December 12, 2019

"Only"! — "Dem leaders see only handful of defections on impeachment."

The news isn't "only a handful" — it's that there are defections.

The story is at Politico.
Democratic leaders are privately expecting no more than a half-dozen defections on next week’s vote to impeach President Donald Trump, even as many of their most endangered lawmakers remain publicly mum on their decision....
The same story at WaPo is "House Democrats brace for some defections among moderates on impeachment of Trump."
Lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will lose more than the two Democrats who opposed the impeachment inquiry rules package in late September, according to multiple officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. Two senior Democratic aides said the total could be as many as a half-dozen, while a third said the number could be higher.
So... Politico says "no more than a half-dozen" and WaPo has 2 sources who say that and one who says "could be higher."
Several moderates have privately pined for other options, including a censure vote they know they’re unlikely to get. Others have even considered what one moderate called “splitting the baby”: backing one article of impeachment but not the other to try to show independence from the party.
Ugh! Splitting the baby. The Solomon story isn't about splitting something so the halves can be kept. It's about threatening to do something that triggers the disputants to reveal something about themselves, creating new evidence that allows the judge to decide. The woman who objects to splitting the baby is identified as the mother and she gets the whole, living baby.

I wrote a law review article that old Bible story, questioning whether that woman really was the mother and why this story was elevated over all the other stories about what a great judge Solomon was. Excerpt (for your edification, not because it has anything to do with the "moderate"'s trite and inaccurate use of the idiom):

Consider how you would feel if someone whose child had died began asserting that your child was hers, and then incredibly, her assertion led the authorities to start to kill your child as a method of dispute resolution. It would seem as if the world had gone mad. If at that point you blurted out, “Then go ahead, kill the child,” what would that say about you? Would it really mean the child was not biologically yours?

And what if we change the question and say that the issue is not who the biological mother is but who will make the better custodian for the child?
This is, of course, the traditional evidence class resolution of the problem. Does everything really suddenly become clear? Does the fact that you might blurt out “kill the child” in a situation of extreme distress and coercion really mean that you would not be a good parent, a good custodian for the child? Maybe it means that you are fierce and passionate and would protect your child and love your child more than someone who backed down, someone who acquiesced. The Other would not give in to the power of a king who held a sword directly over the child. Why not infer that she would bravely and defiantly defend against any lesser marauder?

In the traditional evidence course interpretation, Solomon’s violence and impatience and radical disregard for due process recede into the background. We are supposed to stand in awe of Solomon for anticipating the modern “best interest of the child” standard. Solomon did not have to determine who the biological mother was – that is not the “fact of consequence,” as professors like to say, using Federal Rules of Evidence language. He determined who should have custody, and of course, we say a woman who would have her baby cut in two if she could not get her selfish way is a worse custodian than the woman who gives up her own interests for the sake of the child. Of course.

But wait. If we revile the Other, how can we admire Solomon? Cutting the baby in two was his idea: He wielded the sword. All the Other did was to refuse to yield to his power. We expect witnesses to testify when a criminal defendant’s cronies threaten to kill one of their children, and we cite them for contempt if they don't. We canonize civil rights workers who persisted in spite of the Klan. Why do we not admire the Other for sticking to her claim in spite of the threat of violence? Why do we not revile the king as we would revile the Klansmen and gangsters who use violence?

Ah, you may say, but the beauty of the Solomon story is that Solomon never intended to cut the baby in two. Solomon was not a gangster or a Klansman. He was just bluffing, using a brilliant method to extract revealing statements from the two women. But let’s consider first whether he was just bluffing and then whether his bluffing should convert our contempt to admiration....
Read the whole thing. The Biblical text is at the link.

161 comments:

rhhardin said...

Fowler [op cit] has Solomon upholding the pillars of the law as a spoilt metaphor.

lgv said...

Others have even considered what one moderate called “splitting the baby”

The "one moderate" clearly doesn't know anything about the scripture that created the saying.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

They know exactly what the vote will be. That’s the way pseudo-events work. The political calculations have been made. The Democrat Party does not allow you to wander off the reservation for this kind of dumbshow.

rhhardin said...

Samson. Misremembered.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Ugh! Splitting the baby. The Solomon story isn't about splitting something so the halves can be kept. It's about threatening to do something that triggers the disputants to reveal something about themselves, creating new evidence that allows the judge to decide. The woman who objects to splitting the baby is identified as the mother and she gets the whole, living baby.

May not be a bad strategy in this case. It might force Pelosi to reveal that she's actually Gozer the Gozarian!

Quayle said...

It is all expectation setting. The number is what the number is, or will be. Any talking about this now is an attempt to frame the result.

rhhardin said...

You get two chances at gender identification with a split baby.

Michael K said...

There are 31 at risk Democrats so the defectors might be 15 or so and still allow Nancy to move on to the Senate where it looks like there will be a perfunctory hearing. Too many bodies buried to go digging.

Iman said...

She’s eating their lunch!

Wince said...

Okay, so if we split the baby, who gets the bathwater?

rhhardin said...

"The Bridge" has a split body to set it off. A body discovered at the national line between Sweden and Denmark, the body itself divided into some woman's torso and some other woman's legs, one woman Swedish and the other Danish, requiring a joint investigation between Sweden and Denmark. The Swedish detective is wildly unempathetic about everything, played against a wise old and bemused Danish detective.

Not a spoiler, it's in the teaser.

Make it a baby and it's biblical.

I assume there's a bridge between Sweden and Denmark, I haven't been keeping up.

Tommy Duncan said...

Is this a trial balloon?

Or a warning to the reluctant?

Or previewing an explanation for a failed vote?

mockturtle said...

The woman who objects to splitting the baby is identified as the mother and she gets the whole, living baby..

She didn't just object but offered to relinquish her baby to her rival.

samanthasmom said...

The Democrats have caucused. They've decided how many defections they can handle and still look strong. The congresscritters in swing districts have presented their cases about why they should be allowed to defect to save their seat. Nancy Pelosi has extracted the pounds of flesh she needs to make something else happen in the future and has granted clemency to the number of people whose votes she can afford to lose. The rest will vote for impeachment and hope for the best or cross Nancy and pay a steep price. It's the way it's done.

rcocean said...

King Solomon, oh that radical disregard for due process! I thought the whole point was to show how Smart the king was. Besides, any Mother who willing to have her baby cut in half, didn't deserve it. This was used in a Get Smart episode where the "True Maxwell Smart" refuses to shoot 99 despite a direct order.

Sebastian said...

"The woman who objects to splitting the baby is identified as the mother and she gets the whole, living baby"

Same here. Dem true believers, who are the mothers of this monstrosity, object to splitting and get the whole baby.

Bob Boyd said...

Our country is the baby.

Fernandistein said...

Ugh! Splitting the baby. The Solomon story isn't about splitting something so the halves can be kept.

Despite the original story, that phrase might be about keeping the 'halves' (parts):

"The expressions "splitting the baby" or "cutting the baby in half" can be used to describe a split award (usually accompanied by a split costs award) in the most for a heavy-handed, costs-insensitive suit (such as entailing multiple hearings and disproportionate spending on both sides) for a relatively simple compromise."

rcocean said...

BTW, of course Pelosi will allow some "Moderates" to vote against Impeachment. the whole point is to secure enough votes, and then let the excess "Moderates" save their seats by voting against. Their votes will have no effect, and aren't needed.

SDaly said...

Yes, there is a bridge between Sweden and Denmark. Despite the fact that there are supposed to be open borders between the countries, Denmark has re-instituted border checks on the bridge because the havoc wrecking the Swedish town of Malmo, on Sweden's side of the bridge, is spilling into Denmark.

bagoh20 said...

It's really a shame that the rightfully rare use of impeachment will be used against a Presidency that might well turn out to be one of the best of all time for the American people, especially the working class and minorities. The first President to actually reverse some of the idiocy that has changed this nation for the worse. I'm not sure who will write this history, but a fair telling would show the Democrats in a terrible historical light. Then again, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK have gotten a pretty good whitewash all along. For them, no bad deed goes unrewarded.

MikeR said...

A friend's comment: The only thing stupider than the Other Woman was the onlookers who thought that this proved Solomon's wisdom.

rehajm said...

Is this a trial balloon?

Or a warning to the reluctant?

Or previewing an explanation for a failed vote?


...while faint prayers for the deus ex machina waft in the background...

rehajm said...

The woman who objects to splitting the baby is identified as the mother and she gets the whole, living baby

Adoption by Dutch auction.

Ken B said...

What if Solomon suspects the fraudster is motivated by malice, and was not sharp enough to see through the trick? Vicious and dumb like Kamala Harris. Then Solomon confirms what he suspected.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

No defections. obey!

AllenS said...

“splitting the baby” is a term that Planned Parenthood uses when someone only wants to buy certain parts of the baby.

henry said...

"defectors" sounds like escapees from the USSR.

Bay Area Guy said...

Obstruction of Congress!

Lucien said...

Neither of the two harlots in the biblical story is in favor of having the baby split. After all the baby stealer starts off the story with her own, whole, dead baby. It's the one who hits the buzzer first (as it were) by saying she'd rather see the other woman have the baby than to actually halve the baby. That proves nothing about who the real mother was, or how wise Solomon was.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I would vote yes on Article I and no on Article II.

CJinPA said...

Bad link for Politico. Try this.

Surprised both outlets use the word "moderates" to describe wavering Dems. In my conspiratorial mind, they only use that for liberal Republicans they favor, not conservative-leaning Dems they loathe. Thought it would be "conservative Democrats." Guess I have to adjust assumptions.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

CNN and Joke MSNBC will insist the Impeachment is 'Bi-partisan!"

Kevin said...

The moderates' fate was sealed when they voted for the inquiry.

Now they're told they have no option. They can vote to impeach or be cut off from the party and primaried from the left.

The time for courage was when it was made to appear courage wasn't required.

Pettifogger said...

I'll not try to defend the split-the-baby usage from triteness, and of course Ann is right about the biblical story underlying the usage. But the usage has devolved into something like splitting the difference. If descriptivists are to prevail over prescriptivists, then the new meaning is acceptable.

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...

"Well, it was "only" the one interruption, right Mrs. Lincoln?"

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Article II is premature.

Wince said...

I am the great defector
So I must affect an air
Of a man who’s maybe seen too much
But still just manages to care


The Great Defector

You’re the chocolate at the end of my Cornetto
I love the way your underwire bra
Always sets off that X-ray machine

Comin’ into land and
Now I love the colour of it all
Blue lights on the runway
I love the colour of it all

I am the defector
‘Cause someone stirred my soul
With that great big stick of hers
Kinda looks like an oar

The accountants have taken the movie
Yeah, they’re on set
The people from the mobile phone company
Say who gets to play and who gets to not

You’re a picture of the check out girl
Hand me a plastic bag
I got the sweats trying to open it
As it all piles up, I wish I didn’t bite my nails

Comin’ into land and
Now I love the colour of it all
Blue lights on the runway
I love the colour of it all
Getting ready to spill my guts and
I love the colour of it all
To the waitress on roller skates
I love the colour of it all
Oh the colour of it all

I am the great defector
So I must affect an air
Of a man who’s maybe seen too much
But still just manages to care

Still you’re the chocolate at the end of my Cornetto
I love the way your underwire bra
Always sets off that Xray machine

Waitress on roller skates
Waitress on roller skates (Love the colour of it all)

campy said...

"Surprised both outlets use the word "moderates" to describe wavering Dems. In my conspiratorial mind, they only use that for liberal Republicans they favor,..."

No republicans are "liberal" or even "moderate."

A few are perhaps slightly less extremist than the rest of the ultra-kooky-fringe-rightwing wackos that dominate the party.

Michael K said...

The moderates' fate was sealed when they voted for the inquiry.

They were duped into thinking it would work. A bit late now but better to try .

Drago said...

This is such a strange development.

LLR-lefty Chuck assured us these were absolutely clear irrefutable crimes that only Trump cultists could excuse away.

Given where we stand today, that would mean 99% of republican base voters, 100% of republican congresspersons, probably 100% of republican senators at least 57%-60% of independents are now to be considered Trump cultists.

You know, I'm beginning to think that LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved far left democrat whacko Resistance Central Lawfare are not really representative of where republicans and independents ought to be.

Maybe its just me.

Kevin said...

The media needs to get the word out it might be up to half a dozen defections, so when it's only 5 it will be seen as a strong show of support.

Qwinn said...

Well, we know how Democrats think a custody dispute should be settled.

Is one of the parties demanding custody fully controlled by a genocidal communist dictator?

Did the real mother literally die getting her kid away from that communist dictator?

Well, then the answer is obvious: send in a SWAT team and point a rifle at the kid's head and ship the baby back to the dictator. With apologies for his inconvenience.

Solomon had nothing on the wisdom of Janet Reno.

Michael said...

"Half a dozen" is a small snowball - but it's rolling downhill.

urpower said...

Why does Althouse think the prostitutes were low figures? Prostitution as a human practice was perfectly legal in Jewish law, and sex was extolled as creating a link to divinity. A Christian set of assumptions is not in evidence!
https://medium.com/@belover/prostitutes-in-the-bible-7d6404f0efe8

born01930 said...

I think the significance Althouse misses is the second woman blurts out to cut the baby in half AFTER the first offered to give it up. The second was spiteful and showed little care for the childs well being. It seems she was acting more out hate for the first woman.

Charlie Eklund said...

@rhhardin,

FX did a 2 season adaptation of The Bridge that ran in the 2013 and 2014 seasons starring Diane Kruger as the American cop, who has Aspergers rather than blindness in this adaptation, and Demián Bichir as the Mexican cop, trying to do his job in a corrupt department located in a corrupt nation. The series’ first season is great but it lost its way in Season 2. The first season scripts and characters are outstanding and both Kruger and Bichir are perfect tor their roles.

Joe Bob says check it out.

gerry said...

Ugh! Splitting the baby.

Why would anyone who supports abortion as a "right" say "Ugh!" about baby-splitting?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I am eagerly awaiting Althouse’s unfounded inferences defense to Article I. She keeps dropping hints that she has one but I’m not so sure she does.

The argument that Trump shouldn’t be impeached because impeachment is too divisive, that sounds in Solomon, doesn’t it? But it’s only divisive if the impeachment is made divisive by the party against impeachment. The Republicans want a heckler’s veto.

The House votes yes and then the Senate votes no, that’s how this ends, right?

tim in vermont said...

"I think the significance Althouse misses is the second woman blurts out to cut the baby in half AFTER the first offered to give it up. The second was spiteful and showed little care for the childs well being. It seems she was acting more out hate for the first woman.”

So we have a Hans Solo/ Greedo situation. Sweet.

MikeR said...

'The news isn't "only a handful" — it's that there are defections.' Not to me. I would have assumed that there would be "defections". Assuming that the Democrats are sincere, of course there would be defections. All Democrats but two voted for the inquiry; now that the inquiry has taken place, presumably some more would not have been convinced by it, plus the original two. That would be the logical thing to happen if the Democrats are sincere.

Of course, if they're just a bunch of political hacks who only tell the truth when it accidentally serves them, I would expect that the "defections" will all be Democrats from swing districts, and Nancy Pelosi will be playing a balancing act deciding who will vote which way. I remember that same act by Obamacare in 2009, and a similar balancing act during the Kavanaugh hearings. And during every other vote in between, tho I didn't hear about it.

Assuming that the Democrats are sincere, there would of course right now be some doubt whether there are enough votes for impeachment. Why not? But there is no such doubt; it is all up to Nancy Pelosi and how she chooses to use her Democrats.

gspencer said...

Nan to the 31, "Arhh, me Maties, ye be walking the plank"

tim in vermont said...

They made a mistake in Article One by introducing a factual basis that is highly disputable, meaning that there will have to be a trial.

It looks like Lindey Graham who was an impeachment manager during the Clinton impeachment for the House, which is when he first came to my notice, has an interest in keeping a lid on the Ukraine corruption, as does Romney. So this might be enough to prevent both sides ever being heard, at least in the Senate.

Bay Area Guy said...

The House votes yes and then the Senate votes no, that’s how this ends, right?

Au contraire. It ends when swing-state Dems who vote Yes, lose their seats in 2020, and Pelosi loses Dem control of the House, and Trump gets reelected -- and then the next Dem Prez with a GOP House gets impeached on flimsy, pre-textual grounds.

That's how it ends.

Bay Area Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
M Jordan said...

I always enjoyed Huck Finn’s surrogate father Jim’s analysis of the Solomon story. He was not impressed with Solomon’s wisdom. Why wouldn’t Solomon just ask around who the real mother was. Someone would know.

This was Twain’s way of siding with the common folk — a black man in this case — over the elite.

CWJ said...

"Article II is premature."

So was proposing impeachment prior to Trump taking office, and threatening impeachment should he be reelected.

CWJ said...

"Article II is premature."

So was proposing impeachment prior to Trump taking office, and threatening impeachment should he be reelected.

MikeR said...

@gspencer: 'Nan to the 31, "Arhh, me Maties, ye be walking the plank"' Why would they obey her? Serious question. They're finished either way, either in the general or in the primary.

gilbar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CJinPA said...

No republicans are "liberal" or even "moderate."

Right-wing firebrands like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski et al are giddy that they are flying beneath your radar as they plot to turn the nation into a fascist hell hole.

Bay Area Guy said...

Professor Dershowitz for the win:

Money Quotes:

House Democrats have announced the grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on which they plan to seek the impeachment of President Trump. Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”



My favorite law Professors:

1. Althouse
2. Dershowitz
3. Turley

Fire all the rest!


gilbar said...

they're not saying that they won't get their hair mussed!
But they Do say, no more than a half-dozen defections Top! Uh, depending on the breaks

MikeR said...

@urpower "Prostitution as a human practice was perfectly legal in Jewish law" Doubt it? Don't think your reference brings any evidence for that. See also Deuteronomy 23:18.

Qwinn said...

"and then the next Dem Prez with a GOP House gets impeached on flimsy, pre-textual grounds."

Why wait for the next? If we get the House back in 2020, I say let's retroactively impeach the Previous Occupant like we should have when he was in. Nothing flimsy or pre-textual about the grounds there. Hell, I can list 10 articles of impeachment off the top of my head any ONE of which is a dozen times worse than what the current impeachment alleges even if it were true, which it isn't.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narayanan said...

M Jordan said... I always enjoyed Huck Finn’s surrogate father Jim’s analysis of the Solomon story. He was not impressed with Solomon’s wisdom. Why wouldn’t Solomon just ask around who the real mother was. Someone would know.
___________&&&&&&&&&&&---------

S0l0m0n's wisd0m and feminist championship ast0unds me - he did not question responsible spl00ge-st00ge

Nonapod said...

I've heard that to reach 216 requires a certain amount of Dems in theoretically vulnerable districts (areas that Trump won in 2016). And I've been assured that it'll definitely pass. So no matter what there's going to be members who will be rolling the dice, betting that there's just enough voters who voted for Trump in 2016, but now believe he should be impeached. I'd be curious to understand such a group of hypothetical voters, assuming they exist in the numbers that these Dems are betting on.

gilbar said...

henry said... "defectors" sounds like escapees from the USSR.

That's what i thought TOO! Maybe they should have said:
No more than a half dozen rats have left the ship

Hagar said...

The two articles presented are so incredibly light they amount to impeaching Trump for having the temerity to exist.
If this should be successful, it will necessitate a new Constitutional Convention to adopt a new Constitution providing for a parliamentary government making the leader of the majority party in the House the Chief Executive of the administration.
I don't think America is ready for that - yet.

Drago said...

Left Bank of the Charlesj: "I am eagerly awaiting Althouse’s unfounded inferences defense to Article I. She keeps dropping hints that she has one but I’m not so sure she does."

Perhaps you should be taking a moment to explain why the hilariously fake bribery charges YOU claimed were a slam dunk are no where to be found in the democrat hoax articles of impeachment.

I mean, don't leave us in suspense!

I'm Full of Soup said...

There are almost no moderate Dems anymore.

Caligula said...

I'm inclined to think "splitting the baby" may have been the strategy all along, just because the "obstruction" count/charge is so very weak.

It isn't, after all, obstruction for a President to refuse to respond to a Congressional subpoena; after all, many (most?) Presidents have done just that (hello, former Pres. Clinton? FDR? How many haven't??) while awaiting a judicial or negotiated resolution.

The "abuse of power" charge may be weak as well, as it requires assuming the worst possible motives to Pres. Trump in order to move forward with it, but, at least there is something (no matter how weak) there.

Whereas when it comes to "obstruction" there is just nothing, as long-standing precedent gives U.S. Presidents the right to claim executive privilege (at least while awaiting a negotiated resolution or judicial decision) when presented with Congressional demands for information.

That, and in this case the House appears to have attempted to launch a giant fishing expedition by demanding anything and everything regarding Trump. How can this obstruction charge be considered anything other than a throwaway?

Achilles said...

Drago said...

Given where we stand today, that would mean 99% of republican base voters, 100% of republican congresspersons, probably 100% of republican senators at least 57%-60% of independents are now to be considered Trump cultists.

You use the word "probably" in front of republican senators.

At least 3 of them are right there with Chuck. Burr is particularly traitorous. We all know about what a piece of shit Mitt Romney is. Murkowski is the definition of deep state tool.

Francisco D said...

No one seems to be factoring in the significant advantage Democrats have in the 2020 Senate elections. They are not only defending far fewer seats, but Republicans like Cory Gardner and Martha McSally are at risk.

If the House Democrats impeach Trump, the Senate Republicans need to have a real trial or they will lose the Senate in 2020.

I wonder if Mitch and Lindsay are considering this issue and may be playing rope-a-dope.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gilbar said...

article One: Abuse of Power ie Trump got Elected
article Two: Contempt of of Congree ie Trump REFUSED to resign!

Drago said...

Achilles: "At least 3 of them are right there with Chuck. Burr is particularly traitorous."

Correct. I am however factoring in what I saw yesterday on the part of the republican senators. Lee and Sasse in particular.

Even though Mitt will never run for reelection (he has no shot after being exposed), I dont think he will want to have too much distance between himself and Lee.

Plus, the hoax charges against Trump are literally vaporware and even Sasse will speak out strongly against them.

traditionalguy said...

Maybe the Dems are just cheap. They don't want to spend their own money to keep the best assassins coming. It could they be afraid of FISA working both ways. And Bull Durham and Bill Barr just asked SCOTUS to renew the Federal Death Penalty.

n.n said...

The analogy to Solomon's story is the contemporary rite of selective-child and one-child, where women aid and abet ("normalize") the torture, dismemberment, and killing of another woman's child under a Twilight faith, quasi-religion ("ethics"), and liberal ideology for social progress, economic fortune, taxable revenue, and democratic leverage. Also clinical cannibalism for medical progress.

n.n said...

No republicans are "liberal" or even "moderate."
... a fascist hell hole.


Republicans are generally libertarian (i.e. right) and conservative (i.e. center), but there are some left-of center and far-left who align with the communist-socialist-fascist axis.

Dave said...

Cross posting my comment from ace:

I apologize for jumping in here, but I think the best outcome for Democrats at this point is for the impeachment vote to fail if they think they can't actually remove Trump from office. This latter is what they want to do, but I am very skeptical the senate would convict. I really, really hope I am wrong on that.

So assuming the senate will not convict, and also assuming the Democrats don't want a Senate trial, the best option is for impeachment to fail.

It would need to fail by a few votes cast by representatives in the districts Trump carried. I disagree that those representatives would be vulnerable by virtue of a loss of far left votes. First, I don't think in those districts that is a big concern, and second, to even win those districts they had to carry them with centrist Trump leaning independents.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

I don't know if anyone's still listening or not, but Hank Johnson is going to great lengths to defend the honor of Hunter Biden.

This is getting disgusting!

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The senate should treat the articles like garbage and assume what Nancy Poll tested.

BRIBERY!

Subpoena all the rats. Schitt, whistleblower, Hillary foundation, Biden family slush fund, Ukrainians and Russians

narciso said...


What really matters as opposed ti what doesnt


https://www.kxlh.com/news/national/pensacola-shooting-suspects-apparent-social-media-accounts-include-radical-sentiments

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

"I don't know if anyone's still listening or not, but Hank Johnson is going to great lengths to defend the honor of Hunter Biden."

Hank wants to be Biden's VP. He's the only one out there that makes Joe look smart by comparison.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Hill: "Vulnerable Democrats Feel Heat Ahead of Impeachment Vote"

For now, many of the 31 Democrats representing districts that Trump carried in the 2016 election are publicly undecided on the articles of impeachment, saying they won’t take a formal position until they can study the precise language of the articles slated for a Judiciary Committee markup this week.

“I just want to see exactly what I need to vote on,” freshman Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who unseated a Republican last year, told The Hill.

Fellow New Jersey Democrat Rep. Josh Gottheimer added, “I need to see all the facts. I’m not going to prejudge anything until we get every bit of information in, and then we’ll make a decision.”

Even some of the freshman Democrats with national security backgrounds who wrote a joint op-ed in The Washington Post in September endorsing an impeachment inquiry are cagey about if they’ll vote for the articles.

traditionalguy said...

Hank Johnson is a case study in what you get from a Voting Rights Act safe District. He is an insider Joke. But there is the reassurance that anyone that stupid cannot be a threat.

Bay Area Guy said...

The general view is that Nancy-Pants won't hold the "vote," unless she has the votes. I buy this. So, if she does hold the vote next week, that means she has already strong-armed enough wavering Dems to get it passed (just like with Obamacare).

But let's not make it easy for her!

Yancey Ward said...

Bay Area Guy,

Yes, I feel the same way- there will only be a vote if Pelosi has the votes to pass it- to bring it to a vote and lose would be humiliating.

The thing to look for is, if over the weekend, you see major calls from the left for censure- then, and only then, will I start assuming that Pelosi doesn't have the votes.

Rosalyn C. said...

"Does the fact that you might blurt out “kill the child” in a situation of extreme distress and coercion really mean that you would not be a good parent, a good custodian for the child? Maybe it means that you are fierce and passionate and would protect your child and love your child more than someone who backed down, someone who acquiesced. The Other would not give in to the power of a king who held a sword directly over the child. Why not infer that she would bravely and defiantly defend against any lesser marauder?"

An interesting and different interpretation, highlights the difference between Jewish and non-Jewish thought. The Jewish thought is all about putting one's love and caring for the child above oneself and one's desires. Uncomplicated. The non-Jewish thought, not necessarily bad, is about asserting oneself and not submitting, perhaps even besting the King to see if the threat was real. Clearly the non-Jewish thought implies a belief that King Solomon was bad or unwise, even though the Torah or the "OT" tells us he was exceedingly wise and had a pure heart and pure intentions. The Jew accepts that, the non-Jew views it with suspicion.

n.n said...

No on one. Due diligence before transferring lethal weapon systems and funds to a corrupt regime is not abuse of power. No on two. Congress is not authorized to prosecute witch hunts based on rumor, innuendo, inference, and creative evidence.

Seeing Red said...

Via Lucianne: Rep. Jim Jordan on Thursday proposed an amendment to strike the first article of impeachment against President Trump, asserting that evidence supporting the article does not prove the allegations of abuse of power.“This amendment strikes article one because article one ignores the truth,” said the Ohio Republican.Jordan, who’s been a star on the GOP side throughout the impeachment sham, cited a White House memorandum documenting Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, noting that contains no evidence....

rehajm said...

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Unfortunately, Constitution says Dersh don't get a say...

Dave said...

If she doesn't hold the vote, if I'm Trump, I taunt her mercilessly over that.

Bay Area Guy said...

Article 1 is the "Seinfeld" Impeachment -- nothing happened.

Ukraine got the foreign aid (delayed about 2 months). Zelensky didn't feel pressured by Trump, didn't dig up dirt on Biden, and no law was broken.

Again, I reiterate: It's a farce. A sham. A travesty. A mockery. A Kangaroo Court. A scam. A Kabuki Theatre. A Potemkin Village. A show-trial. A ruse. A hoax.

Dave said...

To what end? What do the Democrats gain here? I'm trying to learn and understand; I am not a bad faith actor.

Drago said...

NorthOfTheOneOhOne: "I don't know if anyone's still listening or not, but Hank Johnson is going to great lengths to defend the honor of Hunter Biden."

Hank "Guam will tip over if we send more troops" Johnson is no more passionate about defending Hunter Biden than LLR-lefty Chuck is defending all democrats.

Dave said...

Unlike Pelosi-Parroting LLR Chuck.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Dave said...

To what end? What do the Democrats gain here? I'm trying to learn and understand; I am not a bad faith actor.

Well, right now it's diverting attention from Horowitz's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee.

I doubt that's the real motivation, but I'm sure they're going to keep this up until that's done.

Susan said...

Trump should formally request that the Senate call him as a witness in the Impeachment Trial.

Let the Democrats know that he is willing to face any and all questions about his "motivations".

He'd have the highest ratings in the history of ever should this happen. Even LIVs would tune in to see the spectacle.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The Senate should not punt. Give the left what they want. A trial.

Bay Area Guy said...

I can hardly wait till Hunter Biden runs for Senate in Delaware. It will be the crowning glorious, legacy moment in the "First State" as if Jeb Bush had won the Presidency -- except with more strippers and Coke and Baby Mommas and Burisma paychecks.

MayBee said...

I just heard a CNN legal analyst (not Jeffrey Toobin) talking about "so-called FISA abuses"

MayBee said...

Hahahhahaaha! And now CNN is reporting breaking news that Barr and Trumps attacks on the FBI are having a "chilling effect". CNN is such a clown show. Nobody on their daytime panel who thinks impeachment is a bad idea.

Dave said...

If I were the Dems, I would really not want a Senate trial, unless I had enough LLRs in the bag for my team.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Well Hunter does need a job and the Deep State takes good care of its own so

TJM said...

When Horndog Clintoon was impeached, it was Bi-Partisan, 31 Dems voted for the articles of impeachment. Has The New York Times or Washington Post mentioned that?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

I know they don't want a trial. of course the corrupt left do not want a trial.

But Screw em - give em a trial.

The whistleblower needs to be subpoenaed, so he can lie under oath for his master, the schitt.

narayanan said...

The Trial of Hank Rearden, from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

For a month in advance, the people who filled the courtroom had been told by the press that they would see the man who was a greedy enemy of society; but they had come to see the man who had invented Rearden Metal.

He stood up, when the judges called upon him to do so. He wore a grey suit, he had pale blue eyes and blond hair; it was not the colours that made his figure seem icily implacable, it was the fact that the suit had an expensive simplicity seldom flaunted these days, that it belonged in the sternly luxurious office of a rich corporation, that his bearing came from a civilised era and clashed with the place around him.

The crowd knew from the newspapers that he represented the evil of ruthless wealth; and - as they praised the virtue of chastity, then ran to see any movie that displayed a half-naked female on its posters - so they came to see him; evil, at least, did not have the stale hopelessness of a bromide which none believed and none dared to challenge. They looked at him without admiration - admiration was a feeling they had lost the capacity to experience, long ago; they looked with curiosity and with a dim sense of defiance against those who had told them that it was their duty to hate him.


narayanan said...

A few years ago, they would have jeered at his air of self-confident wealth. But today, there was a slate-grey sky in the windows of the courtroom, which promised the first snowstorm of a long, hard winter; the last of the country's oil was vanishing, and the coal mines were not able to keep up with the hysterical scramble for winter supplies. The crowd in the courtroom remembered that this was the case which had cost them the services of Ken Danagger. There were rumours that the output of the Danagger Coal Company had fallen perceptibly within one month; the newspapers said that it was merely a matter of readjustment while Danagger's cousin was reorganising the company he had taken over. Last week, the front pages had carried the story of a catastrophe on the site of a housing project under construction: defective steel girders had collapsed, killing four workmen; the newspapers had not mentioned, but the crowd knew, that the girders had come from Orren Boyle's Associated Steel.

They sat in the courtroom in heavy silence and they looked at the tall, grey figure, not with hope - they were losing the capacity to hope - but withan impassive neutrality spiked by a faint question mark; the question mark was placed over all the pious slogans they had heard for years.

The newspapers had snarled that the cause of the country's troubles, as this case demonstrated, was the selfish greed of rich industrialists; that it was men like Hank Rearden who were to blame for the shrinking diet, the falling temperature and the cracking roofs in the homes of the nation; that if it had not been for men who broke regulations and hampered the government's plans, prosperity would have been achieved long ago; and that a man like Hank Rearden was prompted by nothing but the profit motive. This last was stated without explanation or elaboration, as if the words "profit motive" were the self-evident brand of ultimate evil.

narayanan said...

The crowd remembered that these same newspapers, less than two years ago, had screamed that the production of Rearden Metal should be forbidden, because its producer was endangering people's lives for the sake of his greed; they remembered that the man in grey had ridden in the cab of the first engine to run over a track of his own Metal; and that he was now on trial for the greedy crime of withholding from the public a load of the Metal which it had been his greedy crime to offer in the public market.

According to the procedure established by directives, cases of this kind were not tried by a jury, but by a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources; the procedure, the directives had stated, was to be informal and democratic. The judge's bench had been removed from the old Philadelphia courtroom for this occasion, and replaced by a table on a wooden platform; it gave the room an atmosphere suggesting the kind of meeting where a presiding body puts something over on a mentally retarded membership.

One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.

narayanan said...

"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
"I have no defence."
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"What?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."


He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."

narayanan said...

"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." "Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

A group of seats at the side of the courtroom was reserved for the prominent visitors who had come from New York to witness the trial. Dagny sat motionless and her face showed nothing but a solemn attention, the attention of listening with the knowledge that the flow of his words would determine the course of her life. Eddie Willers sat beside her. James Taggart had not come. Paul Larkin sat hunched forward, his face thrust out, pointed like an animal's muzzle, sharpened by a look of fear now turning into malicious hatred. Mr. Mowen, who sat beside him, was a man of greater innocence and smaller understanding; his fear was of a simpler nature; he listened in bewildered indignation and he whispered to Larkin, "Good God, now he's done it! Now he'll convince the whole country that all businessmen are enemies of the public good!"

narayanan said...

"Are we to understand," asked the judge, "that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?"
"I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals."
"What ... do you mean?"
"I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices."
"Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?"
"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes - by refusing to buy my product."
"We are speaking of ... other methods."
"Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters - and I recognise it as such."
"Mr. Rearden, this is hardly the way to defend yourself."
"I said that I would not defend myself."
"But this is unheard of! Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?"
"I do not care to consider it."
"Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?"
"Fully."
"It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe."
"Go ahead."
"I beg your pardon?"
"Impose it."
The three judges looked at one another. Then their spokesman turned back to Rearden. "This is unprecedented," he said.
"It is completely irregular," said the second judge. "The law requires you submit to a plea in your own defence. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself upon the mercy of the court."
"I do not."
"But you have to."
"Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?"
"Yes."
"I volunteer nothing."
"But the law demands that the defendant's side be represented on the record."
"Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?"
"Well, no ... yes ... that is, to complete the form."
"I will not help you."
The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor snapped impatiently, "This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a --" He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.
"I want," said Rearden gravely, "to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it - I will not help you."
"But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself - and it is you who are rejecting it."
"I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice."
"But the law compels you to volunteer a defence!"

Dave said...

My apologies, DickinBimbos, I was not talking directly to you and meant no disrespect. If you don't want a trial, why would you vote for one, unless you were assured the vote would fail?

narayanan said...

There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.

"That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen," said Rearden gravely, "and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action."
The eldest judge leaned forward across the table and his voice became suavely derisive: "You speak as if you were fighting for some sort of principle, Mr. Rearden, but what you're actually fighting for is only your property, isn't it?"
"Yes, of course. I am fighting for my property. Do you know the kind of principle that represents?"
"You pose as a champion of freedom, but it's only the freedom to make money that you're after."
"Yes, of course. All I want is the freedom to make money. Do you know what that freedom implies?"
"Surely, Mr. Rearden, you wouldn't want your attitude to be misunderstood. You wouldn't want to give support to the widespread impression that you are a man devoid of social conscience, who feels no concern for the welfare of his fellows and works for nothing but his own profit."
"I work for nothing but my own profit. I earn it."

narayanan said...

There was a gasp, not of indignation, but of astonishment, in the crowd behind him and silence from the judges he faced. He went on calmly:
"No, I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers - with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with - voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologise for my ability - I refuse to apologise for my success - I refuse to apologise for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognise the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work - my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good - that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices - that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the right of all, and a public ofrightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation - as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"

narayanan said...

The crowd burst into applause.

Rearden whirled around, more startled than his judges. He saw face that laughed in violent excitement, and faces that pleaded for help; he saw their silent despair breaking out into the open; he saw the same anger and indignation as his own, finding release in the wild defiance of their cheering; he saw the looks of admiration and the looks of hope. There were also the face of loose-mouthed young men and maliciously unkempt females, the kind who led the booing in newsreel theatres at any appearance of a businessman of the screen; they did not attempt a counter-demonstration; they were silent.

As he looked at the crowd, people saw in his face what the threats of the judges had not been able to evoke: the first sign of emotion. It was a few moments before they heard the furious beating of a gavel upon the table and one of the judges yelling:
" -- or I shall have the courtroom cleared!"
As he turned back to the table, Rearden's eyes moved over the visitor's section. His glance paused on Dagny, a pause perceptible only to her, as if he were saying: It works. She would have appeared calm except that her eyes seemed to have become too large for her face. Eddie Willers was smiling the kind of smile that is a man's substitute for breaking into tears. Mr. Mowen looked stupefied. Paul Larkin was staring at the floor. There was no expression on Bertram Scudder's face - or on his wife, Lillian's. She sat at the end of a row, her legs crossed, a mink stole slanting from her right shoulder to her left hip; she looked at Rearden, not moving.

In the complex violence of all the things he felt, he had time to recognise a touch of regret and longing: there was a face he had hoped to see, had looked for from the start of the session, had wanted to be present more than any other face around him. But Francisco d'Anconia had not come.

narayanan said...

"Mr Rearden," said the eldest judge, smiling affably, reproachfully and spreading his arms, "it is regrettable that you should have misunderstood us so completely. That's the trouble - that businessmen refuse to approach us in a spirit of trust and friendship. They seem to imagine that we are their enemies. Why do you speak of human sacrifices? What made you go to such an extreme? We have no intention of seizing your property or destroying your life. We do not seek to harm your interests. We are fully aware of your distinguished achievements. Our purpose is only to balance social pressures and do justice to all. This hearing is really intended, not as a trial, but as a friendly discussion aimed at mutual understanding and co-operation."
"I do not co-operate at the point of a gun."
"Why speak of guns? This matter is not serious enough to warrant such references. We are fully aware that the guilt in this case lies chiefly with Mr. Kenneth Danagger, who instigated this infringement of the law, who exerted pressure upon you and who confessed his guilt by disappearing his guilt by disappearing in order to escape trial."
"No. We did it by equal, mutual, voluntary agreement."
"Mr. Rearden," said the second judge, "you may not share some of our ideas, but when all is said and done, we're all working for the same cause.For the good of the people. We realise that you were prompted to disregard legal technicalities by the critical situation of the coal mines and the crucial importance of fuel to the public welfare."
"No. I was prompted by my own profit and my own interests. What effect it had on the coal mines and the public welfare is for you to estimate. That was not my motive."
Mr. Mowen stared dazedly about him and whispered to Paul Larkin, "Something's gone screwy here."
"Oh, shut up!" snapped Larkin.
"I am sure, Mr. Rearden," said the eldest judge, "that you do not really believe - nor does the public - that we wish to treat you as a sacrificial victim. If anyone has been laboring under such a misapprehension, we are anxious to prove that it is not true."

narayanan said...

The judges retired to consider their verdict. They did not stay out long. They returned to an ominously silent courtroom - and announced that a fine of $5,000 was imposed on Henry Rearden, but that the sentence was suspended. Streaks of jeering laughter ran through the applause that swept the courtroom. The applause was aimed at Rearden, the laughter - at the judges.


Rearden stood motionless, not turning to the crowd, barely hearing the applause. He stood looking at the judges. There was no triumph in his face, no elation, only the still intensity of contemplating the enormity of the smallness of the enemy who was destroying the world. He felt as if, after a journey of years through a landscape of devastation, past the ruins of great factories, the wrecks of powerful engines, the bodies of invincible men, he had come upon the despoiler, expecting to find a giant - and had found a rat eager to scurry for cover at the first sound of a human step. If this is what has beaten us, he thought, the guilt is ours.

He was jolted back into the courtroom by the people pressing to surround him. He smiled in answer to their smiles, to the frantic tragic eagerness of their faces; there was a touch of sadness in his smile.
"God bless you, Mr. Rearden!" said an old woman with a ragged shawl over her head. "Can't you save us, Mr. Rearden? They're eating us alive, and it's no use fooling anybody about how it's the rich that they're after - do you know what's happening to us?"
"Listen, Mr. Rearden," said a man who looked like a factory worker, "it's the rich who're selling us down the river. Tell those wealthy bastards, who're so anxious to give everything away, that when they give away their palaces, they're giving away the skin off our backs." "I know it," saidRearden.
The guilt is ours, he thought. If we who were the movers, the providers, the benefactors of mankind, were willing to let the brand of evil be stamped upon us and silently to bear punishment for our virtues - what sort of "good" did we expect to triumph in the world? He looked at the people around him. They had cheered him today; they had cheered him by the side of the track of the John Galt Line. But tomorrow they would clamour for a new directive from Wesley Mouch and a free housing project from Orren Boyle, while Boyle's girders collapsed upon their heads. They would do it, because they would be told to forget, as a sin, that which had made them cheer Hank Rearden.

Why were they ready to renounce their highest moments as a sin? Why were they willing to betray the best within them? What made them believe that this earth was a realm of evil where despair was their natural fate? He could not name the reason, but he know that it had to be named. He felt it as a huge question mark within the courtroom, which it was now his duty to answer.

This was the real sentence imposed upon him, he thought - to discover what idea, what simple idea available to the simplest man, had made mankind accept the doctrines that led it to self-destruction.


mockturtle said...

Narayanan, I recently finished re-reading Atlas Shrugged and was struck by how much more apropos it is to today's situation than it was when she wrote it [and when I first read it in the 1960's]. It truly exposes 'public servants' as being quite the opposite: Greedy, dishonest jackals--non-producers empowering themselves to bring the producers to their knees.

While I found the ending rather fanciful, I deem it the truly Great American Novel.

Dave said...

Put it this way, I want the vote to pass, and I get confused when I want the same thing as LLR Chuck, Pelosi-Parrot Esq.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Dave said...
If I were the Dems, I would really not want a Senate trial, unless I had enough LLRs in the bag for my team.

I agree. The only senate R they might get is Romney. Not enough.

my optics are to take the BS the left are using and force it all down their corrupt throats.

bleh said...

I read the whole thing, Althouse. Wonder if you have any second thoughts about this statement: "Consider this: One in four college women has been raped."

Dave said...

I do enjoy your noms, and anxiously await a sequel.

Char Char Binks said...

Now impeach Tlaib, the dirty, racist Arab.

hstad said...

The problem with this story is everything baked in already. But the voters don't care. The real story is the IG's report about the DOJ and FBI. We have two 'Administrative Departments' who went rogue. And as one senator stated, "...The FBI interfered in the U.S. elections of 2016. We expect foreigners, friendly or not, to interfere in our elections, but our own government? We have reached a "jumped the shark" inflection point. Abolish the FBI!

mockturtle said...

Abolish the FBI!

And let's abolish the CIA while we're at it. Neither organization is necessary and neither has been shown to be either honest or competent.

Michael K said...

The whistleblower needs to be subpoenaed, so he can lie under oath for his master, the schitt.

My understanding is that the Senate has to vote on each witness subpoena. There may not be 51 votes for the controversial witnesses.

I honestly don't know if it would be worth it to pursue this and make them vote.

Michael K said...

mockturtle said...
Abolish the FBI!

And let's abolish the CIA while we're at it. Neither organization is necessary and neither has been shown to be either honest or competent.


I think the CIA should be disbanded unless we can get a Church committee to dig into the corruption.

The FBI needs to have the top 10% eliminated, then repeat as necessary until they get back to a workable size. We have already had the FBI lab scandal.

Chuck said...

Isn’t the fundamental fact in this story the fact that across the country, one after another swingable House districts have gone to the Democrats?

If the Republicans’ majority in the House hadn’t been wiped out with a vengeance in 2018, there might well be a bunch of Republicans who would be thinking about voting in favor of one or more articles of impeachment.

As it currently stands, the House Democrats’ “problem,” if indeed they have a problem, is a problem that is confined to large majorities. They can afford to have a half dozen of their members peel off. They still win, easily.

narciso said...

well the events re the Pensacola shooter, suggests we don't have anything of a real domestic or foreign intelligence capacity,


https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/12/case-agent-1-fbi-fisa/

Qwinn said...

"Isn’t the fundamental fact in this story the fact that across the country, one after another swingable House districts have gone to the Democrats?"

Not really. What's true is that ballot harvesting in California (and I think Arizona too?) that made all the difference. And ballot harvesting is essentially legalized voter fraud.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck: "If the Republicans’ majority in the House hadn’t been wiped out with a vengeance in 2018,..."

You celebrated that.

Vehemently.

After you called the republican sweep of the House/Senate/WhiteHouse in 2016 a literal "disaster".

narciso said...

mccarry lived through the gringolade of the church committee, he projected another failure would lead to another intel organ, the foreign intelligence service, which would operate under a corporate shell, you see how that works out with haklyut, orbis et al,

Drago said...

Qwinn: "Not really. What's true is that ballot harvesting in California (and I think Arizona too?) that made all the difference. And ballot harvesting is essentially legalized voter fraud."

Indeed, and LLR-lefty Chuck supports ballot harvesting. Passionately.

It's funny watching LLR-lefty Chuck pretend to be concerned about republican's losing some races when his entire purpose here is to advance the dems position.

Sometimes its fall-down funny.

narciso said...

well you stand for nothing, like failure to repeal Obamacare, and voters will regard you as such,

Bruce Hayden said...

“ My favorite law Professors:

1. Althouse
2. Dershowitz
3. Turley

Fire all the rest!”

I don’t think that you can ignore UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who has been cited approvingly by the Supreme Court for both 1st and 2nd Amdt work. In particular, I think that his historical firearms law analysis was critical in the Heller case decision that finally clarified that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual, and not a collective, right.

I should also note my biases here - he is the one who brought to blogging. Several decades ago we both participated in a Cyberia-L listserve discussion group, and he took the opportunity at one point to chide me off line about my in civility in one of my posts. He was, of course, correct, and I try to hold to his standards to this day. Nevertheless, out of curiosity, I followed a link in his email .sig back to his newly launched Volokh Conspiracy, which ended up initiating a life of idleness, following different blogs, hither and yon.

FullMoon said...

“splitting the baby” is a term that Planned Parenthood uses when someone only wants to buy certain parts of the baby.

Solomon pro-choice.
Mom pro-life.

Beasts of England said...

’If the Republicans’ majority in the House hadn’t been wiped out with a vengeance in 2018...’

😂

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Qwinn said...

Just saw this quote on Instapundit:

“Manchin said he would not have a problem with calling Hunter Biden to testify in the trial, despite vocal opposition from most Democrats who argue that it would divert attention from the allegations at the heart of the impeachment case against Trump.”

What the fuck? Whether or not Trump requesting an investigation of Hunter Biden was legitimate IS the "heart of the impeachment case against Trump"! That's it! Without their mind-reading claim that that investigation didn't serve any non-venal purpose, they have literally nothing. These miserable fucks are so evil they're simply counting on their LIVs not realizing that.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

LOL, I remember those early, heady, days when media concern revolved around how many Republicans they could shame into voting for impeachment theatre. Now they're trying to bolster morale by downplaying how many Democrats are jumping ship. Too funny.

BTW, have Dems seen the new Marquette poll regarding impeachment?

Spoiler alert: impeachment is now under water by 12% and sinking. If the other swing states are showing results anything like this, 2020 is looking like an orange wave.

Drago said...

"Nine in ten Orthodox Jews say that they support President Donald Trump, according to a poll released Wednesday by Ami Magazine."

Anti-semites (most dems), communists and LLR-lefty Chuck hardest hit.

As always.

jeremyabrams said...

It's an adumbration of the Abraham and Isaac story, and in both cases, the executive authority (God in one; Solomon in the other) never intends to take human life, but only to test either faith or maternal love by threatening to take human life.

Judaism in these stories repudiates the pagan practice of human sacrifice.

Phidippus said...

From the article: "...Democratic leaders are privately expecting no more than a half-dozen defections on next week’s vote..."

At first, I read that as "no more than a half-dozen defecations on next week's vote..."

Considering how many of the people in the House pushing this are from California, that may not be implausible.

Jim at said...

The argument that Trump shouldn’t be impeached because impeachment is too divisive... - left bank

Nobody here is making that argument. The argument we're making is he hasn't committed any crime, let alone an impeachable offense.

You know, you could read the damn transcript - the whole transcript - and come to the same conclusion. Or, you could keep throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks.

dbp said...

In God Knows by Joseph Heller, Solomon was an idiot and really intended to chop the child in half, because in his simpleton mind, that would have been fair.

The book may be purchased at the Althouse Amazon portal. I read the book years ago and remember enjoying it.

mockturtle said...

DBP: Sounds to me like Heller is the simpleton if that's his interpretation.

narciso said...

exactly what is one willing to give up to get their objective,

dbp said...

mockturtle,

The novel is a comedy and is told from the viewpoint of a very Joseph Hellerian King David. Part of the fun was how the author had the principles act a lot like stereotypical American Jews from the mid 20th century. Picture this sort of old Jewish man complaining about his idiot son and you will get the picture.

Drago said...

Jim at: "Nobody here is making that argument. The argument we're making is he hasn't committed any crime, let alone an impeachable offense."

Indeed.

I swear, the next time any leftist/LLR-leftist at Althouse blog makes an honest argument will be the first time.

tim in vermont said...

"I swear, the next time any leftist/LLR-leftist at Althouse blog makes an honest argument will be the first time.”

Supposedly Mao once said that he preferred to deal in negotiations with conservatives rather than leftist because at least he knew what it was that conservatives really wanted.

tim in vermont said...

"The argument that Trump shouldn’t be impeached because impeachment is too divisive”

Take it up with Nancy Pelosi, she’s the one making that argument. Our argument is that the only person who has disgraced his high office under the United States involved in this whole affair is Joe Biden, and to a lesser degree Mit Romney. Of course the Clinton Machine was all over Ukraine too.

JAORE said...

Are there NO members of the leftist party that will vote "No" because Trump did nothing even approaching an impeachable offense.

How far we have fallen.

JAORE said...

"The argument that Trump shouldn’t be impeached because impeachment is too divisive”

Take it up with Nancy Pelosi, she’s the one making that argument.

Didn't Lil Miss Botox say she would not pursue impeachment unless it was bipartisan? Looks like NO Republicans will vote to impeach and a few Democrats will vote No.

What say you, Madam Speaker?

mockturtle said...

Dpt explains: The novel is a comedy and is told from the viewpoint of a very Joseph Hellerian King David. Part of the fun was how the author had the principles act a lot like stereotypical American Jews from the mid 20th century. Picture this sort of old Jewish man complaining about his idiot son and you will get the picture.

Oy, vey! I confess I've never read Heller.

Big Mike said...

Nancy Pelosi seems to be remarkably good at getting Blue Dog Democrats to self-immolate. I wonder whether she tells them that she'll inform the Clintons that they have dirt on Hillary?

Sarah Hoyt, writing on her blog (accordingtohoyt), commented on how so very many ordinary people are really, really angry right now. Unless impeachment is voted down in the House, I foresee that the Democrats will not only lose the 31 Congresscritters from districts that went for Trump in 2016, but will lose many districts that went narrowly for Clinton in 2016.

Danno said...

All Pelosi is worried about is the number 218. She can let a few of the anxious ones vote against the impeachment, as long as she has the 218.

Big Mike said...

@Danno, the Blue Dog Coalition has 26 members.