachment?"
I still can't see the path to 218, but I admit I'm haven't researched each of the districts that voted Trump in 16 and D in 18 in detail. But just looking at the numbers in 18 and 16 in those districts, there are only a couple of them that can safely vote for impeachment. This could easily cost Nancy the gavel.
As far as the argument that "Dems voted for Obamacare" goes - that assumes (without evidence) that they realized it was a loser back home. Even if they did, at least they got what they believed to be an important piece of legislation passed. All this nonsense gets them is a Senate trial, in which they will lose a number of Dem votes, and an acquittal. I don't see how this helps them next November.
A Republic if you can keep it.
The Constitution is for a moral people.
Wince, earlier, made the point I made yesterday- the Democrats shouldn't have gone for law professors- they should have gone for some successful trial attorneys- people who are used to persuading jurors, not their simpatico friends and colleagues.
My legalistic defense of Karlan would be that she targeted not the child, but the father,...
If she "targets" the father, it's OK for the child to become collateral damage? There were numerous ways she could have made the point she was interested in making. This was gratuitous. That she chose this way says more about her than the "target."
rcocean said...
I blame the Senate R's for this charade and time-wasting nonsense. They COULD have told the D's any impeachment would be DOA. Instead, they're going along with the Farce, and giving it legs and a stamp of approval. Its Establishment vs. Trump and Us.
And don't give me the "Oh, McConnell is playing 3-D chess, he's setting a clever trap for the D's" God, I've that a million times - and its always false.
12/5/19, 9:37 AM
Sorry, I must disagree. The House WANTS the Senate to DOA this thing IF the House actually has the balls to vote this in. They can then all go home and tell their base "We tried and those dirty Rs stopped us from doing right! You all need to make sure we win bigly as that is the ONLY way you will get justice!"
The Senate NEEDS to get ahead of this if they can. They should call a presser today and say that they agree with the House, that there is more than enough information for them to act and start the Senate trial NEXT WEEK. Release a list of witnesses that they plan to subpoena like Schiff, Binden, Hunder, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.
It's the backfire party - in policy, politics, and culture. All they do eventually backfires, but we all get hit with it. They poop where they eat, except we all have to eat here.
and yes - Comey lied to Trump when he told Trump he wasn't under any investigation.
Just like they entrapped Flynn and didn't allow him to have an attorney present.
Corruption thy name is the modern democratic party
I don't see how this helps them next November.
I strongly suspect that the Dems and their media allies are trying to muddy the waters for the Durham (presumed) indictments and the IG report. They are also trying to delay any SCOTUS nomination should RBG pass. They may even be hoping to crash the market with the added help of their investment buddies.
IMHO, Their immediate future worries them more than November 2020.
Drago
For *Democrats* Karlan won, because she channeled their rage and contempt so perfectly. I see a lot of comments on how well she did! For everyone else he won.
wiki: Journalist Clarence Barron purchased control of the company for US$130,000 in 1902; .... Barron's descendants, the Bancroft family, would continue to control the company until 2007.
Pelosi: We have to impeach him to find out what High Crimes and Misdemeanors he's committed.
Indeed!
Due to retirements and deaths, the House only needs 216 votes to impeach, I believe.
I think the way the math works is this:
Bring 6-7 articles.
Have the vulnerable Democratics vote no on several of them but yes on the others.
Sprinkle the no votes around so that each article passes.
Vulnerable Democratics then get to say they voted both for and against impeachment.
Mollify the base.
Hope there is no independent backlash.
Does that make sense?
Pelosi might well feel she is probably trapped- to not impeach now, even with a censure, will be used by Trump as an exoneration, and such a claim will carry weight with people open to persuasion since you then have to question what the last two months has been about if it all comes censure (a censure that probably won't now get a single Republican supporter).
When Pelosi first publicly announced the inquiry, just before Trump released the transcript of the phone call, I wrote in these threads that she had made a tactical error by jumping the gun- she had committed herself to a battle to the political death. At some point, Trump will be acquitted, by either non-action in the House, or at a trial in the Senate- either event is a victory for Trump. Pelosi's actions seem a bit like Japan at Pearl Harbor.
Ken B: "Drago
For *Democrats* Karlan won, because she channeled their rage and contempt so perfectly. I see a lot of comments on how well she did! For everyone else he won."
As concise and accurate a summary as there could be.
Hope there is no independent backlash.
That's where the fight is at, all right. If the independents embrace the impeachment findings then it's all over, and if they recoil in disgust it's equally over.
"The Senate NEEDS to get ahead of this if they can. They should call a presser today and say that they agree with the House, that there is more than enough information for them to act and start the Senate trial NEXT WEEK. Release a list of witnesses that they plan to subpoena."
Yes and no. Call the presser, but just tell Nancy that they'll convene at 12:30 the day following the day she delivers the articles to them (per standing Senate rules), and issue subpoenas for fact witnesses and others. I don't think I'd name anyone.
Lets get real. The D's are laughing at the "this sets a dangerous precedent" blah, blah.
Really? The R's NEVER retaliate. They had to whipped and shamed by their base and be supported of the indisputable facts of Clinton lying under oath - before they would impeach in 1998. And all through that process you had Senate R's like McCain grumbling what a "Waste of time" it all was. The idea that Kevin McCarthy or Mitch and his gang are EVER going to act like the D's is silly.
Birkel's scattergun theory does make sense.
It also makes sense there will be a deal done to attract at least one republican vote (not Amash). If there is it will be a wonderfully apt bit of bribery and abuse of office!
In the senate I bet Sinema votes to acquit.
"They may even be hoping to crash the market with the added help of their investment buddies."
I think all your points are solid except this one. The investment world has already made it clear that they're not going to sit still for Warren. They won't put up with anything that kicks over their rice bowl.
Who vetted these people? Was it a person or a group?
The same obese guy that thought calling the AG a chicken and then hoarding a KFC tub like a starving dog would make great political optics.
Two tribes, two cultures, two sets of taboos. All that matters exists within ones own tribe, the other is simply the other, to be treated as a problem, even if they are acknowledged at all. In the case of a dominant tribe, the lesser one is generally ignored and contemptuously discounted, until they present some imminent danger.
At that point the messaging still remains internal, solipsistic, a call to arms. The Marseillaise was the response in 1792, not some appeal to common humanity and reasonable accomodation vis-a-vis Austria and Prussia.
Note that the anti-Trump left still signals almost entirely to its own, not to the other tribe, in spite of controlling the bulk of the media.
Oh and looskie who is shoving her fat face in our lives again. Hillary!
Talk about the rice bowl class. It's all for her.
Yes. One wonders what kind of "outs" that Nancy has already agreed to.
She seems to want to go full speed ahead. Alas, as you noted previously, what choice does she have when the real point is to discredit the Durham investigation and block a replacement of RBG by Trump. Impeachment won't really do either, but it is a better political stick than backing down. Considering Durham investigation could lead to prison time and replacing RBG would set back the rule of law by judicial fiat that created abortion and gay marriage; the Democrat strategy makes sense. Losing an election isn't as important.
Birkel may be on to the strategy, but I don't think it will work. No matter which article they vote for, they're voting for something that is going to get defeated in the Senate and that their opponents will use against them. "But I only voted for half the articles" is like saying "I only fucked half of your bridesmaids". It ain't gonna work.
Ken B - Sinema, Manchin, the guy with the buzz cut up in Montana, and maybe more.
I'm old enough to remember the Bork and Thomas hearings. According to the Republican mouth pieces - at the time - the D's were going to be SORRY. They were going to be Borked the next time they were charge. Bad precedent. You'll be sorry now, said all the R's.
And Ginsberg and Bryer sailed through the republican senate with 96-3 and 87-9 votes. "We let the president decide" said Hatch/McCain pompously. And of course, when Bush-II became President, the D's returned the favor. hahaha. The D's tried to filibuster Alito, and the final vote was 58-42. Even Roberts, picked by Bush-II because he was a moderate only won 78-22.
Amash is not a Republican so that vote won't matter.
But can Connor Lamb vote for 2 articles and against 5 and say "I had to do what my conscience and the facts dictated" and thread the political needle? I think that's the hope.
Meanwhile, Trump is building toward a 35 state landslide with significant coattails.
What states will Democratics flip? Trump flips Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, and MaineD2. In any case the battles will be on Democratics' turf.
"The Senate NEEDS to get ahead of this if they can. They should call a presser today and say that they agree with the House, that there is more than enough information for them to act and start the Senate trial NEXT WEEK. Release a list of witnesses that they plan to subpoena."
Yes and no. Call the presser, but just tell Nancy that they'll convene at 12:30 the day following the day she delivers the articles to them (per standing Senate rules), and issue subpoenas for fact witnesses and others. I don't think I'd name anyone.
I agree Phil, but I would think it fun for the Senate to announce the subpoena of Eric Ciaramella's and Adam Schiff's phone records.
Wow, Phil. Awesome job with the bridesmaids, my man. :-)
I always figured Trump named the child of his senescence that because reminds himself of Vladimir Harkonnen, and wants the kid to follow in his footsteps.
"I agree Phil, but I would think it fun for the Senate to announce the subpoena of Eric Ciaramella's and Adam Schiff's phone records."
Fun yes, but I think I'd play my cards a little closer to my vest. Getting out in front of the facts is why Nancy's in this mess. Don't repeat that mistake.
Gaetz gets it
"If the Democrat Law Professors hurt the libtard lunatics impeachment chances, why are you people so angry and emotional."
That is some top-shelf, cunte projection right there.
AA commented: "And it's too late in American culture to mock the name Prince."
But is it too late to mock the person Prince? The one with the stringy hair and eye makeup who wrote the mediocre music?
Or is it too early?
Note: Unless sorely provoked, I am trying to limit myself henceforth to one mean-spirited comment a day. I hope this one will suffice, lest I feel the need to be mean-spirited a second time.
Separately, I think the name Prince is great for a small dog.
Blogger Nonapod said...
I still think impeachment will fail.
Do you mean you think the house vote will fail? I think it'll pass.
I had thought that Nancy would go for censure to avoid losing her majority next election. She sure put a bet on double zero this morning and I'm not sure why. I suspect she has decided that Nadler is such a dunce, the next hearing will be as bad and get on with it.
The Democrats have the Biden voters to convince. Plus all the Independents. Karlan is not going to do it.
I suspect that this is about RBG as much as the election.
I agree Amash is not a Republican, but the press will pretend he is if they need to. But it’s better to buy off a Republican anyway. Maybe except your state from Obamacare?
I think you have the metaphor backwards trump is an atreides in a harkonnen redoubt
When RBG dies, Trump will offer a nominee within a few days, tops.
And McConnell will hold a cloture vote within a month.
It will be glorious.
Phil said, "...I'd play my cards a little closer to my vest.
Completely agree. With Turley, the House Republicans looked like adults. Republican Senators should do the same thing, if and when they get the baton.
Here is a point no one has mentioned yet. There are millions of people who confidently predicted back before he was inaugurated that Trump would be impeached. The crowing got louder after the midterms. These people will resent the Democrats if they are made to look like fools.
Well like the stones song 'you cant always get what you want'
The outrage may be fake, but I don't feel sorry for Kaplan. She is a lout for bringing Barron into her testimony, and for no better reason than to make fun of his name.
Here's the thing that the apologists keep missing--Kaplan had myriad examples at her beck and call, but she chose to belittle a child.
Well how about the steele dossier then:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1202633352471351296
Seriously, speaking as a layman, when I finally read Karlan's now-infamous witticism I found it to be wince-inducing, a verbal stretch to take a random, not especially well-aimed potshot at Trump, with the kid as collateral damage.
Insults need to have a grain of truth in them to sting (e.g. "Mini Mike" Bloomberg) which is why the ones the North Koreans deliver usually sound ludicrous and over the top. Even the Democrats have not seriously maintained that Trump has attempted to confer titles of nobility or anything of the sort.
Karlan comes across as cheap and unprofessional, a high-school mean girl sniggering with her clique followers.
No need to over-analyze it, it was just odious, the kind of crack serious adults are expected to avoid publicly and in their professional capacity, at least.
I agree with Phil and Bob. Resist the urge to play to the already convinced. This impeachment truly is a house of cards. A sober inquiry can destroy it in full view.
Michael K said...I had thought that Nancy would go for censure to avoid losing her majority next election.
Here's my current prediction: Democrats call for a closed vote and give a dozen or so representatives permission to vote no. Then, on the campaign trail, the 30 or 40 Democrats in purple or red districts will claim to have been one of those dozen.
Tim m
Exactly. And the jokes are easy. “The president cannot repeal the rules of English grammar, no matter how he shreds them in his own speech.” “The president cannot make a thousand into a million, even if they are phantoms at his inauguration.” She chose to mock the kid, which is not the first time the Democrats have gone after Barron Trump.
Tim m
We discussed the secret vote issue in re the senate. Cannot be done in the house either, since 1/5th can demand a roll call to be recorded.
Here's my current prediction: Democrats call for a closed vote and give a dozen or so representatives permission to vote no. Then, on the campaign trail, the 30 or 40 Democrats in purple or red districts will claim to have been one of those dozen.
Possible but I still wonder about shifting to censure. I also wonder what McConnell will do. Calling Schiff and Ciaramella as witnesses would be fun. Subpoena ? Can Schiff refuse ? Biden has declared he will not appear. Hunter may be still hiding from the judge in the paternity case.
I see no chance of the Senate voting to remove Trump. That would lead to civil war.
I doubt a Democrat could hide a yes vote. I think the theory of 6 articles and no votes on one or two is more likely.
Blogger Seeing Red said..."The Constitution is for a moral people."
Indeed. What's been so dismaying about this sorry spectacle has been what it has revealed.
Blogger bagoh20 said...
It's the backfire party - in policy, politics, and culture.
_____&&&&&------
I'm given to understand that backfires can be used to create firebreaks.
Is this possible in current situation?
Biden cannot refuse a lawful subpoena as a private citizen. But he can certainly run out the clock in the courts, but Joe, as Madge the manicurist used to say “Emoluments? You’re soaking in them."
Charlie Martin seems to agree with me.
Let's hypothetically assume Articles of Impeachment were voted and sent to trial in the Senate. Then what?
Who is subpoenaed first? It's going to be a race among Adam Schiff, Eric Ciaramella, Mark Zaid (Ciaramella's lawyer). Followed by Schiff's staffers, Vindman again, other Democrat members of the HPSCI.
You can expect extensive declassification. In particular, of transcripts of the closed-door meetings that Schiff won't release. (Hint: Classification is under the President's authority, not a Congress member's.)
After yesterday, you can expect extensive subpoena of communications records.
You can expect (yet another) rehash of the last three years, and you can bet that the GOP will be out for blood.
You can expect a concurrent effort to expel Schiff from the House. (No, members of the House can't be impeached. But they can be expelled.)
I don't see Schiff being expelled because lawbreaking is not a problem for them. Ask Alcee Hastings, impeached for bribery as a federal judge and member of the Judiciary Committee.
Rational self interest suggests the Democrats don’t impeach, but I bet they do. There are just too many people who will feel cock blocked if he isn’t impeached. It doesn’t matter why, or that he won’t be removed.
Blogger narciso said...
I think you have the metaphor backwards trump is an atreides in a harkonnen redoubt.
_____&&&&&-----
Trump choice to drain the swamp.
Atreides choice to flood desert planet.
Who is subpoenaed first? It's going to be a race among Adam Schiff, Eric Ciaramella, Mark Zaid (Ciaramella's lawyer). Followed by Schiff's staffers ....
___&&&&---
My wrench in your gears!
What happens if Schiff is House Manager also?
In today’s overheated political climate joke was more than a little creepy because it painted the Trump family as monarchists who threaten our democracy (with all that implies...they must be stopped so the ends justify the means.)
It also highlights just how overblown and empty the complaints against Trump really are. Really, there isn’t a more relevant example of an actual grievance, you had to make up a lame joke with wordplay on his son’s name?
So it was just awful because it is simultaneously too harsh (In it’s emotional context) and laughably insignificant (in reality.)
Iowa voter says Joe Biden sent his son to Ukraine to work a job he didn’t have the experience for.
Joe Biden snaps, calls him a “damn liar,” challenges him to a push-up contest, and then calls him fat.. - Twitter
That’ll fly. To be honest, the guy was pretty fat, but if you are writing off the votes of adipose abundant Americans... well, let’s see how that works out.
Ken B: "I agree Amash is not a Republican,..."
Correct. And he never has been. That's what made him LLR Chuck's favorite non-republican "Republican".
Amash was really a "(Fake R) China".
Random thought: could McConnell use the threat of subpoena of Biden or others as a cudgel to secure acquittal votes from a handful of Democratic senators? Who would be vulnerable to such coercion? Before dismissing this idea out of hand, we already know that the mordida from Burisma and BHR (the Chinese holding company) is spread around. Who else has their nose in the trough?
we already know that the mordida from Burisma and BHR (the Chinese holding company) is spread around. Who else has their nose in the trough?
Good point and good reason for Nancy, whose son is involved, to avoid a trial.
Phil: "Random thought: could McConnell use the threat of subpoena of Biden or others as a cudgel to secure acquittal votes from a handful of Democratic senators?"
Possibly, but the reality is that regardless of what McConnell wants to do in the Senate Trial Trump's counsels will no doubt be calling both Biden's and Schiff-ty and all the rest in order to demonstrate the actual corrupt dealings in Ukraine that concerned him so in his phone call to Zelensky.
The best part? No way McConnell would say no to that request and there is no way the Biden's would voluntarily show up even under subpeona......BUT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! And you are not allowed to "obstruct" the Senate!!
LOLOL
There is no way this doesn't completely blow up on the dems and the left and LLR Chuck no matter which way these idiots go now.
No way.
Can you imagine how nightmarish a scenario this is for LLR Chuck? He was counting on impeachment and removal and the destruction of the republican party and now? Now? LOL
We are looking at the opposite!
There are not enough Rachel Maddow blow up dolls in existence that will make life easier for LLR Chuck after all that.
Someone above mentioned Nancy Pelosi's son being called as a witness. Why not?
And how about John Kerry's son in law?
And while we are at it perhaps we could take a bit of time with Biden's China and Romanian deals.
Lots of stuff to cover here. Wouldn't want to rush it. Need to take our time.
It's only prudent......
just before Trump released the transcript of the phone call
She could have walked that back though, and didn't. I guess she tried with the various press statements of its "only an inquiry".
Still, one wonders, who is in charge of the House these days?
I do like your analogy of this being a political battle to the death. It's very true. And for some reason the Dems think Trump will just roll over and accept it.
He's not Jeb Bush.
One America News interviews Shokin
I had heard about the joke, but not the joke itself, which -- considering the stuff that's be said before about Trump's children -- is pretty small beer.
But it served its purpose. It kept everyone from speaking the truth: that this is a kangaroo court attempting a coup against a legitimately elected president.
there be trolls there, shokin has been fighting corruption since the 90s, when he steadfastly refused to go along with the sham against tymochenko,
but you see how curbelo's replacement, mucarsel, is indebted to kolomoisky's privat bank, I outlined burismas European connections,
It’s just so cute that Cuck believes, now that republicans don’t give a shit about him and his bowtied playmates and NEVER EVER WILL, that Democrats ought to.
Never in my life have I seen a more blatant display of desperation on the part of a political group. Makes me think of the 'woman scorned' scenario, as in Fatal Attraction, with the Left's increasingly frantic ploys to regain power. It would be hilariously funny if it were funny.
extending the metaphor, there are many houses in the landsraad, Clinton, Kerry, biden, Pelosi, romney, (with his Duncan Idaho cofer) even bulger, involved in this matter,
Oh, and while law prof was making a joke about Barron, the Dems keep pushing Hillary and Chelsea to run, reminding me that in America, ruling dynasties don't need titles.
The Chelsea thing refers to an article in New York magazine a week or two ago, lamenting the resistance to a Chelsea candidacy. After all -- the article said with a straight face:
"It’s not hard to imagine she wouldn’t have at least been considered as a choice by a President Hillary Clinton for, say, secretary of Education or Health and Human Services. At the very least, she would have been part of her mother’s brain trust, the so-called kitchen cabinet."
Now, my iTunes podcasts updated, and Conan O'Brien's podcast "Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend" has Hillary and Chelsea as guests. Would it be worth a listen?
that's the real interesting story, who has the krisha (political and business connections) to protect them from scrutiny,
’It also highlights just how overblown and empty the complaints against Trump really are. Really, there isn’t a more relevant example of an actual grievance, you had to make up a lame joke with wordplay on his son’s name?’
Excellent points.
and I point out blue star strategies, which was the boutique firm arrayed against shokin, which is swarming with Clinton and Obama veterans,
yes it's more noise to signal, that's why john Solomon is catching flak,
Considering what Turley said Obama or Holder might be called.
look at this crew,
https://bluestarstrategies.com/about/our-team
Beasts of England said... [hush][hide comment]
’It also highlights just how overblown and empty the complaints against Trump really are. Really, there isn’t a more relevant example of an actual grievance, you had to make up a lame joke with wordplay on his son’s name?’
Excellent points.
12/5/19, 1:20 PM
And it doesn't even work as a joke unless you have the intelligence of a gnat as in the kid was not born a few months ago [after DT was elected] and was then named Barron. The kid is 13! I doubt even DT though seriously that he would be President 13 years ago.
But haw, haw, she got him and YES she is SO right, DT is a dictator and would SO do that if he could so that is why he named his son Barron! Impeachment is TOO good for this SOB. Can we bring back drawing and quartering? /s
@rcocean:
I'm old enough to remember the Bork and Thomas hearings. According to the Republican mouth pieces - at the time - the D's were going to be SORRY. They were going to be Borked the next time they were charge. Bad precedent. You'll be sorry now, said all the R's.
And Ginsberg and Bryer sailed through the republican senate with 96-3 and 87-9 votes. "We let the president decide" said Hatch/McCain pompously. And of course, when Bush-II became President, the D's returned the favor. hahaha. The D's tried to filibuster Alito, and the final vote was 58-42. Even Roberts, picked by Bush-II because he was a moderate only won 78-22.
Good history, and accurate -- but then you stop!
Cocaine Mitch has done what you seek. In response to Harry Reid's "nuclear option" to get several Obama judges onto the DC circuit, Cocaine Mitch refused to give Garland a vote, got both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmed to Scotus, and helped shepherd 170 or so Trump judges to the bench.
Give the man some credit!
It's not that Trump has pretensions to royalty, but that he usurped the crown from its rightful heir.
Not too long ago around here, dumbocrats plastered their cars with "Hate is not a Family Value" bumper stickers. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
With the whole machine against him he's outshone that fraud obambi. Now he threatens to destroy thw whole of the jackass party in a Senate trial. This is real exciting! WALK AWAY, just do it!
Trump is Cromwell, and Hillary is Charles II, or whichever Charles that was, hiding out in Flanders.
Bay Area Guy,
I think Cocaine Mitch just approved either 178 or 179 today.
Or maybe it was yesterday.
He just keeps going.
Like the Energizer Bunny* of Evil.
*Cocaine does that to a guy.
Ha ha! Looks like if you are a woman, you better be a hottie if you want to work for Blue Star! Except that one, bless her, who probably has real brains or a family connection.
Still, one wonders, who is in charge of the House these days?
The shadowy billionaires who fund the Democrats.
BTW Drudge has an online Poll "Who will be Dem Nominee 2020?". Clinton comes in second behind Biden. Of course, it doesn't specify which Clinton. And it doesn't allow for miscreants like me who selected H>er for shits and grins.
she seems to be the boss,
https://bluestarstrategies.com/about/our-team/karen-tramontano
this was zylochevsky's team,
Let us suppose a Democrat wins the White House. Shall we begin their administration with those famous words. We are going to impeach the motherfucker. I say, why not?
So this post bizarrely made me a little mad. Why is it okay for President Trump to appeal almost solely to emotions, yet it is wrong for Democrats to do the same thing?
But then I thought, why if I am a person that wants reason and fact defending an obvious appeal to emotions? And the truth is that Prof. Althouse is right here to criticize the Dems for emotional appeals, but she is wrong to defend Trump when he does the same.
Lance N
Is asking “ Where is your evidence?” an appeal to emotion?
so this is really about economic and political interests, regarding Ukraine and china, then any purely personal elements, as the documents Solomon described, there was a list of acceptable oligarchs like kolomoisky, and those who were not, one funds one end of the rada, the other another,
Pretty funny. Joe went full Birkel today, calling a questioner a liar and challenging him to a push up contest!
Blogger Nonapod said...
The more I learn about her, the more Pamela Karlan strikes me as the last person you'd bring in to persuade a normal person of almost anything, let alone the impeachment of a sitting president. She's pretty much a stereotypical hardcore leftist scold. As such, her appeal is limited to a very select audience. Assuming the point of yesterday's show was to get more regular people on the impeachment train, putting her in front of cameras seems like an idiotic move. Wouldn't you want someone who comes off as relatable and reasonable? Or was that not the point?
Again, I hesitate to call these people stupid, but it's hard to imagine them as very bright when they do things like this.
I don't think they had much of a choice. You have to be pretty deep in the TDS to show up and claim the Democrats have proved that Trump should be impeached based on the garbage the Dems have offered up. I'm not sure they could have gotten anyone "better" to push their claims.
GOP had Turley, an anti-Trump Democrat, as their sole witness.
When "sane, anti-Trump Democrat" is testifying against impeachment of a GOP President, you're going to have to go pretty far out to find people willing to testify for it.
lanny davis and Michael Chertoff, the twin heads of the nevertrump hydra, can take coin from firtash and no one seriously makes an objection, but manafort throw him in the dungeon, podesta and weber they don't even bother with a charge,
I watched the expressions and listened to the diatribe of those obviously biased law experts. I am troubled to think what our kids are being taught by such people and their ilk. I would be ashamed to be a modern democrat!
Bob Blackford
Stuart Florida
Hey, Pam, what king would want to make his son a baron?
Within the stupid move, a deeper stupidity lurks.
@rcocean:
I'm old enough to remember the Bork and Thomas hearings. According to the Republican mouth pieces - at the time - the D's were going to be SORRY. They were going to be Borked the next time they were charge. Bad precedent. You'll be sorry now, said all the R's.
And Ginsberg and Bryer sailed through the republican senate with 96-3 and 87-9 votes. "We let the president decide" said Hatch/McCain pompously
What you've missed is that none of the 4 Democrats now on the Supreme Court were appointed when there was a GOP majority in the Senate.
Garland was appointed when there was a GOP majority in the Senate. What happened to him? Oh, look, he's not on the Supreme Court.
IOW, the first chance a GOP Senate majority had, they completely blocked Obama from appointing anyone to the SC.
That looks like "promise kept" to me.
Lance N. said...
So this post bizarrely made me a little mad. Why is it okay for President Trump to appeal almost solely to emotions, yet it is wrong for Democrats to do the same thing?
But then I thought, why if I am a person that wants reason and fact defending an obvious appeal to emotions? And the truth is that Prof. Althouse is right here to criticize the Dems for emotional appeals, but she is wrong to defend Trump when he does the same.
12/5/19, 2:00 PM
Well it somewhat depends on what the appeal is, if using emotion is OK or not.
If I am trying to collect money for starving orphans, emotional appeal is OK, maybe even desirable.
If I am trying to impeach a sitting President, using emotional appeals not so much. I would prefer actual evidence and facts. But that is just me. You do you.
bagoh20 said...
"Howard said...
“You guys should be ecstatic over Nancy's Folly.”
Regardless of how much it may backfire, the problem with the Dems going so batshit over the line is that the "line" will no longer be clear. This travesty of governance will become feasable now where before it was agreed by all sides that a line did exist.
Respectfully, I disagree.
I, for one, am ecstatic about the Democrats impeaching Trump, and sending it to a trial in the Senate where they get utterly destroyed.
Followed by an election where they get even more destroyed.
IMHO, yes, they are crossing a bad line. But if they get torched for doing so, the rule of that "line" will remain in effect.
For "line crossing" to destroy a line, you have to "get away with it." As long as the Democrats do NOT get away with it, the line will remain intact.
In 2029, after the next Democrat President gets inaugurated, some angry Republicans will say "we should impeach the mfer!" And the response will be "don't be an idiot. Remember how that screwed the Democrats in 202?"
The hearing was allegedly about constitutional law. Elections are about emotions. Constitutional law is not. This isn't difficult.
Lance N. said...
So this post bizarrely made me a little mad. Why is it okay for President Trump to appeal almost solely to emotions, yet it is wrong for Democrats to do the same thing?
But then I thought, why if I am a person that wants reason and fact defending an obvious appeal to emotions? And the truth is that Prof. Althouse is right here to criticize the Dems for emotional appeals, but she is wrong to defend Trump when he does the same.
Well,
1: If there's been a Democrat policy that was advanced on actual facts and logic, any time in the last 30 years, I've missed it. Certainly their border policies are advanced on pure emotion
2: Trump is pushing policies. Which means you need facts, logic, and appeals to emotion
3: The Democrats here are claiming to make a legal claim, that Trump's behavior is worthy of impeachment. Legal claims require fact and logic, not appeals to emotion. Or, rather, if the basis of your legal claim is an appeal to emotion, then it's clearly garbage.
I would not eat an apple that was the color orange all over. I would criticize it for that. That doesn't mean I would criticize an orange for the same thing.
You are comparing apples and oranges
"Ken B said...
Pretty funny. Joe went full Birkel today, calling a questioner a liar and challenging him to a push up contest!”
lol
“The Senate NEEDS to get ahead of this if they can. They should call a presser today and say that they agree with the House, that there is more than enough information for them to act and start the Senate trial NEXT WEEK. Release a list of witnesses that they plan to subpoena like Schiff, Binden, Hunder, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc”
I think that they are doing just fine. The House Dems have been suitably warned what is likely to happen in the Senate, and that is not removal of the President because not enough Republicans show up to vote. Rather, that their extralegal, Lawfare inspired, if not Lawfare directed, impeachment circus crossed numerous legal and ethical lines, will be exposed to the public. And that exposure is likely to garner Trump an electoral vote landslide, as well as a Republican House, that can continue his work Making America Great Again, through further tax cuts, regulatory reform, etc.
Pamela Karlan's parents could name her Pamela, but this didn't make her a Pamela.
Questions like "Which criminal code do you allege Trump has violated?" are not appeals to emotion.
Policies like "We should not fight so many foreign wars" and "Illegal aliens should be stopped from coming into the country" are not appeals to emotion.
Lance N,
Could you be a bit more specific?
Well, KenB, you shouldn't lie about me.
You're a liar.
Holy shit he really did challenge the guy to push ups or to go for a run. I thought people were joking. Implied he was fat because he watches too much TV.
The folks in the room seemed to enjoy it but I wonder how well that plays in the Fried Food State Fair? (asks the guy who is about 25% overweight)
Blogger Sebastian said...
Hey, Pam, what king would want to make his son a baron?
A King with a retard son, which applies hear.
You guys won't be laughing so hard when Joe challenges Trump to push ups at the debate.
Howard said...
You guys won't be laughing so hard when Joe challenges Trump to push ups at the debate.
***********
and you won't be laughing so hard when Trump challenges Slow Joe to recite the alphabet backwards.
Howard said...
Blogger Sebastian said...
Hey, Pam, what king would want to make his son a baron?
A King with a retard son, which applies hear.
************
"Hear"? Just WHO IS the retard hear?
You won't be laughing so hard when Trump challenges Slow Joe to recite the alphabet forwards.
And on cue, Birkel goes full Joe!
Remember that old Mad Magazine thing, Separated at Birth?
I just love it when I get a hot strike on the intentional misspelled lure that I'm trolling with.
I wish that fat guy had dropped down and done a quick fifty.
that was funny, Howard
Howard, you weren’t trolling.
Remember the lie KenB told about me first:
He alleged I had written about the 33rd president.
It was a lie because I had done no such thing.
Phil
I freely admit Joe/Birkel could beat me at push ups. I cannot say the exchange altered my view of Biden one little bit though.
How dare you tcrosse. You know that slow Joe has a horrible stutter and that making him recite the alphabet is an unfair challenge. I can't believe how insensitive you all have become.
We should demand the Houses members' salaries be held back during this charade. They are not doing their job.
In addition to the stutterer I'm beginning to think that Joe also has a mild case of tourette syndrome.
Howard typed, I believe, that he uses voice to text.
That would explain the homonyms.
The insanity on the part of the Democrats right now is that they desperately need to retake the White House, and everything they do to cheat in their impeachment circus takes them one step further away from that. What they are so obviously doing is blatant cheating to impeach #OrangeManBad. But while that may work with their most rabid base, it is almost assured of backfiring with most independents, and energize the Republicans even more than they do the Democrats who are egging them on. Americans, by and large, don’t like cheating and cheaters. The Democrats are so visibly cheating, and have been since at least June of 2016, and likely a couple years earlier.
The President elected next year has a decent chance at picking up two more seats on the Supreme Court (replacing Ginsberg and Breyer, the two oldest members of the Court), and possibly replacing Thomas and Alito with younger conservatives, if Trump is re-elected. Meanwhile Trump continues to flip Circuit after Circuit with the Senate’s aggressive confirmation of Republican judges. I think that it is entirely possible that the Republicans could go into the 2024 election with a 7-2 Supreme Court majority, and a majority on each and every Circuit, including the 9th and DC Circuits. The Democrats should be petrified of that sort of scenario. The smart ones probably are. But cannot get any traction against the party’s crazies.
"recite the alphabet backwards"
I got a shiny quarter for Joe if he can do it frontwards without singing.
I might believe you, Howard, if you hadn't misspelled "speak" earlier in thread.....twice.
Hey mockturtle, congress not doing its job is a feature not a bug we should be tripling their salaries for there inaction
Now all I want is a shiny quarter.
Thanks a lot, Phil.
You see that's the thing Yancy you got to keep trolling I do it all the time everyday all day. I used to get Questar all the time with my purposefull architecture of misspelling, wrong word choices, bad grammar and he would freak out cuz he's such a supercilious ninny
I'm also a big fan of the improper edition of "ed" at the end of the word. Eg tooked instead of taken
That's right birkel I also do voice to text not all the time but sometimes and I like to leave the malaprop's intact for humor purposes only.
Howard
Ha! That explains a lot! Like Michael K with his purposefull architecture of false facts. And pretty much everything Chuck posts. It *has* to be deliberate.
Michael bites on the trailing treble hook
KenB what I don't understand about doc Mike K is you can tell when he talks about medicine that he was probably an awesome doctor and that if your kid needed some sort of emergency general surgery he would be the dude you'd want doing it no doubt in my mind. But he post the most batshit crazy conspiracy stuff and I just can't reconcile how he can be so gullible
"I got a shiny quarter for Joe if he can do it frontwards without singing.”
Whether he succeeded or not, he would be bragging about it for a long time.
Exactly Skylark great point and it also highlights the reason why Uncle Joe Biden has so much crossover appeal with Trump voters
From the folks at the Last Refuge:
The awakened American middle-class insurgency, led by Donald Trump, is an existential threat to the professional political class and every entity who lives in/around the professional political class. Their entire political apparatus is threatened by our insurgency. The political industry, all of corrupt governance, is threatened by our support through Donald Trump.
You know why the entire apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why the corrupt Wall Street financial apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why every institutional department, every lobbyist, every K-Street dweller, every career legislative member, staffer, and the various downstream economic benefactors, including the corporate media, all of it – all the above, are united against Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is an existential threat to the existence of a corrupt DC system we have exposed to his disinfecting sunlight. Donald Trump is the existential threat to every entity who benefits from that corrupt and vile system.
Jonathan Turley@JonathanTurley
My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW.
" it also highlights the reason why Uncle Joe Biden has so much crossover appeal with Trump voters”
Theoretically, according to Democrats.
Whether he succeeded or not, he would be bragging about it for a long time.
"Corn Pop gave me this quarter as a sign of respect."
Mr Trump should go to the county courthouse nearest Mar-a-Lago and apply to change his name to King Donald John Trump. The idiots would then have confirmation that he is aiming for a crown.
I think that that theoretical "crossover appeal to Trump voters” is going to see a lot of Warren Democrats sitting home on election day if it’s Biden, thinking about what might have been had they only gotten a chance. It’s your party that’s split, that’s obvious to anybody. You need Trump the same way Hitler needed the Jews, to unify yourselves with an external enemy.
If you guys removed Trump and the common enemy was gone, your whole party would fall apart like the house of cards that it is.
Howard
Yep. I believe Michael K knows his stuff about medicine, and was probably an outstanding surgeon. But partisanship does funny things to people, especially smart arrogant people. Look at Karlan. Anyone can understand she has to be smart to get her job. But she is completely untrustworthy and delusional about Trump.
It’s funny. You will get people here talking about how great Turley was, and then acting exactly like a pro trump version of Karlan.
KenB. I think you hit the nail on the head. Party politics is all about being untrustworthy and delusional.
Ironically all other systems are worse at least I think that was Winston Churchill's point
For a moment, I thought I was looking at the wiki page for Bitchy Resting Face.
I'm also a big fan of the improper edition of "ed" at the end of the word. Eg tooked instead of taken
"I meant to do that" --PeeWee Herman
CNN Ratings in the tank does not spell energizing the base.
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1202711949085069313
"I got a shiny quarter for Joe if he can do it frontwards without singing.”
Hey!, That is not as easy as you think....
Hold on, does it have to be on the first try?
Howard typed, I believe, that he uses voice to text.
That would explain the homonyms.
Yeah. But it doesn't explain the stupidity.
change his name to King Donald John Trump. The idiots would then have confirmation that he is aiming for a crown.
As if it hasn't been a catastrophe since he revealed secrets of social liberal club. A pretense to mortal godhood would force a conniption. A progressive conniption (PC). There can be only a minority, and Trump has been deemed unworthy.
Howard typed, I believe, that he uses voice to text.
That would explain the homonyms.
It's homonymphomania.
Jim at:. If you would only listen to the wise men who discuss IQ on this blog you would know that you don't have anyone else to blame but your parents for your stupidity. It's all generics
That sounds like something you would catch in the Navy showers
Video of progressive and outright red Democrats pretending to care about the words in the US Constitution using bullshit solemnity is unwatchable and likely soils the mind.
Excuse me while I go cry myself to sleep.
jim is running a contest with Howard to see who can post the dumbest trolling.
But he post the most batshit crazy conspiracy stuff and I just can't reconcile how he can be so gullible
Howard and MOBY Ken B are proving that conspiracy theories can't be too far fetched to explain Democrats.
Pam Karlan has to be a fictional character. Stanford used to be a sane place. Their football team were assholes but that can happen to anybody.
Rotflmao
I think that it is entirely possible that the Republicans could go into the 2024 election with a 7-2 Supreme Court majority, and a majority on each and every Circuit, including the 9th and DC Circuits. The Democrats should be petrified of that sort of scenario. The smart ones probably are. But cannot get any traction against the party’s crazies.
Howard and Ken B don't get that. They are still calling the facts "Conspiracy Theories." Keep it up kids, at least until next November.
You really need to lay off the Geritol there doc, it's going to your head.
Dems lowered the bar and it’s going to come back and bite them. Then they’ll squeal like piggies.
You can’t understand how you got Trump?
This is how.
It made me realize that my own field, English Literature, is not the only field overrun by menopausal harridans hellbent on "justice," but transforming themselves into poisonous scorpions who will kill anything in their path, even a child, in order to clear the way for their vituperative agenda. Madame Defarge in the House with a knitting needle is the latest example of their proportionless cluelessness. The humanities should turn us into humans rather than scorpions.
I wonder if she would be so filled with hate if she were not so physically ugly? It must suck to be a genuinely ugly woman....
I learned nothing other than that I am absolutely correct in despising the academic left.
Our progressive leaders only like children when they are:
1. aborted
2. being used for the sexual pleasuring of the powerful
3. autistic and able to made to recite the current politically correct script
Post a Comment