January 26, 2020

"I went to the press gallery one afternoon to check out the tableau vivant. The visitors’ gallery was only half full, and there was none of the passion and titillation..."

"... that infused the Clinton impeachment.... One Democratic Senate staffer mourned the apathy. 'Our phones aren’t ringing,' he told me. 'Nobody cares. It’s the saddest thing ever.' One side of the room seemed to be smirking.... Seated at the back of the class, Mitt Romney looked dutiful, and the thought must have crossed his mind that’s he’s in a position to inflict payback on Trump for calling him 'a pompous ass' and tricking him into an interview for secretary of state only to humiliate him. (Revenge is a dish best served with milk.) But more senators on the Republican side were telegraphing boredom....  [T]he more impressive the Democrats’ case is, the more depressing the reality becomes. They want to convince themselves that character matters. But many Americans knew they were voting for a thug. They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one."

Writes Maureen Dowd in her new NYT column.

For the list of things that must have crossed Mitt Romney's mind, I have enough respect for his character and intelligence that I'm willing to bet he has considered that it is true that he is a pompous ass. I imagine that thought surrounded by other thoughts like: There's an important place in this world for pompous asses, and it's impossible to be an upstanding, righteous person without appearing to be what they call a pompous ass, and pompous ass is a fair characterization by human beings who are necessarily beset by multitudinous failings and I must carry the load of that epithet precisely because they can see that my failings are distinctly less than theirs.

AND: My phone isn't ringing. Nobody cares. It’s the saddest thing ever. Sounds like a lament from a female teenager from back in the days when people talked on the phone. Here's the song that drifted through my head...



Lonely, I'm Mr. Lonely/I have nobody for my own/I am so lonely, I'm Mr. Lonely//Wish I had someone to call on the phone....

186 comments:

rhhardin said...

Romney should limit his show of moral uprightness to his family.

tim maguire said...

[T]he more impressive the Democrats’ case is, the more depressing the reality becomes.

Maybe, but it seems like an untested theory to me.

Annie C. said...

I could have sworn I read something last week about the Mormon church changing their undergarment rules.

I tried to find it again, but can't. Maybe it was an Althouse-like dream.

Shouting Thomas said...

I have had many Mormon friends over the years. Pompous ass-dom is an unfortunate by-product of Mormonism.

The religion works great in so many ways, particularly in family support and financial success, that I'm inclined to forgive the pomposity.

On FB, I find that I invariably defriend Mormon men because each one has such a fierce sense of masculine honor and conviction in his own rectitude and the universality of his own worldview that they drive me crazy.

It's always "My way or the highway." So, I take the highway.

Temujin said...

Looking at your previous post and this post, nothing illustrates how far we've dropped than realizing they had Dorothy Parker in the first half of the 20th century and we get Maureen Dowd's tedious ventures into other people's minds every week.

tim in vermont said...

Romney has already said he wants witnesses, which is fine with me as long as we get all of the witnesses, not the narrow “If they can’t help us get Trump, we don’t want to hear from them” set that Schiff allowed.

The Democrats have said that a national interest motive was “completely absent” and this opens the door to looking into all of the shenanigans going on over there. Even though I think that just showing the mainstream newspaper stories about election interference out of Ukraine orchestrated by Democrats should really be enough for a dismissal.

tim in vermont said...

Democrats have said they don’t want to hear from any witnesses who could potentially help Trump and might hurt Biden, I am sure that Romney is thinking along those lines, but I think he is the main quisling here.

cacimbo said...

"They want to convince themselves that character matters."
This flagrant partisan lying is why so many of us to have no respect for journalists. "Character matters." Come on, the Democrats ran Hillary Clinton. A woman of such questionable character that Trump looked like the better option to many.

traditionalguy said...

The DC crowd seems nervous about their future...will DJT or won't DJT demand restitution be a part of their plea deals to avoid prison?

AllenS said...

Maureen Dowd, pfffft.

rhhardin said...

I'm listening to the Senate day 6, hoping to get an mp3 file from the youtube. It's not obvious what witnesses Romney would want after that. How demolished does the case have to be.

rehajm said...

...and we get Maureen Dowd's tedious ventures into other people's minds every week

The thought must have crossed her mind that we can see the ashtray, housecoat and rollers in every paragraph.

PB said...

I don't find the dem's case impressive. It glosses over troubled spots and they've lied, leaked amd withheld testimony from the public. Their fake solemnity gives way to their unhinged hate for the president. Their expressions that anyone who doesnt agree them is violating the Constitution should repel anyone.

Beasts of England said...

’...tricking him into an interview for secretary of state only to humiliate him.’

Trump didn’t humiliate Mitt as severely as did Candy Crowley, but it was a decent effort.

Bob Boyd said...

Does Dowd really believe what she writes?

John Borell said...

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a pompous ass is just a pompous ass.

cacimbo said...

Plus this impeachment is based on trying to criminalize investigating Democrat criminal behavior. The refusal to examine Biden family corruption is hardly evidence of good character. Although to be fair I am certain this is common practice for family members from both political parties. Since there are more rich Democrats, Democrat party members tend to benefit more from all the high paying do nothing board appoints.

Wilbur said...

Of course Dowd believes what she writes. They all do.

gspencer said...

"I'll get you, my little Trumpy. And your little Pense-y too"

rehajm said...

..tricking him into an interview for secretary of state only to humiliate him

Has that been confirmed as fact or is this Dowd an alum of the Schiff Mind Reading Academy?

cacimbo said...

Even Pelosi knows this impeachment is a joke. If she truly believed it was solemn and important she wouldn't have gone on Bill Maher to gloat and joke about it. Why should Republicans pretend it is anything more.

alanc709 said...

Maybe the Senate gallery is just following the evidence and seeing there is none. But of course, no leftie is allowed to think that.

PB said...

How many dishonest acts must Adam Schiff commit before he's universally recognized as a someone not for for any position of trust?

Nichevo said...

Your last, extremely long sentence of the post consists of words/thoughts that you have put in the mouths/minds of others such as Romney, correct? So then perhaps it is unfair, but nonetheless I must ask you for your definitions of the words/phrases you used: upstanding, righteous, "pompous ass." Is the latter synonymous with "sanctimonious prig?"

stlcdr said...

Can we call Dowd a pompous ass? It seems to only apply to men, Republicans at that. But in this day and age, I dunno.

Bob Boyd said...

Trump bought his own silver, only it's gold.

tim in vermont said...

As He-whom-I’m-not-gonna-name has said. More witnesses could “potentially” make some kind of case for them that Trump wanted an investigation but it’s hard to envision the witnesses for the Democrats that could prove that a national interest motivation was "completely absent.” Romney, whose campaign director was on the board of Burisma, has zero interest in looking into whether Burisma got favors from the Department of State (They did) or whether firing Shokin ended up with them getting off the hook (It did.). Most likely Shokin was fired because he wouldn’t play ball.

tim maguire said...

cacimbo said...to be fair I am certain this is common practice for family members from both political parties

Yup. That’s a wild-card in this whole farce—these days, corruption is run through family members and lots of politicians go to the Ukraine to get rich. I have no doubt at least some Republicans are motivated to skip witness testimony for the exact same reason the Democrats don't want it.

M Jordan said...

Democrats have descended into madness. The case against Trump is absurd. Adam Schiff is a cartoon figure who traffics in conspiracy, melodrama, and falsehoods. The collective yawn of Republicans and the nation in general is the wise and perfect rebuttal to this slobbering hate-child who stands yowling in its crib.

Francisco D said...

Democrats have descended into madness. The case against Trump is absurd. Adam Schiff is a cartoon figure who traffics in conspiracy, melodrama, and falsehoods.

Yes, but Trump is a dangerous dictator. We will lose our democracy if he is re-elected in 2020.

tim in vermont said...

"Republicans are motivated to skip witness testimony for the exact same reason the Democrats don't want it.”

Right, to skip witnesses that would help Trump. The whole endgame is to push the fiction that Trump’s defense is “irrelevant” and therefore can be dismissed without being heard. Except “completely absent” is a pretty tall claim. Schiff hasn’t really understood that rhetoric, which consists of language that sounds like logic, but isn’t won’t really fly when presented as matters of fact. It’s preaching to the choir.

wendybar said...

If character really matters, none of those Politicians would have a job.

rhhardin said...

The choir is only there for the music. They don't listen to the preaching at all.

wendybar said...

Francisco says/…
Yes, but Trump is a dangerous dictator. We will lose our democracy if he is re-elected in 2020.
1/26/20, 7:48 AM


You are complaining about him and he didn't put you in a gulag. Worse Dictator ever!!!

MikeR said...

"They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one." Uh, yeah. And no one is going to get rid of him if that's their reason.

tim in vermont said...

There are only two answers to a rhetorical question. You are either one of us, or you are not. Thus the main way liberals argue is to reject first, ask rhetorical questions later.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

"They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one."

I wouldn't have used the word thug, but yeah. Dowd is a petty courtier in Louis XVI's court decrying all those deplorables in Versailles' courtyard with their pitchforks and torches.

Bob Boyd said...

Of course Dowd believes what she writes. They all do.

I'm not so sure. I think she's playing a role, Maureen Dowd, a character in the reality show that is the elite media and her character believes the lines she delivers. Dowd writes for her own character. She believes her character matters.

Wilbur said...

"They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one."

That sentence caught my eye, too. It's not far from the truth, if only because a run-of-the-mill, get along-go along candidate (think Jeb) is precisely what Trump voters did not want.

Drago said...

rhhardin: "It's not obvious what witnesses Romney would want after that. How demolished does the case have to be."

You completely misunderstand Romney's objective.

Romney wants witnesses in order to RESURRECT the demolished dems "case" so that he can play "Howard Baker" and lead a group of republicans over to the White House to tell Trump and Pence they both have to go.

Romney is "all in" on this and would be satisfied if either he or Pelosi became President.

Its Romney's way back into the good graces of his democrat allies and buddies.

Iman said...


Blogger AllenS said...
“Maureen Dowd, pfffft.”

AllenS has it right. I would only add, piffle.

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

"They want to convince themselves that character matters."

Oh dear God, they're still running this idiotic concern-trolling about "character"? Look, people, no sane, intelligent person credits lectures on chastity from whores. Give it up. You've already got the votes of all the people stupid enough and/or mentally unstable enough to take pox-ridden whores braying about purity seriously.

"But many Americans knew they were voting for a thug. They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one."

Whether Trump can or will "bust up Washington" in any meaningful long-term sense remains to be seen. But the "Americans knew they were voting for a thug"? You mean as opposed to the deluded Americans who didn't know they were voting for a thug but voted for a thug who *wouldn't* bust up Washington, or who did know they were voting for a thug but preferred the thug who wouldn't bust up Washington?

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

But I grant that "[r]evenge is a dish best served with milk" is pretty funny.

Lurker21 said...

Mormons are the last Puritans, but how soon until calling a Mormon man a "pompous ass" or a "sanctimonious prig" becomes recognized as hate speech?

Engineers like Hoover and Carter and MBAs like Romney, Bloomberg and Steyer make bad politicians and presidents. So do the scientists Democrats are sending to the House now. They are too numbers-oriented and don't have the necessarily people skills.

Or is that also a pernicious stereotype and hate speech?

MBA Bush II was also not a good president, but being too good at math doesn't seem to have been the problem.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Hey Maureen - Read Peter Schweitzers "Profiles in Corruption" and get back to us.

Lurker21 said...

Does Dowd believe what she writes? She's writing from a general point of view she believes in, but when lines that she thinks are particularly clever or good laugh-makers come, she follows where they lead, so where she ends up isn't necessarily where she intended to go.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

YOu have to be Inga level stupid to find the D's bullshit compelling.

All while Biden did everything you're accusing Trump of doing.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

My line on Mitt is now that he dreams of nothing more or less than a John McCain funeral. Forget being president. That's a job for pretty-boy failed intellectuals and real estate hustlers now.

tim maguire said...

Aunty Trump said...
"Republicans are motivated to skip witness testimony for the exact same reason the Democrats don't want it.”

Right, to skip witnesses that would help Trump.


They say they want witnesses, but only their own witnesses. They would rather skip the witness stage than cut a deal to allow Trump’s witnesses.

lane ranger said...

I read some of the "top-rated" comments to Dowd's column, and came away in awe of the bubble in which NYT readers live. In their world, Schiff is a brilliant, courageous truth-teller, and Trump is finally being exposed as the criminal he is. There did not seem to be much in the way of analysis or reasoning, which leads to reaffirmation of the conclusion I reached some time ago: presentation of facts and logic, and use of persuasion, are a waste of time when it comes to the left. Our efforts are better spent supporting fighters like Trump, and in defeating the left wherever we encounter them.

tim in vermont said...

"They would rather skip the witness stage than cut a deal to allow Trump’s witnesses.”

And I think Republicans would rather skip the witness stage than to cut a deal that excludes Trump witnesses. So we have a meeting of the minds.

narciso said...

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/the_democrats_cognitive_disorder.html

Jeff Brokaw said...

Dowd’s last sentence is correct although the “thug” characterization is partisan garbage.

Trump voters see him as he sees himself, more of a hero elected to clean up a giant f*cking mess of corrupt crooks and liars whose interests are allied against the interests of the American people.

Six of one, half a dozen of another.

Danno said...

Thanks for adding the Mr. Lonely video link. A post on Maureen Dowd by herself is a slog too far.

tim in vermont said...

I would much prefer to hear them all, including the guy who wrote this article. He seems to know a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html

madAsHell said...

They’re waiting for the phones to ring.

Hey, Maureen! The phone is for you! Hotel California is calling, and they’re sending a car right over.

Kevin said...

Nadler has out-pompous-assed Romney.

Mitt is free to vote alongside his own kind.

Fernandistein said...

One Democratic Senate staffer mourned the apathy.

I don't care.

Leland said...

If character mattered, more people would have been concerned with a SecState that created an IT system to hide her work from the American people, while she had dinners with Harvey Weinstein and her husband went to Caribbean islands with Jeffrey Epstein. Sadly, character didn't matter, so that left who was better for the economy? The Republic chose well. And yes, he is there to break up Washington, and we are still not tired of him winning at it.

Kevin said...

But I grant that "[r]evenge is a dish best served with milk" is pretty funny.

You can't wait too long, or it gets soggy.

rhhardin said...

My phone hasn't rung since 1987, when I attached a UNIX-PC to the line and it answered the phone with a handshake sequence. This was accompanied by turning the ringer off, where it has been set ever since.

Gunner said...

Maybe Romney also wants revenge against a political party that said he cheated on his taxes and was racist?

tcrosse said...

"They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one."

He was preferable to the other thug who was running against him.

tim in vermont said...

John Solomon would be another great witness. Rudy Giuliani too.

Iman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

Romney might be after waitresses. It could be a misunderstanding.

Kevin said...

One Democratic Senate staffer mourned the apathy.

As the left becomes more manic, I find myself more apathetic.

Apathy is the antidote to Progressivism.

Bobb said...

The Democrats called Romney a racist and misogynist, who murdered his own employee, beat up a gay in high school and abused his own dog. So the theory is Romney will avenge his character by voting with the Democrats.

Iman said...

My mom she liked her, but not frank rich
That mouthy, fat assed, east coast bitch
Her too young clothes and bird’s nest hair
Stiletto heels and the Devil-may-care
She says she’d like
To read the New York Times again
On Sunday

tim in vermont said...

I finally found a press report of Trump’s defense laid out. OK, it was the right wing press that nobody will see, but here it is:

“The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren’t even mentioned on the call.”

“President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything.”

“President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know, did not even know, the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call.”

“Not a single witness testified that the President himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else.”

“The security assistance flowed on September 11 and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.”

“The Democrats blind drive to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact, as attested to by the Democrats own witnesses, that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor.”


I guess I will head over to the New York Times to see how this is presented.

rhhardin said...

Some have first for wits, then poets passed ;
Turn'd critics next, and proved plain fools at last.

Pope, Dunciad

Original Mike said...

"They want to convince themselves that character matters. "

Did it matter in the Clinton impeachment?

Michael K said...

I have no doubt at least some Republicans are motivated to skip witness testimony for the exact same reason the Democrats don't want it.

Yup. Schiff had a case with a few GOP weaklings like Murkowski and then he did the "{Head on a Pike" thing.

It's over. I expect maybe 4 hours Monday and cases rested. I have read that Schiff wants another bite at the apple.

It will be over this week.

Automatic_Wing said...

Maybe Romney also wants revenge against a political party that said he cheated on his taxes and was racist?

Sure. You probably think the Washington Generals are plotting revenge against the Harlem Globetrotters, too.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Since my phone still aint ringing, I assume it still aint you.

Kevin said...

"They want to convince themselves that character matters.'

They want to to convince themselves they can read people's minds and divine their true intentions.

I'm unconvinced.

ThunderChick said...

lane ranger said...
I read some of the "top-rated" comments to Dowd's column, and came away in awe of the bubble in which NYT readers live.


I do that every now and then as well (read comments in the NYT and WaPo) and like you, am in awe of the absolute ignorance to the facts by liberals. Our country is extremely polarized and people believe what they want to believe, despite the facts.

The Kavenaugh debacle is a great example. There was absolutely no evidence that Kavenaugh did anything to CBF, even CBF's witnesses could not corroborate her story, yet liberals state that Kavenaugh is a rapist and shouldn't be on the SCOTUS. Absolutely amazing, particularly when I hear lawyers like Swalwell and Toobin repeat that mantra.

The reason, Ms. Dowd, there is no "passion and titillation" in this impeachment is because it is a sham, partisan spectacle and even the Never Trumpers like Romney know it for what it is. Romney is a joke and it is clear by his comments to DJT that he is only interested in getting revenge. I hope the voters in Utah remember this when Romney is up for reelection.



Sebastian said...

"[T]he more impressive the Democrats’ case is, the more depressing the reality becomes."

The more impressive their case is . . . Made me laugh. No wonder reality is becoming less depressing by the day.

"They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one."

If she listened to herself, she could learn something.

"I have enough respect for his character and intelligence that I'm willing to bet he has considered that it is true that he is a pompous ass."

I have enough respect for Althouse's intelligence and creativity that I'm willing to bet she can make up any notion about any person without any actual knowledge, speculating freely with perfect confidence, all the more confidently as her speculations depart from common sense to become satisfyingly "interesting."

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BADuBois said...

MoDo must have had a rough mean girls upbringing, considering how many times she goes back there.

Give it a rest, MoDo!

rhhardin said...

Readers are choosing the narrative that they want to live in. It's entertainment.

TheThinMan said...

In liberal land, history is rewritten daily. There was no March 3, 2016 scathing speech about Trump by Romney, calling him every insult in the book. Trump’s mild response to it, that Romney’s a pompous ass, is rewritten by Dowd & Co. as an example of Trump’s bullying.

Iman said...

Judging by the comments on nearly every column written in the NYT, no one in their right mind should aspire to being a regular reader.

John henry said...

Has the Romney for sos story ever been confirmed?

I always thought it sounded like another "shithole" story.

That is, not true but spread by some for their own political reasons.

John Henry

tim in vermont said...

Trump doesn’t want to be an American Mussolini so much as he wants to be a less legislatively minded L.B.J. — meaning that his conception of the presidency belongs to the middle of the 20th century, when a casual corruption was more commonplace, and presidents routinely used their powers to spy on political opponents (as L.B.J. did to Barry Goldwater) or undermine them, enable their private appetites (cough, J.F.K.) and cover up their scandals.

Are we forgetting somebody Ross Douthat? Somebody who used the FBI, CIA, and even the IRS to spy on his opponents? Somebody revered by Democrats as a light bender?

In this sense, Trump’s conduct is indeed more historically normal than the twilight-of-the-Republic rhetoric of his impeachers would suggest. But this defense weakens when you consider that post-Watergate America very clearly tried to establish rules against precisely the sort of behavior that was normal for J.F.K. and L.B.J.

So it’s a power grab by the House that is just using exaggerated language to censure Trump for looking at them funny, not a coverup for the ubiquitous corruption that defines the swamp.

Ronald Reagan said that when a politician runs for office, he calls DC a cesspool, but once he gets there, it’s more like a hot tub. Trump has broken that pattern. Nobody likes the guy who takes pictures of people naked in the hot tub and posts them on line to be laughed at by people who would never be allowed near the hot tub.

Bob Boyd said...

Soon the they'll start the "It's a cover-up" narrative and the drive to flip the Senate.

MartyH said...

Shorter Maureen Down: "Impeachment is big. It's the voters who got small."

Of course, Schiff is always ready for his closeup.

Calypso Facto said...

"They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one"

Shorter Dowd: "deplorables"

Dust Bunny Queen said...

[T]he more impressive the Democrats’ case is, the more depressing the reality becomes. They want to convince themselves that character matters. But many Americans knew they were voting for a thug. They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one."

Except for the thug part of the last few sentences, Maureen is spot on. YES. We knew who Trump was/is and took his words about what he wanted to do seriously...."drain the swamp".."build the wall" "make America great again economically and restore our strength internationally". Trump is the proverbial turd in the Washington elite's fancy little punch bowl and WE threw it in there on purpose.

As to that old adage Character Matters. Well, yes it does and here is another old adage for Maureen. Actions speak louder than words

Trump by his actions of doing what he promised he would...and still trying to do those things.... do HAS proved his character. He didn't lie to the public. He said he was going to [or try is damn best] return the reins of power to the people. Eradicate the swamp dwellers.

He didn't just talk the talk. He has walked the walk....and at great personal cost.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

While Romney plots casting his one vote for impeachment, Pence is plotting his twenty-four not present coup

robother said...

I see that Romney is going to vote for more witnesses. He wants to get to the bottom of this "heads on a pike" thing., I guess. It's almost like he takes it personal. Its not personal, Mitt, Trump is all business.

Big Mike said...

If a fraction of the stories about her are true, there really was a thug running in 2016. Howeve it wasn’t Donald Trump.

Jeff Epstein did not kill himself.

tim in vermont said...

"Pence is plotting his twenty-four not present coup”

Keep hope alive!

tim in vermont said...

“I am sick and tired of being Hillary Clinton’s tour guide!” - Commerce Secretary Ron Brown

And son of a bitch, his plane crashed.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, I do not like it when the liberal hacks and the politicians they love put thoughts into the minds of various people. It like it even less when a blogger whom I respect attempts to impute the inner thoughts of someone in the news.

rcocean said...

The problem with Romney is not that he's a pompous ass, its that he's a two-faced, backstabbing, lying Pompous Ass. A Moderate Republican, he had no shame in attacking Conservatives in the R primaries as "Too liberal"

And don't forget he called Trump every name in the book, and refused to support/vote for him in Nov 2016. Yet, Trump turns around and interviews him for Sec of State! Talk about "turning the other cheek". Of course, Mittens then gets elected and the first thing he does is attack Trump in the WaPo to the applause of the liberal/Left.

Flake is Mormon too, and he was in the audience the first day, getting his picture taken. What an embarrassment to be a R Morman!

Michael McNeil said...

“Pence is plotting his twenty-four not present coup”

Keep hope alive!


Sounds precisely as half-assed (which is to say: totally) as every other Democrat/Deep State stratagem in this 3-year+ coup attempt.

rcocean said...

Romney is a perfect example of the "Pray on Sunday, Cheat on Monday" Christian.

rcocean said...

Thug is just a generic term of abuse. Meaningless. Attack Fox News and you're a liberal hero, attack the NYT's and you're a "Thug".

rcocean said...

Obama called trump a "fascist". incredible. This is a guy using the FBI to surveil Trump and used the IRS to go after the tea party groups. But Trump is the fascist.

Deb said...

Maureen Dowd - I doubt she's ever met one of those "many" Americans and even more unlikely that she has an inkling why any of them [us] voted for Trump. I voted for Trump because the alternative was horrifying to me. I will vote for Trump again. Maureen Dowd is clueless.

Howard said...

Deb: MoDo comes from a working class family with Trumper siblings.

Amadeus 48 said...

Two thoughts:
Dowd is right. We wanted a thug who would bust up Washington and we got what we wanted. Yay! Dowd isn’t stupid, just immature.

Mitt Romney was spared learning how awful he is because he lost. Would the scandals be any less lurid in the Romney administration or indeed the administration of any other Republican? This is what the press and the Dems do to every GOP president. But then they try to turn the GOP losers into heroes. McCain should be so glad he lost. He got to be a hero again, instead of a bum.

The Dem losers are not so lucky. They become bums.

Michael K said...

Howard said...
Deb: MoDo comes from a working class family with Trumper siblings.


Why she is so bitter. Also, of course, not getting laid.

JAORE said...

Ms Dowd's phone has likely not rung for years. And aging ungracefully is not the primary reason.

Amadeus 48 said...

If only the nuns had let MoDo be the editor of her high school newspaper! Instead, she has been writing this stupid gossip column for 30 years. Remember, she was the one that got Jimmy Carter to say that he admired the charms of all those dictators’ wives. She threw some pretty nifty junkballs in those days.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Pence is plotting his twenty-four not present coup”

This idea is hilarious on all sorts of levels.

First. It would never happen but:

1. Hillary would still not be President and the liberals will have yet another screaming at the sky moment. Whaaaaaaaat!!!!

2. Trump can be impeached by the Senate and STILL not removed from office. Waaaah!!!! Yet MORE breathless TV reporting, Senate meetings and complete boredom from the rest of the country. Chance of voting for removal is NIL. Clinton was impeached and still there

3. A Pence Presidency will be a damned funny and boring event for the next few months. Try to find something that Pence wrong....boooooring. Althouse will like that as she has said she likes boring. Pence is boring.

4. Even IF impeached and still sitting in the WH nothing prevents Trump from running in 2020. He will win.

5. The melt down of liberals and media when reality hits them in the face like a cold dead mackerel will be delicious.

Impeachment....I don't think that word means what you think it means :-D

Tom T. said...

I don't believe the quote. Who calls people on the phone anymore?

tcrosse said...

It reminds me of a PBS Pledge Week, with a phone bank in the background and no calls coming in.

rcocean said...

Dowd has been a well-to-do NYT writer in the Manhattan/DC bubble for over 45 years. Plus, she was born and raised in DC. She knows ZERO about average Americans.

rcocean said...

I noticed that once Trump Team started their defense, the MSM is suddenly finding the Democrat POTUS race incredibly interesting. This massive wave of interest, will probably last until the Defense rests, and then they'll suddenly make Impeachment the greatest thing ever. Again.

mccullough said...

Dowd needs to host another cocktail party for Pelosi.

It will chair her up.

Mike Sylwester said...

Dust Bunny Queen at 9:44 AM
Hillary would still not be President and the liberals will have yet another screaming at the sky moment.

The Speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House.

So, the House Democrats could vote to appoint Hillary Clinton to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

Then, if both Donald Trump and Mike Pence are removed from their positions, Speaker Clinton would become the US President.

Mike Sylwester said...

Dust Bunny Queen at 9:44 AM
Even IF impeached and still sitting in the WH nothing prevents Trump from running in 2020.

The Senate can vote that Trump may not be President again.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that a lot of this is serendipitous.

Deep pockets like Bloomberg and Soros didn’t like the way that the 2016 election went. A good part of it was not that Trump was vulgar and a parvenu, but rather that he wasn’t playing ball. Billions of dollars were being skimmed off by the well connected, including esp, the families and cronies of the most powerful politicians (I think that that graft shifted into high gear with enactment of Obama’s Porkulus stimulus bill that institutionalized squandering most of a trillion dollars every year, justified by long discredited and debunked Keynesian Economics). In any case, Trump was attacking their graft and corruption, their ability to skim hundreds of billions of dollars a year, so had to go.

So these billionaires and other major skimmers decided to make Trump pay, While preventing him from doing any more damage to their feeding troughs. Soros had previously bought a large number of election officials. And that investment paid off in 2018. The idea was to discredit Trump by impeaching him, and they might even get him removed. Unlikely with a Republican Senate majority, but if they could mere impeach him in the House, as the Republicans had done to Clinton (who was doing nothing worse than many other Democrats would have done if they were living in the White House), they could permanently besmirch his name as Resident, and hopefully neuter his effectiveness.

So, this group bought themselves a Democrat House. They cheated their asses off, and spent money on advertising like there was no tomorrow. Palsi was back in the Speakership, with her oversized gavel. First thing they did was to hire Lawfare people to help them rewrite House rules in order to best effect the impeachment they had planned (they screwed up there, by not including a provision that would automatically give committees subpoena power for impeachment investigations). The plan was very obviously to leverage the taxpayer funded work done by the Mueller investigation. Except that they were planning without taking into account Trump and the Republicans. Always a bad way to plan. Bill Barr (and his associates) had written a brief in June of 2018 debunking and discrediting the Mueller/Lawfare reinterpretation of an Obstruction of Justice statute (that I have bored everyone here with). With that, it was obvious to Trump who his next AG was going to be, after his previous choice, Jeff Sessions had managed to let himself get conflicted out from where the action was, in the Democrat contrived Russian collusion witch hunt. Barr was the guy Trump saw shutting the whole Mueller mess down. They had his confirmation scheduled for fall, before the election, but Justice Scalia died, and the Republicans couldn’t risk his seat if they lost the Senate. So Barr’s confirmation was bumped to right after that, and it whizzed through, with surprising little opposition, esp after what happened in the Kavenaugh confirmation right before the election. As one of his first orders of business, newly confirmed AG Barr twisted the arm of his assistant, DAG Rosenstein, called Mueller in, and shut down his investigation, with an abruptness that left the Democrats reeling. All of that evidence that Mueller’s tea of rabidly partisan prosecutors had accumulated was now off limits.

Bruce Hayden said...

(Continuing)

The Dems hoped to get some help in setting us their impeachment by the Mueller hearings. Nope. Mueller was senile and couldn’t help them. And putting his rabidly partisan staffers on the stand would have given away that he was merely the frontman. But running the hearings, Judiciary Committee chair Wadler continually beclowned himself. He logically was the one to have run the impeachment inquiry, but couldn’t be trusted with the job, so it was switched from Judiciary to HPSCI. It’s chair, Schifty, was competent, but only had oversight over the IC. He brought in Lawfare people, and was ready to go but no scandal to run with. I think that their opportunity came with the phone call with the Ukrainian President because the Dems had been working with the Deep State involved in Ukraine, because it was tied so closely to their Russian collusion hoax. A lot of the dirt, including from Steel, came out of Ukraine. So those were the people HPSCI staffers knew. Everything else is history - they fabricated the whistleblower complaint, etc. one big flaw though is that Ukraine was also where top Dems, were making a lot of money, and esp the Bidens. It would have been much cleaner for Schifty if that hadn’t been the case. Too bad. But in the end, that meant they couldn’t call more witnesses in the Senate (and use the Senate’s subpoena power) without the Bidens being called by the Republican majority, and greatly embarrassed, just as VP Biden was cruising for the Dem nomination.

Serendipity.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Is there any doubt that Mike Pompeo is a very good Sec of State and had an excellent background for the job while Romney was busy founding companies like Staples?

Bay Area Guy said...

Shifty Schiff is on with Chuck Todd - it's almost a wake. They both have a case of the sads. Impossible to watch.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Senate can vote that Trump may not be President again.

Yeah. And pigs are gonna fly.

Iman said...

"Every day I wake up, and thank God Candy Crowley helped prevent a Pierre Delecto Presidency."

--- some numbnutz commenter

Seeing Red said...

But many Americans knew they were voting for a thug. They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one."


Better than voting for thugs who want to bust up the US.

Mark said...

Everything Dowd described proves that this whole thing is a farce. That's why people aren't tuning in. They know what a fraud the Dem case is.

tim in vermont said...

"Disqualification to hold any office” is buried in the articles. But I don’t see how that falls under impeachment power, it seems more like trying to sneak in a Bill of Attainder.

tim in vermont said...

I wonder if Schiff gets a simple majority, he is going to consider that the disqualification has the force of law?

Michael K said...

Trump was attacking their graft and corruption, their ability to skim hundreds of billions of dollars a year, so had to go.

I agree with this but the Ukraine was the honeypot for the Democrats since 2008. When Trump looked like he might get interested in that, they had to take him out. The trouble was that opening that can of worms was really risky. Trump has to be the most investigated guy in the history of modern US government. Who could have anticipated that he would be squeaky clean ? NOBODY in DC is squeaky clean.

And here we are. Romney has enough money but had to let his staff guy wet his beak in Burisma. The Democrats are all over this honey pot, likes flies on shit.

John henry said...

 Mike Sylwester said...

The Senate can vote that Trump may not be President again.

Could you explain how, Mike? If you were serious.

The constitution lays out presidential qualifications. I don't see how the senate could override them

John Henry

Gahrie said...

The Senate can vote that Trump may not be President again.

The Senate can vote to make Trump president for life also...doesn't make either one of them Constitutional.

Michael K said...

The constitution lays out presidential qualifications. I don't see how the senate could override them

I think there is a provision that he could be banned from federal office for life. None of that is going to happen, of course.

Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed for bribery and he is a Congressman who was involved in the impeachment farce.

Seeing Red said...

he more impressive the Democrats’ case is, the more depressing the reality becomes. They want to convince themselves that character matters.



Lololol



The party of Clinton dares to lecture?

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah Mo Do--such a rich fantasy life for the lonely cougar at the end of the bar in the Oak Room. Nobody hits on her.

But out in the rough and tumble world of reality and persuasion (not necessarily in a court room--it can also be in a sales office, or even, gasp! in a faculty meeting) rhetoric and repetition is no substitute for facts.

For the Schiff team (and for progressives in general) if some piece of evidence or a statement is inconvenient, they say it was "debunked" or "discredited" and assume that the listener will agree. Well Bunky, that's not the way it works in real life. You have to persuade and can not assume that silence (or lack of dissent) means agreement.

The poor suffering SOB's (Senators On Benches) had to sit and listen to Schiff's twaddle for the better part of four days. My sympathy goes to them.

Yancey Ward said...

I have written it before- Mitt Romney ran for the Senate for only one reason- he planned to be the man who lead a coterie of Republican Senators to the White House to tell Trump that he had to resign or be convicted and removed because of the Mueller Inquisition. This was going to be Romney's revenge served cold. The only problem was that Mueller found neither Trump nor his campaign had committed any crimes.

I think Romney is desperate to damage Trump in this circus, but the Democrats have made it damned near impossible for him to do so by presenting such a weak case. I think Romney might vote for witnesses, but I don't think it politically palatable to go for a rigged witness list- in other words, if you only grant what the Democrats want and deny Trump his list, it will backfire massively on the Democrats. Go ahead, Dems, throw Trump into that briar patch.

Clark said...

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States . . . ."

Seeing Red said...

Pfffftttt, Clinton stayed in office.

Seeing Red said...

That would be overturning the results of the election and we can’t have that.

Lewis Wetzel said...

If Trump is a thug, why is Barrack Obama not a thug?
If you were going to convince a person that Obama was not a thug, how would you do it? What examples of Obama's non-thug-like actions would you use that could be contrasted with Trump's thug-like actions?

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...


“Blogger Lloyd W. Robertson said...
My line on Mitt is now that he dreams of nothing more or less than a John McCain funeral.”

He must realize by now that he won’t even get that. McCain was a self-aggrandizing huckster which is something the political classes can understand and respect. Romney’s choir boy schtick invites contempt from the jackals, however useful they may temporarily find him. No state funerals for Kleenex.

rcocean said...

"The constitution lays out presidential qualifications. I don't see how the senate could override them

John Henry"

Exactly. The Senate just removes the President from office, it has no right to punish him. Its different with Federal judges since the district and appellate courts are creations of Congress and the judges subject to Senate Confirmation.

Equipment Maintenance said...

I think of Trump as my agent, working for me and my interests, in this case a strong and free country. I'd prefer that he play nice, and that those on the other side get something after strenuous but honorable negotiations, but if they can't deal in good faith, then give them nothing. And make it hurt.

Gk1 said...

Having watched the Clinton's skate through life unscathed, It's refreshing to see how the shoe is on the other foot and we have the media and democrats in unison whining "Where is the outrage?!?" After acting as get away driver for the Clinton crime syndicate for decades, this is a bit rich.

rcocean said...

Trump would simply make life a living hell for any R who voted to remove him from office. He has the time, money, and energy to do it.

But its all fantasy land. IRC, Nixon was never barred from holding office or being elected.

Martin said...

As for Dowd mentioning character--yeah, character used to matter, it should matter, Peggy Noonan even wrote a book about it mattering during the Reagan Admin..

But then the Dems gave us Bill Clinton over G.H.W. Bush and then Bob Dole. Then they gave us Al Gore. Then John Kerry. Then Barack Obama. Then Hillary Clinton.

It takes a LOT of nerve to now pull the character card.

Clark said...

Heritage article on punishment for impeachment. @John Henry and @rcocean. The constitutional text I quoted at 11:23 seems to cut against you. The Heritage article linked above is worth a read if you're interested in thinking about the issue.

I agree that since the Senate is not going to convict, the penalties clause isn't really relevant.

Lurker21 said...

McCain got his funeral because he was in Congress for 35 years. Romney can't expect anything like that. Besides, he seems to be more of a family man than McCain.

Predicting what Romney will do is hard, especially when you can't see some obvious goal that he might have, like making money or becoming president. Probably it's best to throw out the theories that are clearly on the far edge of likelihood. My guess is that he will give a speech condemning Trump but vote not to remove him from office.

stlcdr said...

From what I understand, a removal from office, and a disqualified for holding office (ever again) are two separate things. Perhaps I’m wrong in that.

So, if he is removed, but not barred from holding office in the government, he can still be nominated and win the presidency. If that happens, I think I’d laugh so hard that I’d have a heart attack (and yes, I would be voting for more Trump).

Mark said...

Predicting what Romney will do is hard

Not that hard. Romney is a weasel, so he'll do what weasels do. The specific form that might take might be a bit tough to determine, but he is what he is and will act accordingly.

Mark said...

not barred from holding office in the government

That's not was the Constitution says, in any event. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 does not speak of any office, but refers specifically to an "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

The president is not an office of honor; it is not an office of trust; it is not an office of profit.

iowan2 said...

Not a person started this impeachment sham with any idea the President would be removed from office.
This is abuse of Power. Democrats are abusing power. Speculating on the true motivation serves no purpose. The media will never asks dems why they intentionally did not vote to properly delegate impeachment power to issue subpoenas. Without that vote to delegate power to a committee. Subpoenas carry no enforcement mechanism. Shiffs committee,(intel, not judiciary) issued one subpoena, to Charles Kupperman. Kupperman went to the judiciary and asked, When two different branches of govt ask me to perform in two different ways, which has power over me? Before the Judge could answer which branch held superior power, Schiff withdrew the subpoena.

I have no idea what goal House Democrats were after. It is clearly not the removal of the President.
Lots of smart politicos here, hope you can enlighten me

narciso said...

I'm reminded of the last mission impossible film, where the villain, creates a dossier to frame hunt,


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-mi6-spy-fabricated-dossier-on-trump-and-prostitutes-wz2hr8zz7

Matt Sablan said...

"They want to convince themselves that character matters."

-- I was grossly disabused of that notion under Clinton.

Birkel said...

The Senate CANNOT determine Trump is ineligible for the presidency if he wins an election in 2020. That would be unconstitutional. The Constitution has two criteria for President: (35 years of age and Natural Born citizen). Adding any other criteria requires a Constitutional Amendment.

They could impeach and remove him twice, one supposes.

Jim at said...

Leftists lecturing the rest of us about character.
That's rich.

Biff said...

"They want to convince themselves that character matters."

I'd bet that a lot of the people trying "to convince themselves that character matters" are the same people who ridiculed Bob Dole when he was asking, "Where's the outrage?"

Ralph L said...

I have no idea what goal House Democrats were after.

They're afraid of their own constituents and donors. Then there's the twitter mob.

AllenS said...

iowan2 said...
I have no idea what goal House Democrats were after. It is clearly not the removal of the President. Lots of smart politicos here, hope you can enlighten me>

I'm guessing that they thought Trump couldn't handle the 24/7 bullshit attack, and they hoped they could get Trump to resign.

Annie C. said...

Off topic, sorry.

Kobe Bryant killed in helicopter crash.

So sad.

Francisco D said...

I have no idea what goal House Democrats were after. It is clearly not the removal of the President.

1. To deflect from the indictments that John Durham will announce this Spring;

2. To cover up other Obama administration crimes related to FISA abuse;

3. To keep three components of the base motivated - the useful idiots, Yellow Dog Dems and the cynical Deep Staters.

tcrosse said...

4. To try to flip the Senate, so as to keep Trump from appointing any more federal judges and Supreme Court justices in his second term.

TJM said...

Maureen Dowd is still mad at the world because Michael Douglas dumped her

Clark said...

@Birkel, @rcocean, @John Henry:

Your comments led me to explore a little the meaning of "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

I found a web post in which Will Baude is commenting on a couple of articles by Seth Barrett Tillman on the various uses and meanings of the words "office" and "officer" in the Constitution. I have come to think that the Presidency is not an Office of H T or P under the United States — that is, I have come to think that you were right. (I have not had a chance to dig really deeply into the question, but I have a lot of confidence in and respect for the scholarship of Seth Barrett Tillman, so if I were forced to bet money . . . .)

The same words are also the basis for Tillman's work on the emoluments clause.

Rance Fasoldt said...

Years ago, perhaps 35 or so (before cell phones), there was a fascinating article in the WSJ about a town in West Virginia that had a local phone company, and how the subscribers in the small, mountain town would pay a dollar or two a month, have conversations with the operators who were neighbors and friends. In this town there was one gentleman who refused service. The reporter was intrigued, since the cost was so low. I'll never forget the fellow's answer as to why he had no telephone service: "I don't want a bell in my house that any fool in the world can ring!"

Bruce Hayden said...

This part of what killed the quid pro quo in the Senate, trading witnesses: WHERE’S WALDO WHISTLEBLOWER?

In his presentation on behalf of President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial yesterday, White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin raised the question of Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Why have we not heard from him? Why has Schiff deep-sixed the testimony about him? RealClearPolitics has posted video of Philbin’s remarks along with this (lightly edited) transcript:

PHILBEN: I want to touch on one last point before I yield to one of my colleagues. That relates to the whistleblower. The whistleblower who we haven’t heard that much about who started all of this. The whistleblower we know from the letter that the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent that he thought that the whistleblower had political bias. We don’t know exactly what the political bias was because the Inspector General testified in the House committees in an executive session, and that transcript is still secret. It wasn’t transmitted up to the House Judiciary Committee. We haven’t seen it. We don’t know what’s in it. We don’t know what he was asked and what he revealed about the whistleblower. Now you would think that before going forward with an impeachment proceeding against the President of the United States that you would want to find out something about the complainant that had started all of it because motivations, bias, reasons for wanting to bring this complaint could be relevant, but there wasn’t any inquiry into that.

Recent reports, public reports, suggest that potentially the whistleblower was an Intelligence Community staffer who worked with then Vice President Biden on Ukraine matters, which if true would suggest an even greater reason for wanting to know about potential bias or motive for the whistleblower. At first when things started, it seemed like everyone agreed that we should hear from the whistleblower including Manager Schiff. I think we have what he said.


I don’t think that the Bidens likely wouldn’t have bee at the top of the Republicans’ list of witnesses that they wanted to call. I think that the at the top of the list would be Eric Ciaramella, presumed Whistleblower. Esp now that it has come out that he had told someone at work, shortly after the inauguration, when he was still on the NSC, in the WH, that he was going to take out President Trump. This was apparently overheard by a member of the military, who reported it up his chain of command (which probably makes it admissible evidence, regardless of purpose it was introduced for). He could be asked such questions as who told him about the call, whether he had a vendetta against Trump, why he had visited the Obama WH so frequently, and esp with VP Biden, whether he had worked with Schifty’s HPSCI staffers to write his complaint, and which ones, etc. Then the next witness might have been HPSCI chair Schifty, himself. Then maybe the Bidens. If the Republicans can get Eric Ciaramella under oath, I expect that Schifty’s entire case collapses as obviously a contrived setup.

Birkel said...

Clark,
I take no position on those issues. Rather, I believe only a constitutional amendment can change the eligibility requirements for the presidency. The Senate cannot add a requirement.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Kobe Bryant killed in helicopter crash.”

Karma. He raped that girl in Vail, and walked. She went up to his room with him, where he proceeded to spin her around, bend her over a chair, pulled her pants down, and butt fucked her, before she knew what was happening. I find her claim very plausible that she was willing to do him vaginally, but not anally, and that she never had a chance to consent to anal penetration. I don’t know how any self respecting lefty can defend him, in this era of Weinstein and #MeToo.

BTW, I happened to be at the Eagle County Courthouse during one of his hearings there. I had a CO bar license, so could get through security there. Total zoo, with a bunch of TV trucks setup, and hundreds of spectators. This was Aspen season, so after appearing in court, I took the long way back to Summit County, down to Glenwood, then up through Aspen, over Independence Pas then home through Deadville (actually Leadville). The Aspens in Summit County and over Vail Pass were done. The ones around Vail were prime, as well as above Aspen for awhile, then got into Aspens beyond theeit peak a bit above that. Great trip.

narciso said...

it's an indelicate reminder, bruce, you see how quickly they cover with a pillow, still a terrible way to go,

Mark said...

How many people (on the left) has Hillary fingered with her nutty, paranoid, conspiracy ideas? Now it is Mark Zuckerberg, saying that there’s good reason to believe that Facebook is not just going to reelect Trump, but intends to reelect him.

Michael K said...

I find her claim very plausible that she was willing to do him vaginally, but not anally, and that she never had a chance to consent to anal penetration.

I suspect he was thinking about what has since happened to Hunter Biden.

JSF said...

Who remembers during the Clinton Impeachment that the Democrats were arguing "Character didn't matter," if the President was doing a bang-up job on the economy?

The party of Chappaquidick and the Blue Dress don't have clean hands to really use the "character" attack.

And let's not forget how fine the Left was with using the IRS against American citizens during the last Administration.

There are no Tip O'Neill Democrats anymore, just Caligulans.

Michael K said...

If the Republicans can get Eric Ciaramella under oath, I expect that Schifty’s entire case collapses as obviously a contrived setup.

Which is why there will be no witnesses. The Democrats may be evil but they are not stupid. At least not the ones who are not Nadler.

Iman said...

“Kobe Bryant killed in helicopter crash.”

'Karma. He raped that girl in Vail, and walked. '

Kind of a disproportionate karmic response, but YMMV...

Iman said...

Not that it should be excused.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Gunner said...
Maybe Romney also wants revenge against a political party that said he cheated on his taxes and was racist?

1/26/20, 8:31 AM

Nah. Never Trumpers and fake conservatives will swallow any insult or humiliation from the Dems and their media allies because they think it shows how high-minded and civil they are.

Actually what it shows is that the Never Trumpers and fake conservatives are craven pussies.

But when Trump insults them - whoa! Now that requires revenge!

tim in vermont said...

" I have come to think that the Presidency is not an Office of H T or P under the United States”

That is certainly what Democrats were arguing when it was clear that Hillary had broken laws in the server thing, destruction of Federal Records, mainly, and disqualification from holding office was in the penalty.

rcocean said...

@clark. There doesn't seem to be any Federal court precedent, so...

If Trump was impeached/removed and told he could not hold office again. But ran anyway, an Obama judge would immediately declare he could never take office and so therefore, his Campaign could not accept any $$, etc. - other state AG's would file suits claiming Trump was committing "Fraud" by running for an office he could never hold.

Trump would appeal. The appeals court would rule. And it would be up to the SCOTUS to let the ruling stand or take it their selves. And then we would know the final answer.

rcocean said...

"Maybe Romney also wants revenge against a political party that said he cheated on his taxes and was racist?"

Haha. Mittens only wants approval from the Democrats. He has a list of things he wants to do as Senator, and No. 1 on the list is "reaching across the aisle" to "Get things done".

Gk1 said...

"If the Republicans can get Eric Ciaramella under oath, I expect that Schifty’s entire case collapses as obviously a contrived setup"

I have to ask why on heavens earth the senate can't explore this whole political hitjob after they dispose of this Impeachment scam? Is the impeachment hearing the only possible venue we can use to understand how the deep state used "whistleblowers" to take down a duly elected president? Why can't Lindsey Graham and the other republican eunuchs get off their worthless asses and find out?

narciso said...

Remember the houses of the landsraad in dune, many if not all are complicit.

ken in tx said...

"The Senate just removes the President from office, it has no right to punish him. Its different with Federal judges since the district and appellate courts are creations of Congress and the judges subject to Senate Confirmation."
I believe this to be correct. Also, the Senate is not bound by anything the House added to the Articles of Impeachment. The Senate's final judgement is what matters.

TempoNick said...

Cheesehead Peggy Noonan vomits all over her keyboard again!

"[T]he more impressive the Democrats’ case is, the more depressing the reality becomes."

What's at all impressive about the Democrats' case? That Trump played hardball with Ukraine? That he wanted to kneecap a political opponent? Like Presidents actually do those kinds of things? Tell me something I didn't already know.

Dems pretending to get the vapors accusing Trump of the VERY SAME stuff they do? The American people can see right through it. We're just waiting now for their turn (i.e. GITMO). Trump always gets revenge.

Mr Lynn said...

"But many Americans knew they were voting for a thug. They wanted a thug who would bust up Washington, and they got one"

No, many Americans wanted a President who shared their own common-sense understanding of the world, not one who would sneer at them with contempt. See "The Common-Sense President," here: https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/the-common-sense-president/

Kansas City said...

I thought it was a very weak column. It did not say much of anything, other than a little bit of gossip about the players and a cute ending.

The assessment of the senators is not hard. Each is interested in keeping his job. Neither D's nor R's will risk being primaried and losing their job.

RightWingNutter said...

Romney doesn’t think this is time for revenge. He knows there is no chance of Trump being removed, and he knows that he will be running for re-election at the end of Trump’s 2nd term. Without, at a minimum, Trump not opposing him, he won’t get another term. If he wants to stay in the Senate he’ll play nice for the next four years.

Ritchie The Riveter said...



Romney is willing to compromise the one moral code that a legitimate government MUST respect ... the one that starts with the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident" ... in order to remain a "statesman".

In that regard, Trump is more moral than Romney, for he has more respect for that moral code ... and that choice affects ALL of us.

Civility in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive in the defense of liberty.

Steve said...

And when your looks are gone and you're alone
How many nights you sit beside the phone
What were the things you wanted for yourself
Journalistic ambition you'll remember well......

jr565 said...

No one cares because even if what the dems allege was true it wouldn’t merit an impeachment. There is literally no reasons why trump shouldn’t have Biden’s role in getting the prosecutor fired. That is part of the Ukrainian corruption that needed to be addressed. And if that means that Biden gets ensnared, oh well.

Do dems really think he should be immune from investigations just because he is running for president? He was the former VP. He was supposedly the point man in Ukraine for ukranian corruption. And yet he appears to have looked past his son being hired by a corrupt oligarch. For the sole purpose of getting influence from Biden as VP. And he did fire the prosecutor right when the prosecutor started seizing assets of the president of Burisma as part of the investigation. He has to address those questions.


Does anyone think that if it was Trump who was president and is son was working for Burisma that Th were wouldn’t be demands for Ukraine to look into the issue if trump is his VP threatened to withhold aid unless they fired the prosecutor? Come on! With all the investigations into trump because he supposedly violate the emoluments clause there is no possible way the dems would let him get away with Gavin his son working on the board of Burisma.

And, if we are going to address working g with foreign powers to dig up dirt on enemies we have to address that it was the dems that did this to trump! With Ukraine no less. I can’t imagine he’d be willing to give them loads of cash after knowing the previous Ukrainian govt worked with Democrats to take out his campaign without proof that they wouldn’t do it again.

So no one cares because they know trump did nothing wrong and this is just a political stunt.

Sam L. said...

Poor, POOR Dems! Poor, POORER MoDo!!

FryingPanHead said...

Clark said...

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States


Which means what it says. It says the Senate MAY go this far, but no further. It doesn't say they HAVE to go this far (removal & prevention). If they want to go NOT EVEN that far, they MAY. What does "Not even that far" mean? Whatever they want it to mean.