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.
पोस्ट्स
४०४ टिप्पण्या:
404 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»If Trump existing isn't impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.
The law is a joke when you can twist it to suit your purpose. Don't they understand how dangerous that is. Will they understand when their heads are mounted on lamp posts?
Professor Karlan was too clever by half.
Kaplan is another horrifying woman driven insane by 60 years of feminist lies that American women are oppressed.
Marxist feminism is what drove her nuts.
Academia, particularly law schools, are full up with these vicious, no good women faking suffering for professional advancement.
When are you going to renounce the Marxist feminist lies at the root of this madness, prof?
The law is a joke. It’s not for the likes of the Bidens, for example. Emoluments don’t apply to that man. And the Bill of Rights isn’t for the likes of Trump.
"Kaplan is another horrifying woman driven insane by 60 years of feminist lies that American women are oppressed."
I took a shot at her for being *insufficiently* feminist: She assumed the father named the baby.
Five years ago, I believed in American democracy, and even the press, even though I knew they were seriously flawed. I thought the Clintons were an aberration and that the press was just biased, but still you could find something approximating the truth there. Now I understand what Hillary was saying when she blasted Vince Foster in that meeting a week before he “killed himself.”
“You’re just a country lawyer and you will never understand!”
This is about taking power and ending our republic and replacing it with the rule of men rather than law, and has been since the 60s. I sometimes think of my grandpa the day the Nazis came and darkened the sky with warplanes. Still there is the role of resistance, and even the German socialists were eventually driven out.
Her “apology” was an awful lot like that apology in Forest Gump. You could see she was angry at having to make it, but fake outrage or no, she needed to make it. Now that the internet never forgets, Barron is going to have to live with this “joke” or more precisely, denouncement. Not that we really care.
My takeaway? I sure hope these three nutcases aren’t typical of law school faculty all over the country.
The more damnable statement by this wicked witch was her claim that President Trump has sexually assaulted numerous women.
Based on... what?
What in the fuck is the bitch doing on a law school faculty?
Law schools need a general fumigation and cleaning out.
Bring back the Christian white straight men. Get rid of the Marxist critical class and race theorists.
Shorter Lawprofs: What go we want?
Trump’s impeachment!
When do we want it?
Right now!
Baby Yoda celebrates abortion with a nice cuppa joe.
It would have been funny if she had worked in a comment about Jon Voight’s LeBaron...
As a woman, I was offended that was the woman they put on the panel. Are they sending the message that women are unpleasant?
I feel almost Alhousian-- what is the deeper reason they chose her? To scare us off Elizabeth Warren? Look how awful female Law Professors are!! Do you want this for a President?
I took a shot at her for being *insufficiently* feminist: She assumed the father named the baby.
It's interesting that you assume a feminist assumes the other woman is empowered or the other relationship is equitable. I think she would express her feminism in thw opposite way - assuming that the woman was not empowered, the relationship was not equitable, and the child was named at the pleasure of thw patriarch alone.
To be a professional feminist is to assume grievance, so why are you a feminist? From your apparent POV to be a feminist means assuming that the problems are solved, the war is over.
When Dems were asking: Has any other president ever done something like this impeachable thing?
The 3 Law Professors would answer: No! This is unprecedented!
And I thought: How do we know? This is the only president whose private call transcripts are leaked.
I sure would like to hear the transcripts of Obama on the call to Iran, working on behalf of the "national interest" to subvert banking laws and fly billions of dollars in cash over to the regime that was at the time killing our soldiers, and is currently killing its own citizens.
How do you walk back from "If we don't impeach for this, nothing is impeachable"?
I agree with MayBee. Could the Dems had found a more fitting stereotype of the hateful, arrogant, as ugly on the inside as she is ugly on the outside of a feminist.
I thought the same thing Nichevo. She was putting down Melania who was, of course, a weak woman that Trump can push around even to the naming of their child.
The little that I watched, the committee members were lecturing the professors rather than the other way around, and the professors were reduced to agreeing rather like students sucking up to the professor in the classroom.
What this is going to mean for people around the country I do not know, but personally I gave up a long time ago figuring out what the Democrats' beef with Trump actually is, and the "optics" of this was terrible!
I look forward to Nadler deposing telephone psychics to get direct testimony from the founding fathers.
Oh shoot, that was yesterday’s panel.
Karlan is a man hating lesbian according to video I have seen. Of course, the video may have been doctored but it seems to align with her testimony yesterday.
America is truly fucked if people like Karlan, Hillary and Noah etc get back in power.
The Hillary Lost butthurt revenge party shcitt show rolls on.
This year, for Christmas, I think I'm going to get my kids reserves of cynicism and scorn. You can never have too much! There, I just brought the kids into it.
Karlan is SUCH a man hating lesbian; that she makes Shouting Thomas's shouts seem reasonable
Do We WANT To Live In A World? Where Shouting Thomas's shouts seem Reasonable?
We have to STOP THIS! STOP THIS NOW!
Professor Ms. Karlan looks insufferably smug in the very last frame of that clip. Good editing, or was that more or less what she looked like throughout? If she were a man, one would call that a punchable face.
Here is a great picture
Be funnier if he were reading Barron's.
AA> "... 100 or so million heads .."
I'd be surprised if more than 5 million were tuned into the hearing at any particular time.
Dems are digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole with this farce.
I predict: next fall Trump will be reelected, Republicans will retake the house, Pelosi will resign.
Karlan’s snark undermined the claimed ‘prayerful’ and ‘solemn’ occasion, exposing it as actually petty and vindictive.
It is fake outrage, but it's purpose is an attempt at fairness. It's about getting everyone on the same set of rules with the same consequences.
Everytime one of these things come up, the liberal bubble must be held to the standards they've set.
Shouting Thomas is reasonable.
Sometimes not rhetorically effective, but the fundamentals are sound.
The points he makes are worth a proper argument, being truly unsettled, or are "inconvenient truths", matters that are objectively settled but are taboo for irrational reasons or because of underlying tribal interests.
The important point is: Does Barron identify as a Baron?
Let me finish up here by saying that I agree that the outrage is fake,
Some of it, but not all of it. I suspect Melania’s anger is very real, for instance. If you can’t see why then I suspect you weren’t much of a mother. Others, myself included, recall Chelsea Clinton and the two Obama girls being off-limits, but Trump’s young son is fair game? So we are angry, too.
but just about everything in the discussion of Trump is fake, and the pro-Trump side should fight hard.
We don’t need your blessing nor your encouragement but thank you anyway.
Oh, and “Barron” is a perfectly respectable name for a hotel magnate’s son. Just check out the Hilton family tree.
That yappy women with her stupid little lecture and awful attempt at a joke was yappy and stupid and awful.
I took a shot at her for being *insufficiently* feminist: She assumed the father named the baby.
Is there any room in your feminism for a husband and wife to do things cooperatively, as partners?
It was lame because in-jokes based on the shared delusional premises of the in-group don't work when the shtick is tried on outsiders.
J.J. Sefton has labeled her as Barren Frump!! 😂
Big Mike: ...then I suspect you weren’t much of a mother.
Cheap shot.
What jumped out at me was Turley talked a lot about not rushing the process, but the Democrats are under a gun. They have to impeach Trump before Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies so they can say a President under impeachment should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. I don't wish her ill, but anyone who has a been through the loss of an elderly loved one, which is most people, know she's circling the drain. Time is of the essence for Schiff, Nadler and the gang. If they could drag this out, is there any doubt they would?
Building on Angle-Dyne’s comment, let’s remember that Hillary Clinton had tested her little joke about “deplorables” several times before going public with it. But not everyone in this country lives in the same bubble as Hillary supporters.
That's why I read Ace.
This whole thing is, by design, ambigous. Treat is like a criminal trial, until legal standards retards the progress, then switch to, its a political process, legal protocols don't pertain, then they lose traction, back to LAW Professors. They don't need a reason, there is no recourse inside the federal govt to prevent it from happening, or punishing them after it happens.
The only check is by the people at the ballot box.
That is as it should be.
To hide behind the words of the constitution, or scholars, is deception.
@Angle-Dyne, the cheapest, for sure. But I want to remind Althouse that the joke has repercussions beyond Donald Trump and Trump supporters. If Melania wanted to take a shot at American feminists along the lines of what Shouting Thomas wrote, she’d be within her rights.
Big Mike pointed out, that...
Others, myself included, recall Chelsea Clinton and the two Obama girls being off-limits, but Trump’s young son is fair game?
Don't forget Barbara and Jenna Bush! According to the media;
they weren't just drunken drug addicted sluts; they were drunken drug addicted Prostitutes
Oh! and speaking of Prostitutes, what about Sarah Palin's daughters?
It's Weird,
how SOME Presidents children are TOTALLY OFF LIMITS, and Other Presidents children are FAIR GAME
I wonder why? I wonder if there is any thing that would differentiate the two groups?
Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
It was lame because in-jokes based on the shared delusional premises of the in-group don't work when the shtick is tried on outsiders.
Right? How much of a cocoon do you have to live in to think a joke like that is good outside of the cocoon? See also: when she was trying to explain her comment about conservatives not wanting to live near other conservatives.
*I* understood when I did not like Obama that my observations about him were *my* observations. I did not go into every room assuming everyone was as annoyed by him as I was. What an ego it takes, to think all the good people think like you do!
Karlan’s lame joke is what people will remember.
This Impeachment has totally blown up in the face of the Dems. The House won’t impeach Trump.
I feel certain that Melania has had it with people talking about her child in a negative way. I don't think her anger was false. It's her son. Why bring him up? Why make fun of his name in a congressional hearing?
Melania really stays out of the public light, and Barron even moreso. I think to hate Melania you'd have to work really hard to seek her out.
This reminded me of Lloyd Bentsen. During the 1988 vice presidential debate, his Republican opponent, the young and inexperienced Dan Quayle, was comparing himself to the young and inexperienced pre-presidential John F. Kennedy. Bentsen resonds,
"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
The audience ate it up. How outrageous to compare yourself to JFK! It was considered a marvelous response even though there was just about no substance to it. (To be honest, Quayle's response was lame, and Bentsen then skillfully piled on. Bentsen's line had been scripted and though the talking head in this clip said he showed genuine emotion, I tend to believe that good politicians are good actors.) The "outrage" over the Barron/baron comment is about as empty. Who knows if it will be as effective?
Buwaya, why would you compare our troubles to Sri Lanka's explicitly ethnic troubles? In that country, a relatively small ethnic minority of the population predominated in the leadership and professional class, partly through promotion by the erstwhile colonizer and partly through more or less effective meritocratic institutions.
We had our own civil war not terribly long ago. The divisions in our society are better analogized to that conflict than any other. The Dems even today are a high-low or barbell coalition of gentry and dependents, who devalue labor and are intent on creating a more powerful and coercive state, while the yeoman class and its deplorable baskets of supporters chafes. The French are of course sympathetic to the Dems, while the Brits, amidst their own national crisis, are increasingly behind the good guys.
"I agree that the outrage is fake,..."
Why is it fake to be angry that on a nationally televised event of this importance a univeristy professor ridiculed a 13 year-old boy for his name?
What I watched scared the Bejesus out of me. If this is what the law has become, we are f*cked.
! 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.
Tell your joke with all the anger, hatred, and vitriol you can muster. Liberals find this enlightened style of joke telling very entertaining and enjoyable.
We also have, at this time, a funny looking president who is a highly effective communicator.
My response is more about the point she was trying to make--"Professor Karlan, making the point that the U.S. President is different from a king..."--than about her using Barron to make a lame joke:
Yeah, so? Any middle school kid of my generation could have told you this. How exactly is your point her pertinent to ANY of the circus currently operating under the label "impeachment hearings?"
Why did we need a freaking law prof eating up time in a Congressional hearing to tell us that a president is different from a king?
Meanwhile, on the global or geopolitical front, all the rest of the world really cares about is trade. Capital markets ignore our internal squabbles and focus on access to our goods and consumers. Sort of like during the Civil War.
gilbar said "It's Weird,
how SOME Presidents children are TOTALLY OFF LIMITS, and Other Presidents children are FAIR GAME
I wonder why? I wonder if there is any thing that would differentiate the two groups?"
Because I, like many other conservatives, don't blame their children for what the liberal class does. I didn't like Obama as President, but I refused to go after his wife, or his children...and I would admonish people who did. THEY didn't run for President...leave them alone. Now...because they are quite vocal, and out in the public spewing their hatred, I don't care when people go after Chelsea or Michele....but when their father/husband were in office, they were off limits.
The biggest mistake about yesterday's hearing was the sell. This was pitched to me over and over as the legal briefing. Oh we're going to have several law professors who are going to explain the law and the history and clarify what the intent was behind the impeachment clause. I wasn't going to watch it because I figured it would be a dry recital of stuff I'm already well versed with.
Instead I get the MSNBC panel. "This is the most despicable thing ever, do you agree Pamela?" and Pamela goes off into a commentariat frenzy designed to please her host and assure future appearances on the show. Oh the gesticulations and the frowns, at least three were so emotionally invested into the matter.
And the distracting hyperbole; "If we can't impeach for this, we can't impeach for anything!" Oh really? If we can't impeach for White House meetings in exchange for political investigations then we certainly can't impeach a president for giving the nuclear launch codes to the Chinese. That's it, sorry, the bar has been set by idiot at the hearing.
The last 24 hours were another self-inflicted wound to the impeachment push. The level of incompetence in the affair is so staggering that it's beginning to look intentional.
Skylark, you mean, "It's just this war and that lying son of a b Johnson?"
I totally thought of that too.
Let's not forget that Biden's 50+ year old, crackhead, bagman "child" is off limits.
Women should not be allowed to vote.
She’s an irrational harridan.
"That matters fundamentally to the American people. Because if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship. That's why the framers created the possibility of impeachment."
A law professor spoke that. There is not an ounce of truth to it, yet he spoke it.
;;
All three of those partisan hacks should be disgraced, yet in their world, the opposite will happen.
If there's a constitutional crisis or something like it happening now, it's the weaponization of the Federal law enforcement and intelligence apparatus on behalf of the administrative state by people like Schiff, exposing phone records of John Solomon, because Solomon is over the target and undermining the coverup of Brennan/Comey/Clapper/Obama? dirty deeds. I see lots of people here and elsewhere saying this impeachment is about the Supreme Court, about dirtying up a political opponent, etc. Eh. It's about distracting us from the denouement of FusionGate. And it's working rather well.
The republicans should draw up articles of impeachment for each of the lead candidates in the primary, Joe for his quid pro with Ukraine, Liz for her fake Indian nonsense, etc
Publish all this now and state if any democrat is elected president they will impeach the day after inauguration.
"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."
Says a lot about the cocoon and the "academic context," doesn't it?
Anyway, even by prog standards, the Barron/baron "zinger" was a stupid move.
But you are mistaken in thinking our anti-prog outrage is faux: it isn't the child as such that outrages us, but the utter bad faith, the obvious double standards, the sheer political hackery by people who hold themselves out to be "scholars," and of course the attempt at manipulating public opinion to cancel our votes and destroy the system.
Hillary never paid for her crimes.
Schitt is a criminal.
This is really bad stuff.
ngle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
Big Mike: ...then I suspect you weren’t much of a mother.
Cheap shot.
Anyway it's not true. Any real or perceived, direct or indirect slight on HER children, e.g. the gay one, will immediately be met with the ripping out of kishkes. She is just either a hypocrite or has no empathy for other people. I suspect the latter.
She looks like Woody Allen in a wig, and just as appealing.
The Trumps kids learn Chinese. A Tai-pan in post Opium War China/Hong Kong was a super rich Chinese manager of a Trading Company that cooperated with with the British rulers. My guess is that the youngest Trump scion was named for such a role. And that role is way more than a poor British Land Baron.
My analysis is that What the harridan did was show off to the Nation that in her Revolution the children of the Monarch could also expect what Charles I got. Which was the same message sent by Kathy Griffin joyously holding up the King's severed head.
Melania got the message.
If the Democrat Law Professors hurt the libtard lunatics impeachment chances, why are you people so angry and emotional. You should be jumping for joy.
Can't wait to see what comedy gold comes out of your reaction to Nancy Pelosi speek on impeaching Dronald.
America is truly fucked if people like Karlan, Hillary and Noah etc get back in power.
Hate to break it to you, but they are already in power.
The marxist agenda move forward unabated no matter who you elect to Congress or the White House.
It's true that Melania is actually angry, but I suspect the public statement is probably not her style.
About the insufficiently feminist comment by Althouse:
The cool thing is to assume Melania is afraid of Trump. Remember the meme from the inauguration? We are supposed to think Melania is a former prostitute who married the man who got her into the country and is afraid of him and afraid to leave him. During the whole Stormy Daniels/Michael Avanetti brouhaha, CNN actually sent out a news alert that Melania had taken a separate car to the SOTU, so eager were they to have Melania divorce Trump. But she won't, so she's bad and weak, and today there is a whole outrage at her fake outrage.
So...it is entirely the feminist thing to assume Melania is the bad guy here, weak and enabling and in fear of her tyrannical husband.
Howard- did I misunderstand you yesterday? I thought you were saying the Democrats would not impeach Trump.
Serious question.
Did anyone ask the 3 progs if a president repeatedly lies under oath and tells another witness to lie in a sexual harassment lawsuit, should be impeached and removed.
Just curious what their answers would be.
I think some of you are twisting Althouse's take here too much.
Pelosi is speaking now. She's really running with this "monarch" thing. I appreciate Pelosi is an effective backroom politico, but she does not do grand rhetoric or statesmanship very well.
Howard said...
If the Democrat Law Professors hurt the libtard lunatics impeachment chances, why are you people so angry and emotional. You should be jumping for joy.
You're not that dumb, Speedy. Oh wait...
Yeah - the Trump is a Monarch thing is the new D-meme.
Ann,
You will enjoy reading this take down of political hack, Pamela Karlen. She beclowned herself and Stanford yesterday:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/12/pamela_karlan_lays_an_egg.html
This is comedy gold!
She has done a really good job though of muting that ugliest of American accents to my ears, and she has only a trace of the mid-Atlantic Philly/Baltimore vowels left.
I have no idea what the Dims will do. I also don't really care because it's not going to result in conviction.
Nancy says full steam ahead. Don't short Orville Reddenbaker
Pelosi is on tv saying Trump has said he can do whatever he wants and that's why he needs to be impeached I guess.
it's funny considering Dems spent 8 years justifying Obama doing whatever he wanted because "Congress wouldn't act".
As a former law student, I was appalled. In my law school most of my professors, even the ultra-liberal ones, were like Prof. Turley. They were stable, logical, and even dignified. They never came off as the three hysterical Stooges did yesterday. What an embarrassment to the profession.
Curious George said..."All three of those partisan hacks should be disgraced, yet in their world, the opposite will happen."
A few more days of this buffoonery and Althouse will create a blog tag, "law professors these days are fucking retards" to track this.
Nancy not speeking with panache or confidence
I also have no problem with what Shouting Thomas says, because I feel the same way. I read Ace every morning and can say without a doubt that he has more smarts than probably 90% of all the law professors. If not more.
The Barron family owned the WSJ until a few years ago.
They focus grouped the zinger line along with what they are impeaching Trump for.
Blogger AllenS said...
I also have no problem with what Shouting Thomas says, because I feel the same way. I read Ace every morning and can say without a doubt that he has more smarts than probably 90% of all the law professors. If not more.
Agreed. Not to mention his writing style is actually....funny.
It's the Deep State versus the Dick Chaney "Strong President" legal theory.
Beware what you wish for. If Trump wins reelection, once the Democratics take charge, AOC will have that power
Barren Frump is so good. And Sefton comes up with stuff that good almost every day.
I was in Karlan's class for civil procedure 25 years ago. She was a perfectly reasonable, normal person in a small setting, and she was indeed witty in an academic way. It looks like Trump's election has radicalized her, and I certainly agree that she wasn't a persuasive choice for yesterday's proceeding.
I've wondered if Trump named his son Barron after Barron Hilton, Barron being the maiden name of Barron Hilton's mother. Trump had business dealings with Hilton and once honored a business deal at a full price which he wasn't obligated to do. Also, Trump and Barron Hilton both had older but less able brothers who became alcoholics and died young so they had that in common too.
You guys should be ecstatic over Nancy's Folly.
These three clowns aren't all that smart. I think one of their worse moments was when Representative Tom McClintock asked who they voted for, and they all refused to answer, with Feldman and Karlan protesting the question. Everyone knows who they voted for, their protests made them look like they knew they had done something wrong and were trying to hide it. Fucking morons. Of course their aggressive and passionate case for impeachment throughout was the real tell, and Karlan didn't give two fucks knew of her disdain.
By the way, the LA Times has come out for censure over impeachment. Ruh-roh, Reorge!
I don't think it was a reprehensible attack on a child, but I did think it was stupid, unnecessary and unfunny, the sort of stupid remark academics make in faculty lounges and other people make at cocktail parties that they think is funny, but that goes over like a lead balloon on national television. If you remember Watergate you may remember Shirley MacLaine calling New York the "Karen Ann Quinlan of American cities" on Carson. You may even remember who Karen Ann Quinlan, Shirley MacLaine, and Carson were and what the New York City debt crisis was. Well, it was like that: not something I'd get outraged about, just something stupid, unnecessary and in poor taste.
Context means a lot. What you can say to a friend or at an intimate get-together, you can't say to a national audience. What is the larger context though? Is it that we never went after spouses and minor children and they do? Or do enough of some "us" go after wives and husbands and children, that "we" really can't complain much when "they" do? I think the point is more that what goes on in the depths of the internet shouldn't be said in a serious public political forum like a Congressional hearing.
"Man-hating lesbian" reminds me of Kevin Smith's movie Chasing Amy, but at this point that would be another long walk down memory road.
once the Democratics take charge, AOC will have that power
Left wingers are now pretending the "power" to not be convicted of impeachment makes one a "Strong President" to be feared.
Ok toots.
The Progs like to sneer that Trump supporters have insufficient respect for expertise.
Well expertise just came before Congress and punched itself in the nuts on national TV.
Is RBG being kept alive with pumps and drains?
When Trump's son was born, God, yes, that's right, God, God spoke to Trump and said: "I hope your first child be a masculine child."
And Trump named him Baron von Raschke after the pro wrestler, who was very masculine.
My takeaway? I sure hope these three nutcases aren’t typical of law school faculty all over the country.
I'm afraid they are typical of a lot of law professors right now. Karlan was supposed to be Hillary's choice for the Supreme Court. She has given talks acknowledging that.
She has a history like Ginsburg, NAACP legal counsel, etc.
I think she was a disaster for the Democrats yesterday. Her few soundbites will be on Trump ads all next year. I expect to see some of them in contrast with Amy Coney Barret when RBG dies.
I've wondered if Trump named his son Barron after Barron Hilton
My first thought. Barron Hilton died recently.
That's a well-crafted joke, I said out loud when I watched it.
Well crafted jokes link something true to a flaw. Without the truth it's just a childish insult.
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. And then tried to shift the blame to Trump. HE NEEDS TO APOLOGIZE TOO.... for some unspecified hypothetical wrongs.
Below bullet points are cropped from HERE
Read the whole thing and recognize the narcissists in your life and more importantly those who have POWER OVER YOU. Narcissists are dangerous....Knowledge IS power.
Sincere apologies always include accepting responsibility for the wrong that was done & don’t shift blame. Narcissists may say they are sorry for what they did, but then they make an excuse for it. “I’m sorry I said that, but I wouldn’t have said it if you wouldn’t have done….” Or, they may even deny doing what they did entirely, making you feel like you’re crazy.
If the behavior doesn’t change, the apology isn’t sincere. People who truly are sorry for hurting another person do their best never to repeat that behavior.
Insincere apologies are passive/aggressive. “I’m sorry you feel that way.” “I’m sorry you think what I did was wrong.”
Insincere apologies are vague, rather than specific. Rather than saying, “I’m sorry I cheated on you,” a narcissist may say, “I know I’ve made some mistakes in our marriage.”
Sometimes apologies can be used to hurt you.
Sincere apologies acknowledge the pain that was caused
A narcissist expects you to accept their apology once they say it, then drop the topic forever. Narcissists don’t want to discuss what happened. In their minds, saying they’re sorry (no matter how insincerely it’s said) once is good enough. They said that, so you should be over it & never bring it up again.
most of my professors, even the ultra-liberal ones, ...never came off as the three hysterical Stooges did yesterday.
That they no longer feel the need to hide their true beliefs shows they think their dominance cannot be reversed.
I don’t think it’s Nancy’s Folly, Howard.
She’s the figurehead. As I’ve said before, the first woman head of the house and she’s going to be stuck with this.
A terrible legacy.
God you people just can't let this barren bullshit go can you. Dissecting it from every angle analyzing it under a scanning electron microprobe running seismic tests debating the merits of how hoteliers name their idiot children
TJM, Good section from that American Thinker column,.
It calls to light that Nadler's initial impeachment hearings were a disaster so Pelosi handed that off to Schiff's intel committee for the deed, right there an abrogation of the Constituiton. That turned out to be an even bigger disaster. Schiff called up people who don't like President Trump because he did not listen to them, whose feelings were hurt!
I disagree seeing red. She's no figurehead she is very powerful and controls the purse strings for the democrat congress. I think her calculation is that this will cripple Trump and that's the goal. You may very well be right that it will not work and she will be forever shamed for it. As they say in the big leagues no guts no glory
Check out Pelosi’s speech (the new BonginoReport has the link). It’s a fucking embarrassment. Spoiler alert: she’s continuing the coordinated ‘monarch’ talking point.
God you people just can't let this barren bullshit go can you.
Howard, you just don't get it. Remember how Democrats focus grouped "Quid pro Quo?" and ended up with "Bribery" because their LIVs didn't know what the other meant ?
This is the message for the LIVs and they get it.
A narcissist posts in all bold.
Fify. ;-)
Now now. It wasn't ALL in bold. That would be YELLING.
Here's all it takes to impeach the next Dem president:
Start an impeachment process. Subpoena records and try to get Biden's closest advisors to testify. When they refuse, impeach him for acting like a monarch.
(This is the world of Jim Comey. Started with Marth Stewart, went to Scooter Libby, and now we are on to Donald Trump)
David Begley said...
Karlan’s lame joke is what people will remember.
This Impeachment has totally blown up in the face of the Dems. The House won’t impeach Trump.
12/5/19, 7:32 AM
For what? AmIright? BUT and this is a HUGE but, I want a trial in the Senate. A HUGE trial with all the witnesses and discovery. I want Schiff, Biden, Hunter, the WB, the State Department folks, the FBI and CIA folks, the FISA judges, ALL OF THEM called to testify under oath on what they said, did, knew and when. I want it ALL on the record and for my Christmas present I want Tray Goudy representing Donald.
Do you think they want to cripple Trump's China agreement and crash the economy?
I'm not going to apologize for not just laughing off a frivolous impeachment of the president.
I couldn't' stand Obama and I never wanted him impeached. It shouldn't just be a political arrow in the quiver.
Trump's most egregious sins is that his stellar performance as president has made it obvious that quota classification has no bearing on the qualifications for the job.
very interesting not,
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2019/12/new-wap0-scoop-oh-wait.html
Based on what they thought would be persuasive to the unconvinced, I'm guessing these law prof haven't spent much time in front of juries.
So what you're saying dr. Michael Kennedy the third is that your compatriots keep talkin about the baron debacle because it appeals to the low IQ Trump base. yeah that's what I thought good point I just didn't want to slam you guys too hard this morning you seem to be fragile enough as it is especially by the hysteria coming out of shouting Thomas
Its a happy coincidence that un-indicted criminal Private Server Hillary is going to enter the race as Trump is impeached.
AllenS: And Trump named him Baron von Raschke after the pro wrestler, who was very masculine.
And that is all the people need to know.
Tommy boy I don't know what went wrong for you this morning but when you project your down-low shame on other people it's not a good look. You need to talk to J Farmer about joining the pride movement and get past the guilt
Do you think they want to cripple Trump's China agreement and crash the economy?
Yes, but crippling the China agreement will not crash the economy.
Howard- I think we're talking about it because Althouse put a post up about it. And just a quick FYI, the anti-Melania hysteria about it is a trending topic on twitter.
I just have higher standards for you people MayBee. Personally it looks like avoidance of the real political issues that are going on. Kind of like a safety blanket or a pacifier
"President Trump said Thursday that if House Democrats are going to impeachment him they should do it "now" and "fast" so he can have a "fair" trial in the Republican-controlled Senate."
What a remarkable man. As I've said before he is fearless. I almost feel sorry for the Democrats. Trump will give the Democrats an impeachment trial. He'll give it to them good and hard. I hope Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, Brennan, Clapper and Rice are ready to testify under oath.
The joke Karlan tried is just another example from someone not being able to think more than one step ahead. High intelligence is the really nothing more than the ability to think several steps ahead, and in politics this includes the ability to consider what your opponents could do in response to your own rhetoric, and how that response might play out.
This blog post, though, reminded me of something I noticed recently- on several occasions I have encountered the crossword clue/answers baron vs earl- usually earl is the answer (for obvious reasons) with the clue in the form "A nobility superior to a baron".
"If Trump wins reelection, once the Democratics take charge, AOC will have that power"
She may have the votes but she'll never really have the power. The problem the Democrats labor under is that their electorate is largely non-producing. So, even after the most triumphant Election Day, they're largely stuck swimming upstream. Hence, all the skeevy workarounds.
So what you're saying dr. Michael Kennedy the third is that your compatriots keep talkin about the baron debacle because it appeals to the low IQ Trump base. yeah that's what I thought good point I just didn't want to slam you guys too hard this morning you seem to be fragile enough as it is especially by the hysteria coming out of shouting Thomas
Actually it shows the contempt a dried-up shrieking harridan has for male children. That’s shes so low class in spite of her credentials that an old woman on national TV feels the need to attack a 13 y.o. Boy. Her body of work doesn’t matter. She deliberately went on TV in front of the world and thought it was a good idea to make fun of a young boy.
Bad optics for people so smart. Who thought that would be a good idea? Where’s the tolerance that gets rammed down our throats? Where’s the supposed common decency, civility? Does that idiocy get recorded into the National Archives?
All they had to do was not be cray-cray.....
Is it in the Constitution that a President under Impeachment cannot nominate justices to the Supreme Court? Or could Trump just go ahead and do it anyway?
I just have higher standards for you people MayBee. Personally it looks like avoidance of the real political issues that are going on. Kind of like a safety blanket or a pacifier
But not higher standards for yourself or you people?
Bwaaaaaaa
We can walk and chew gum, Howard. Besides, it seems you are plenty happy to join in by reading the threads and then criticizing us, rather than discussing whatever real issues you say should be discussed.
What I learned yesterday is that Democrats think naming your child Barron or King is equivalent to giving them a title of nobility, that we can impeach Presidents for such petty things, and that Congress can now subpoena phone records of journalist and other members of Congress.
I look forward to these new rules being applied in the future.
Bullshit civility tag required.
Don't use Google
Use https://duckduckgo.com/
The give much more honest searches
I just have higher standards for you people MayBee. Personally it looks like avoidance of the real political issues that are going on. Kind of like a safety blanket or a pacifier
You people??? Really? Now you sound like my mom trying to put some guilt on me. "I thought we raised you better than that. We are so disappointed in you...boo hoo" I'm devastated. Not actually. It didn't work then. Won't work now.
Anyway. The joke that Kalan tried to lay turned into a glitter grenade that blew up all over herself and the Democrats. Spectacular failure. Who doesn't like to remark on a glitter grenade. Plus that glitter is going to linger for a very long time. We are laughing at you people.
:-D
Blogger tcrosse said...
Is it in the Constitution that a President under Impeachment cannot nominate justices to the Supreme Court? Or could Trump just go ahead and do it anyway?
It doesn't matter-
It only matters what an Obama appointed judge in San Francisco says. Not only will they stay the nomination, but the very act of nominating a SC Justice is an abuse of power, an impeachable offense.
If it was the job of the 3 profs to explain to the American people why their votes shouldn't count and the President should be impeached, then their failure was spectacular.
If it was to live up to the stereotypical liberal partisan law professor that most people have, then well done. Mission complete.
Who vetted these people? Was it a person or a group?
Whoever it was, they have terrible instincts.
Remember Prince? A man from Minneapolis who was a singer/songwriter. Damn, he died too soon, otherwise he could be ridiculed by Howard.
Except for Turley and especially for Kaplan it was an embarrassing and ugly display of American academia. I already had a low opinion of the class in general, but this circus act of emotional dishonesty and partisanship even surprised me. Did I say "ugly"? Yea, it was.
I can't imagine trusting my offspring to people like that for opening their minds and instilling disciplined thinking. The idea that would be beneficial to them is ridiculous on it's face. I would be guilty of neglecting if not abusing my adult child, and then putting them deeply in debt for it. That is just incredibly stupid. Look what the boomers have done to our most important institution.
Howard never fails to disappoint.
Blogger Howard said...
So what you're saying dr. Michael Kennedy the third is that your compatriots keep talkin about the baron debacle because it appeals to the low IQ Trump base. yeah that's what I thought good point I just didn't want to slam you guys too hard this morning you seem to be fragile enough as it is especially by the hysteria coming out of shouting Thomas
"Low IQ Trump Base" is your security blankey. Like all leftists, you assume intellectual superiority over those who disagree with you. My point, which you missed by a mile, is that the Democrats are being hoist on their own petard. You guys did focus groups on quid pro quo and, I assume those were Democrat focus groups and independent focus groups, and quid prop quo flunked as a bumper sticker.
The only hope that you lefties have next year is to try to convince the LIVs among independents that Orange Man Bad.
Your hysterical female law professor just made that a lot harder by being such a bitch.
Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan ruptured eardrums when she bellowed out her conclusion that in Trump’s dealing with Ukraine, the president had attempted to “strong-arm a foreign leader” and that his conduct was “a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power.”
She blew your cover. Howard. You lefties are all crazy with TDS.
You can name her Pam Karlan, but you can't make her George Carlin.
Obviously the typical hatred of lawyers needs to now be expanded to include most law professors.
And it was not a well-crafted joke even out of this context. It was lame by itself, but in this situation, well, like I said, it was just ugly.
You can call her a "law professor", but you can't make her smart.
Who vetted these people? Was it a person or a group?
Whoever it was, they have terrible instincts.
Nadler has such an amazing tin ear that Nancy took this thing away from him once. The trouble is that the Constitution puts impeachment in the Judiciary committee and he is it. Lewandowski showed him to be such an idiot but Nancy is the one who will take the blame.
The most appalling thing is that the Democrats allegedly gave Schiff a"standing ovation" at a caucus meeting after the hearing.
This needed repeating. The democrat party and these type of "law professors" are destroying this country. It is a shame that our children will be saddled with the destruction these people will bring.
"Blogger Skylark said...
Five years ago, I believed in American democracy, and even the press, even though I knew they were seriously flawed. I thought the Clintons were an aberration and that the press was just biased, but still you could find something approximating the truth there. Now I understand what Hillary was saying when she blasted Vince Foster in that meeting a week before he “killed himself.”
“You’re just a country lawyer and you will never understand!”
This is about taking power and ending our republic and replacing it with the rule of men rather than law, and has been since the 60s. I sometimes think of my grandpa the day the Nazis came and darkened the sky with warplanes. Still there is the role of resistance, and even the German socialists were eventually driven out.
12/5/19, 6:19 AM"
The link to the NY Post story.
Can you imagine someone like Kaplan adjudicating a case against you if she knew you were a Trump voter? And these people regularly comment about the judicial temperament of others.
What I learned yesterday is that Democrats think naming your child Barron or King is equivalent to giving them a title of nobility
I know.
What are we going to do about Queen Latifah? Shouldn't there be some sort of an Inquisition?
"I took a shot at her for being *insufficiently* feminist: She assumed the father named the baby."
Nobody, feminist or not, assumes the father names the baby. The kid's last name is Trump, so she used him to blast Donald.
The left are the Oberlin College Collective.
You're guilty, because we say so, and we will destroy you.
thanks -MK!
I look forward to a long and thorough trial in the Senate -- one which agonizes the Democrats and their remaining supporters.
Pam Karlan is Meredith Raimondo
The outrage is fake, but her nastiness is real.
Is there anyone with more monarch-like activity in the US government than Adam Schiff right now?
Exactly. Trump is what used to be called a "Land Barron". As for why his son was called Barron, you can blame Mrs. Trump for that. I can't think of single kid who got their first name over the wishes of the Mother. Mostly, men only get their name accepted as sort of payback for going along one or two times before.
As for the Law Profs. The Left/Dems got what they wanted, namely the right headlines:
"Constitutional Law profs say Trump should be impeached" - that's all they wanted. The details don't matter.
" Blogger Greg said...
The republicans should draw up articles of impeachment for each of the lead candidates in the primary, Joe for his quid pro with Ukraine, Liz for her fake Indian nonsense, etc
Publish all this now and state if any democrat is elected president they will impeach the day after inauguration.
12/5/19, 7:56 AM"
No they should not. But they SHOULD ACTUALLY impeach the next democrat president. Create impeachment star chambers, secret meetings, leak it out to the press and criminalize anyone who tries to defend them.
They should do it even though ( this professor ) and the democrat propaganda media will blazon how evil it is across the fruited plain.
Let's suit up and get it on.
So, Karlan is a trans/homosexual activist. Her liberal empathetic performance may have been motivated by cognitive dissonance to justify political congruence ("=") or selective exclusion, and the progressive effort of trans/homosexuals to force a separate and equal status for others in the transgender spectrum ("Rainbow"). But why the acutely phobic attack on Trump, who has been, at minimum, tolerant of the transgender spectrum and the closely associated trans-socialites. Oh, well, it is Chamber, with its Twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, liberal ideology, and State.
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.
Seriously, what was the purpose of the show? To sell impeachment. Did they sell it? Nope.
You would expect eminent professors to give a sober reasoned analysis of the legal and constitutional issues using their tremendous skills for conveying knowledge and understanding. Instead we got angry liberals yelling at us. We get that on MSNBC 24/7.
It was a fail. They didn't move the needle.
Nobody who watched this came away thinking, "Oh. I hadn't thought of that. Now I see." Shouldn't that be what happens when teachers of this caliber give a lecture?
The whole contrivance was to present an appeal to authority argument in the first place. Turley was the only one of the four who adopted a calm and reasonable demeanor. The other three experts came across as emotionally and politically motivated just like the rest of us. So much for the triumph expertise.
Howard,
I strongly suspect that you received a failing grade in Troll School. The childish insults and incoherent statements are a tell.
Yesterday's testimonies represent what happens when one political party is motivated primarily by hate. Surprise surprise, it's not pretty.
Thanks to AllenS for reminding me that I hadn’t had my daily dose of ace.mu.nu. From that blog, discussing Prof. Karlen:
“But the rabid, nearly foaming at the mouth uncontrolled rage was something else entirely. It was Melissa Click, Triggly Puff and James Hodgkinson all rolled into one repulsive turducken of pure hatred. That is the Left: devoid of any facts, and perpetually angry at people for realizing it.”
Pretty good summation.
Democrats are not liberals. The modern democrat leadership are fascistic totalitarian dictators.
You people in academia need to stop promoting and encouraging people like Karlan, becuase they are ruining your reputation and everything you worked for, not to mention the country.
The professors, using their names and credentials, were trying to build a high speed railroad to railroad Trump on trumped-up charges.
Would black voters who believe laws are twisted to railroad them empathize more with Trump?
The person the bitchy professor should make fun of is Trump's father who changed his name to a trump-up name to, maybe, trump his adversaries in a card game. -- A joke as inane as the prof's, yes?
Bob Boyd
The only one who could have moved a needle was Turley. Did he? Maybe. If I were undecided about this impeachment and saw Turley I would be impressed. How many such people are there? Quite a few I think, the impeachment has just been noise to most people.
Well, Karlan would move my needle too, but not the way she hoped. The contrast between her bilious angry cries to get it done and Turley's plea for calm is telling.
The most appalling thing is that the Democrats allegedly gave Schiff a"standing ovation" at a caucus meeting after the hearing.
So they think he did a good job? They really are as clueless and ignorant of reality as we all suspect.
I sometimes think it's dangerous to just assume that these politicians are simply stupid. But it's hard to imagine that they're that clever when they're constantly behaving in stupid ways.
Traditonally guys like Schiff and Nadler can afford to be a little dumb for a number of reasons, the foremost being that they're very safe in their respective districts. As long as they don't do or say something that deviates too far from the general progressive agenda their constituents will dutifully vote them back in regardless. They only really need to listen to their biggest donors. They don't have to care too much about what some random homemaker in Florida or Pennsylvania or any other swing state thinks about what they do. That combined with the fact that they're generally psychologically buoyed by their fellow (D) housemembers, their staff, and almost the entire mainstream media, it's a wonder that they ever have to think for themselves at all.
And I imagine they're able to dismiss the complaints and concerns of those annoying (R) housemembers as just a dull noise, like the buzzing of flies. They're able to convince themselves that they're brilliant and well loved.
Wouldn't have made any difference, rcocean. All that would have happened in that instance is Nancy would have doubled down on the "Democrats are doing their jobs and Republicans refuse to", and they'd have continued with this jackassery regardless.
Big Mike
Yes, watching her I thought of Melissa Click too. Which is apt since she seemed to be saying we need a little muscle over here.
Progs experts are always complaining that the stupid American people won't listen to them even after they have unrolled their lengthy credentials and waved them emphatically.
Well...try pulling your expert heads out of your expert asses for a minute. A little fresh air won't kill you.
The Democrat witnesses consistently conflated things Trump did before being president with things he did as president. The joke about Russia and the emails was one,bestowing the name Barron was another.
bagoh20 is 100% on point in these comments.
"The only one who could have moved a needle was Turley."
But the Dems brought three experts, and the Republicans only brought one. Three against one, majority rules -- that's how democracy works!
https://warroom.org/2019/12/04/pamela-karlan-raged-against-white-people/
"I suspect Melania’s anger is very real,"
Oh yeah. She is a fierce, fierce Mama-bear when it comes to protecting her son and that's been blazingly obvious to me every time the issue comes up. I don't get the feeling that she's super-protective of her husband.
Now people should realize yesterday was not about changing anyone's minds, or getting the public on board.
Before the morning shows could cover yesterday's hearing, before people on the west coast got out of bed this morning, Pelosi announced they are impeaching the President of the United States.
Trump just now: ‘If you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast...’
He’s practically begging them to go full retard.
I was glad to see three other commenters before me remembered Barron Hilton, who was born in 2006. Seems like a reasonable name for a big developer of residential towers and hotels and resorts to give a son, certainly more of a connection to the Hiltons than the Windsors or Bourbons.
Kaufman is a doofus for not doing due diligence on the background of the name "Barron." Typical academic gone sour after years in the bubble with no contact with the "real world" and no recognition that it matters to stay grounded. My guess is she thought it was just too clever to not use and her thought process stopped there.
And unless demonstrated otherwise, I assume Committee majority staff vetted the remarks of their three witnesses, so shame on the lot of 'em.
btw, what kind of name is "Malia"? Is that like "malice"? Anybody idiot play this game, even me.
Sorry, Barron TRUMP was born in 2006. Obviously not Barron Hilton.
twitter:
"Pelosi is going for Articles of #Impeachment after only one day of hearings in the Judiciary Committee -- which went very badly for Democrats, and which involved no fact witnesses. The committee has not even reviewed Schiff's Intelligence Committee report yet. What a total farce. "
RigelDog: "Oh yeah. She is a fierce, fierce Mama-bear when it comes to protecting her son and that's been blazingly obvious to me every time the issue comes up. I don't get the feeling that she's super-protective of her husband."
That's because in Melania's experience, DJT IS the biggest bear in the forest.
Everybody is focusing on the response. But what about the question: The moment I heard it I knew that the answer was going to be contrive. The question was difficult to understand. The words used, not a moment of hesitation. The answer? flawless, she took no time to form it. Shame on all of them.
"Would black voters who believe laws are twisted to railroad them empathize more with Trump?"
I've been thinking that lately, as polls come out showing Trump with 30% favorability among black voters. Perhaps that is related to their perceptions about the system being stacked against them. Trump is clearly the victim of continuous false accusations and manipulated evidence by government authorities. Maybe black people can empathize. (Not that I agree with the typical BLM criticisms of police officers.)
Howard said...
You guys should be ecstatic over Nancy's Folly.
12/5/19, 8:24 AM
And the Allies should have been ecstatic about the Nazis prioritizing the Final Solution's logistics, e.g. train timetables for transport to the camps, over military logistics, e.g. trains to the Eastern Front. Is that how your mind works?
Watching the degeneration of our politics can hardly be agreeable to anyone with the national interest at heart. The ones with the blood-blinded machtgelust is you people. You'd be fapping over this if it were working out for you.
I haven't been following this, but as I was passing through the TV room and before I could change the channel, Pelosi was saying:
"We had him on obstruction, but we didn't have what he was obstructing."
Or words to that effect.
I thought, "WTF, we knew he was guilty, but we didn't know of what."
Althouse, how did this topic not get your “civility bullshit” tag?
It seems to me that this is as pure an example of “civility bullshit” as there is. And you have not been shy about deploying that tag in the past.
I expect that because this was an occasion when “civility bullshit” would work against Trumpdom, it didn’t occur to you that it might be applicable.
narciso said...link
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.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she has instructed top Democrats to proceed with drawing up articles of impeachment against President Trump.
In televised remarks Thursday morning, Mrs. Pelosi said Mr. Trump “abused his power for his own personal political benefit” and that his alleged wrongdoing “strikes at the very heart of our Constitution.”
What'd he do? Order a cruise missile attack to distract the american people?
Is THAT what stuck at the very heart of our Constitution?
I mean, SERIOUSLY, WHAT'D HE DO? i keep waiting for them to tell us, and they keep acting like we already know
Noted Attacker of Children and Racist Poster LLR Chuck: "I expect that because this was an occasion when “civility bullshit” would work against Trumpdom, it didn’t occur to you that it might be applicable."
LOLOLOLOL
Who could have guessed that our very own attacker of Barron Trump would rush to the defense of the radical marxist Law Professor who also attacked Barron in her rush to attack Trump?
I mean, besides every single living person everywhere...
Way to go LLR Chuck! I just knew you couldn't resist!
The only things missing for you was an opportunity to attack another very distinguished black Trump admin official and your other favorite target: conservative republican legislators with distinguished military records.
Good old LLR Chuck. So very very very consistent and dependable. The Soros/Omidyar/Hoffman crew must be very pleased indeed.
Blogger Ralph L said...
The Barron family owned the WSJ until a few years ago.
Wrong. It was the Bancroft family.
Its too easy drago, why go there.
Howard said...
“You guys should be ecstatic over Nancy's Folly.”
Depends on which you doesn’t it? I think it’s bad for the country to see one party and one branch abuse its power so openly and rancorously. Nor is it good to look so like a banana republic before the world. Ratcheting up is a bad thing. So I am not ecstatic.
Birkel and Michael K I grant you probably are. So is Chuck I expect for different reasons, rounding out the Tiresome Trio.
Chuck, as always, dumb as a post.
She probably just forgot to attach the tag, but, of course, you just ignored the "fake outrage" part, didn't you?
Ken B: "Depends on which you doesn’t it? I think it’s bad for the country to see one party and one branch abuse its power so openly and rancorously. Nor is it good to look so like a banana republic before the world. Ratcheting up is a bad thing. So I am not ecstatic."
Along these lines, just picture Putin and his staff sitting around the Kremlin right now and thinking, gee, it wouldn't take much disinformation coming from us to keep this little charade going and going and going until all of America's institutions collapse, thanks to the willingness of the dems to dress up anything at all as a constitutional crisis.
But then, the dems/left always did have real soft spot for Soviet tactics and needs.
If there is one thing our FakeCon LLR Chuck cannot stand, it's calling out the misdeeds of his beloved radical marxist law professors who are working hand in glove with the Lawfare/Soros/Dem/DeepState types who want to deliver the permanent fundamental restructuring of the US into a socialist paradise.
LLR Chuck will always be the quickest to rise in defense of his leftist brethren.
Pamala Karlan is a deeply unhappy person. Her world view has locked her into her situation. She lives in a world where she "knows" white men are the cause of everything bad and evil and yet she is forced to live with these demonic creatures who surround her at every turn.
The only place where her anger may fade, at least for a short time, is when she is the company of other women who share her beliefs. Unable to think philosophically, she is doomed. What a pathetic life.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा