That sentence is a headline at the NYT.
Interesting to learn how Murkowski will vote, but it's a pro-Trump vote, so it's not "fatal" as far as the target of this proceeding is concerned.
If we're using this metaphor of death, we need to know whose death is under discussion. It's a fatal blow to the enterprise of killing the Trump presidency. At least. Maybe it's a fatal blow to the Democratic Party... or — to be less dramatic — to the 2020 ambitions of the Democratic Party.
Indeed, what a disaster!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
224 comments:
1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»Good catch. Yes, they mean fatal to their hopes/ambitions. They just can't help but show their hand at every turn.
How could one make any other conclusion knowing the article is from the NYT?
Lisa Murkowski -- allright, girl!
It'd be nice if the NYT would correctly describe "WITNESSES" as "NEW, ADDITIONAL WITNESSES THAT THE HOUSE DID NOT SUBPOENA DURING ITS INVESTIGATION"
No Soup for You, NYT!
Guess those House Dems are learning how eloquent they were, if they couldn't even flip Murkowski. She makes McCain look like a reliable Republican vote, and yet even she refuses to go along with the sham.
Doesn't say much for Romney, does it.
The death of a dream. An american tragedy. Mittens stands alone, the lone voice for morality and TRUE principles. Sads.
This was a shampeachment, a farce and a partisan circus from the very start. Now, look forward to Collins and Mittens portraying their participation and aide to the D's, as an act of noble rectitude. Look for the coming NTY/WaPo Op-ed pieces from Sue and Mitt.
A neighbor of mine posted on FB this morning. She said if they don't demand witnesses democracy is DEAD!
I've instituted a no-politics-on-FaceBook rule (with exceptions for the 2nd Amendment).
But I was sorely tempted to respond that if she really believed Democracy was dead then there is no need for you to vote next November. Spread the word.
The hyperbole is a mark of desperation.
The Democrats are scrambling to keep this farce going until Wednesday or later. It's a "twofer". It will mean Trump has to give his SOTU before he's acquitted, and it keeps Bernie away from Iowa.
Dem managers wasted their opportunity to convince, by deciding to hector and preen.
Dem managers wasted their opportunity to convince, by deciding to hector and preen.
They were never serious about impeachment in 2020. That's why those two loathsome toads (Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler) were the Democrat face of their senate impeachment case and not "moderates" or real lawyers.
This is a trial run for 2022 when Trump is a lame duck and they need to destroy his legacy.
I have to wonder if Sarah Palin's veiled threat of a primary challenge altered MUrkowski's thinking a little.
Did she also say Trump was guilty of the crime of wanting corruption investigated like Lamar?
This was a sham from the start. They were never going to call witnesses because most of these senators made a bunch of money in Ukraine just like Biden did.
Trump better follow through and clean this swamp up.
This Senate impeachment trial is not like any trial that goes on every day in America's courtrooms. It was the duty of the House to get the evidence lined up in the House. Not wait until Judas Bolton starts leaking his book. And in what trial does a juror stand to benefit if the defendant is convicted? Amy, Bernie and Liz would love it not to have to run against Trump.
Dem closing argument:
'Hey, you can't terminate our Hoax Impeachment Farce! Only we can terminate our Hoax Impeachment Farce!"
Have the calls for Tie Breaker Roberts to act resurfaced? Should he do so pre-emptively? I mean, if we're going to ignore the process and the rules let's go balls out!
alanc709 said...
Guess those House Dems are learning how eloquent they were, if they couldn't even flip Murkowski. She makes McCain look like a reliable Republican vote, and yet even she refuses to go along with the sham.
Murkowski is as interested in an investigation into Ukranian corruption as Joe Biden is.
She is scared of witnesses.
Not having witnesses is the sham.
IF we actually do wrap this thing up quickly, it'll be because (1) the American people don't care. Its no fun for senators to grandstand to a half-empty gallery and (2) everyone knows this impeachment was never going to result in removal. Its been a partisan shit show. Acting like Pompous Custodians of the Constitution fooled no one.
She mentioned attacking the Chief Justice specifically. Looks like that Sen. Warren question and Roberts' reaction--which you pointed out earlier today--backfired dramatically.
It was sort of weird on Fox News around noon today. While a lot of the pro Trump commentators seemed pleased, I sensed that there was an air of wistfulness about them. No doubt most of them were hoping and looking forward to months and months of coverage of this circus.
Ok trivia folks!
As I am watching a very old episode of Law and Order I see the District Attorney’s name come up!
ADAM SCHIFF!
Were the parents of the reviled Adam Schiff involved in TV some how or were his parents just fans of Law and Order?
Lisa Murky knows that the D's don't really care if she votes against witnesses. They did care about Kavanaugh (remember DiFi bullying her?). Plus, Lisa can always vote for Impeachment on one article, just to show she's a Maverick, without pissing off the Senators who want to end this clown show.
Let the history books record this as ‘Schiff’s Whiff’.
@Nonapod. Yes, poor dears, both left and right leaning news persons will have to go back to the hard work of digging for stories to report.
i was slow on the uptake here.
Fox said that this could go until Wednesday and even Chris Wallace said “why are Dems dragging this out”?
I just figured out why!
The State of the Union is Tuesday night and the Dems are hoping to muzzle Trump (to a certain extent) since he won’t be officially acquitted yet.
So the strategy for the Dems now (if it can be called that) will be from now until the election to endlessly harp on how this (now inevitiable) acquittal was clearly a partisan usurpation of justice! And that Trump's a mad tyrant king! And the Republicans are ignoring the law and the Constitution and the will of the people and they're just the worst!
So, yeah... let The Great 2020 Whinging begin I guess.
"Fatal" to the hopes of prolonging the impeachment agony. IOW, the hopes of those at the NYT.
Otherwise, probably welcome news to Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar who will now be able to campaign.
Probably super welcome to Joe Biden because the "witness' controversy kept coming back to HUunter and him being on the bubble, despite the media's best efforts to ignore or downplay the whole Burisma thing.
Trump seems to have been doing well from the impeachment, he may regret seeing it go away. Hardly fatal to his being President as he wasn't going to be convicted and removed in any case, and there is an election less than 10 months away.
A pleasant surprise.
Just hope McConnell didn't have to promise too much to Murkowski. Like having the final say on a SCOTUS pick...
Yeah, how foolish and petty does Mitt look now.
I know the Dems were looking to "flip" some of the Repub Senators. However, you don't hear any talking about the Democrat Senators who also may have decided that they would not vote for more of this farce.
Would be interesting to see which ones those may be. Joe Manchin for example?
I saw a video yesterday discussing Biden's votes in regards to the Trans Alaska Pipeline, which has been the greatest source of revenue for Alaska since Biden has been in politics. All of his votes, had his views prevailed, would have hurt Alaska. The oil industry in Alaska is currently in decline as Prudhoe Bay stretches beyond its peak. Alaska faces a bleak financial future as is. But there is hope by opening up other areas to exploration and adding a new pipeline that can handle LNG. Those hopes wouldn't stand a chance with a President Biden. I suspect Murkowski is very aware of this.
I guess if she had voted yes on witnesses, it wouldn't be a fatal blow to Trump. It would have simply meant the trial would continue, likely for months and months.
There's a line of thought that Trump couldn't fight witness subpoenas because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sitting right there, and who but a crazy person would go against the Chief Justice's initial rulings. Actually, I think Trump could have played things out to where a ruling on a witness subpoena worked its way to the Supreme Court and gotten hung up there on a 4-4 ruling, with Roberts abstaining because it was his initial ruling that was being debated.
So Murkowski voting 'No' avoids the sh*tshow of having a 50-50 tie on this vote.
Now we can go on to a vote on the articles themselves and get to see how many Senators cross the aisle. My guess is the Abuse of Power article gets a majority vote, like 55-45. The Obstruction article fails 40-60 or worse.
Pictures at an Exhibition is great but she's an awful Senator.
"Just hope McConnell didn't have to promise too much to Murkowski. Like having the final say on a SCOTUS pick..."
Oooh. Good point. Hadn't thought of that. Darn.
The State of the Union is Tuesday night and the Dems are hoping to muzzle Trump (to a certain extent) since he won’t be officially acquitted yet.
@paminwi, if true, it means they still don’t understand Trump.
However, you don't hear any talking about the Democrat Senators who also may have decided that they would not vote for more of this farce.
Not yet, DBQ, but now that the die is cast, I think we'll see a few Dems vote no on witnesses. They won't feel like spoilers. I'm hoping Krysten Sinema will be among them.
I think Trump would welcome the opportunity to do the SotU before the acquittal vote, probably more than after. Think about it- he can literally stump for the vote in a national address, and might well pick up two or three additional Democrats.
My prediction for the final vote 52-48 acquittal on abuse of power. I think Romney will vote for conviction on the abuse of power, as will Murkowski, but Manchin will vote against it.
My prediction for the final vote on the Obstruction of Congress is 55-45- with all the Republicans voting against along with Manchin, Sinema, and Jones.
Calling a bunch of witnesses, without Schiff to cut off the questioning, would have been fun
I am sad and disappointed taht it isn't happening.
I guess all those stories about "Dem Impeachment Managers pissed off Murky" were actually true.
Two people have been arrested breaching two security checkpoints at Mar-A-Lago. I guess they figure, as impeachment has failed, there's only one avenue left open to dedicated never-Trumpers. :-(
Good catch.
Yes, Thank you. It wasn't that long ago when it was considered ridiculous to claim NYT was politically biased, yet another data point added to the pile...
My prediction for the final vote on the Obstruction of Congress is 55-45- with all the Republicans voting against along with Manchin, Sinema, and Jones.
I think you are pretty much on target, Yancy. However, I think that there may be a few more Democrats who vote against Article 2, but vote for Article 1. They can justify it as being against Trump but being for the rule of law.
It's a fatal blow to the ratings for Rachel Maddow.
mockturtle said...
Two people have been arrested breaching two security checkpoints at Mar-A-Lago. I guess they figure, as impeachment has failed, there's only one avenue left open to dedicated never-Trumpers. :-(
1/31/20, 1:10 PM
From what I understand it's 2 women. 2020's version of "Thelma and Louise."
I haven't seen any pictures yet. Does anybody else want to bet that said womyn:
1. Have tats and purple or pink hair?
2. Own pussy hats?
3. Attended the Women's Marches?
4, Have multiple cats?
Althouse I am well aware that you predicted that not only would impeachment fail, but it would also be basically disastrous for Democrats. Now that Mitch McConnell (who was ironically one of my heroes and not one of yours) has held the line for Trump, any “disaster” as I’d define it will be determined by what happens in the Senate in 2020. If the Republican majority (and even McConnell’s seat is lost, with the impeachment proceedings being a factor, then I’d say that it is a disaster for Republicans and a massively big gain for Democrats.
Think of a Democratic Senate majority, even if Trump beats a weak nominee like a Sanders or a Warren. No more judicial confirmations. Every cabinet job, diplomatic post and military command subject to a Democratic majority. And any future impeachment conducted under rules set by Majority Leader Schumer.
And the 2020 Senate majority depends on state-by-state elections in a half-dozen purple states like Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina. As well as Georgia, where things seem to get more interesting with each election.
Also, rather stupid to go to Mar-A-Lago when Trump isn't there. What were they trying to do, kill or hurt an employee for the crime of working for Trump?
"I'm hoping Krysten Sinema will be among them. “
Yes, she will always be there for you when you don’t need her. Manchin will be free to vote no too.
Are we gonna have: (1) Acquittal in Impeachment and (2) Brexit on the same freaking day?
Life is good.
International globalists in Brussels, Davos San Francisco, and New York City hardest hit.
I am ecstatically happy about this. When I am less ecstatic i will probably let you know how I really feel!
Xmas said...My guess is the Abuse of Power article gets a majority vote, like 55-45
Not a chance. No Republican voting against witnesses will then turn around and vote yes on conviction. Did you mean will lose by a 55-45 vote? Because that sounds about right.
Chuck, Romney, and the Democrats should start eating Chinese bats.
How many different ways can Trump win?
Does anyone else think that Chuck is a precocious teen who is having a grand time trolling Drago? His insults to Althouse seem very "teenish" to me.
“ They were never serious about impeachment in 2020. That's why those two loathsome toads (Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler) were the Democrat face of their senate impeachment case and not "moderates" or real lawyers.”
Here is my theory. Wadler had to be involved because the chairs the House Judiciary committee, and that is the committee that has always run impeachment’s in the past. It was supposed to be slam dunk, with the Mueller investigation passing over their mountain of dirt to Wadler - except that AG Barr got confirmed too quickly, and shut down the Mueller investigation before they could do the pass off. Then Wadler completely beclowned himself in the House hearings on Mueller’s investigation. The Dems had their majority back, with promises to impeach Trump. But they didn’t have any plausible impeachable offenses available.
I think that the action shifted to HPSCI chair Schifty at least partially because he was maybe the only committee chair smart enough to pull it off. The House Dems have a problem in this regard. The Republicans have term limits on their chairmanships. The Democrats don’t. The result is that a lot of their committee chairs got their chairmanships through seniority. That prioritizes coming from an ultra safe district over any real intelligence or ability. They may be bureaucratically smart, but overall, not that smart. Schifty, on the other hand, is Harvard educated lawyer, who graduated high in his class there. You have to be either smart or connected to get in, but have to be really smart to graduate that high in his class.
Schifty is the chair of the HPSCI, which means that his committee has oversight over the Intelligence Community (CIA, etc), so that is where the impeachment that he and his people see setting up had to come from. That was going to be hard, since the President deals mostly with the people he put at the top of the IC agencies, and not the rank and file who could be used to setup the impeachment. But there was a glaring hole there - the NSC. Obama had multiplied the number of people who had been detailed from IC agencies several fold. When Trump entered office, there were maybe 300 of these IC civil servants detailed to the White House as part of the NSC. Even after two years, there were still a lot of Obama holdovers burrowed into the NSC. That was the weakness Schifty needed, and exploited. Everything else is history (though it may never come out completely).
I need to do more research to see if Schifty had gotten control over the impeachment before he had put together his plan to misuse the IC IG whistleblower program for his own ends, or whether he got it set up then went to Pelosi and told her what he had done. Keep in mind that the event that triggered the impeachment inquiry, the Ukranian phone call, occurred back in July, over six months ago.
Chuck, given your apparent laizez fair attitude toward the government’s respect for the Bill of Rights, and your belief that the unelected European Commission can rule the UK better than Britain’s voters, for another example, why would you be upset to see the Democrats in control running the country with activist judge allies to gut the laws already passed?
What is the down side for you?
@DBQ I believe that there is some speculation in the Federalist about the Dems who just might cross over. I think they identified about a half dozen.
The disaster won’t be for Democrats. 2018 was a backlash against Trump, 2020 will make 2018 look like a small ripple. This shameful impeachment trial under a Republican majority will bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008.
Are we gonna have: (1) Acquittal in Impeachment and (2) Brexit on the same freaking day?
Fox reporting they're going to give the Senators 10 min each to bloviate. More like Wednesday if that happens...
Given what has happened to Trump’s numbers, it would have been better for him to have dragged this out some more. Schiff and Nadler "What a fine mess you’ve gotten us into this time Ollie!” have managed to make Trump look like a grownup.
"This shameful impeachment trial under a Republican majority will bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008.”
Less an awful lot of Black voters, BTW, who know what it looks like to get railroaded.
@ Bay Area Guy This vote and Brexit today. Reelection of Trump this year and we might actually again have a functioning Republic that looks a bit like the Founders intended.
Maybe you guys can still pull it out though, Maybe you can ruin the economy somehow so that your former base aren’t doing so damn well.
’who was ironically one of my heroes’
Chuck has thrown Mitch under the bus. Unexpectedly. 😂
Inga and Chuck are grieving. In the anger phase.
“Trump tried to investigate corruption, he has to go” will make a great battle cry for the front line troops.
Fun fun fun!!
LLR-lefty Chuck is back in "Pretend to want republican majorities" mode again!
This should be hilarious!
The last time the republicans won both the Senate and the House and the White House LLR-lefty Chuck literally called it a "disaster" and then in 2018, when the dems took the House LLR-lefty Chuck was absolutely giddy with excitement!!
This shameful impeachment trial under a Republican majority will bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008.
You just keep telling yourself that, champ.
Two suspects are in police custody after breaching two security checkpoints at President Donald Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago club on Friday, law enforcement officials said. In a statement via the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, Florida Highway Patrol officers were trailing a black SUV when it rammed through the checkpoints at around 11:40 a.m
Can’t be Chuck and Inga, they have an alibi, they were with us!
Liars, cheaters and Democrats hardest hit, but I repeat myself.
“Inga and Chuck are grieving. In the anger phase.”
No, not me. I fully expected the Republicans to give Trump an acquittal, even if there were witnesses allowed. The truth keeps coming out, it will continue to come out all the way through to Election Day. It’s Democrats and independents who will be listening.
Schiff: The facts will come out.
Lautreamont: Concealed actions are the most estimable. When I see a few of these in history, they please me greatly. They have not been completely concealed. They have been known. This small way in which they appeared increases their merit. That they could not be concealed is the finest thing of all.
inga: " This shameful impeachment trial under a Republican majority will bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008."
And if the audience composition at Trump's recent rallies are a fair representation, many of them will likely vote for Trump.
A trial without witnesses is like a year without a springtime.
Funny as hell to listen to Democrats like Schiff quoting the Founding Fathers. Like the Devil quoting scripture.
Inga said...
The disaster won’t be for Democrats. 2018 was a backlash against Trump, 2020 will make 2018 look like a small ripple. This shameful impeachment trial under a Republican majority will bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008.
1/31/20, 1:30 PM
LOL!
"bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008", yes this but a LOT of them will also be voting for Trump!
interesting in apelbaum's latest data mining, on the suleimani weeping brigades, was Siraj wihaj, the fellow behind those cells back in new mexico, that were uncovered,
Clyde: "Funny as hell to listen to Democrats like Schiff quoting the Founding Fathers. Like the Devil quoting scripture."
Or LLR-lefty Chuck saying conservative things.....
"Even after two years, there were still a lot of Obama holdovers burrowed into the NSC. That was the weakness Schifty needed, and exploited."
I still think that when we hit bottom, we'll find that Trump, and possibly Zelensky, too, were maneuvered into a phone call specifically to get a mention of Biden's name to hang everything on.
Imagine being a senator, and how manipulated you would feel by the House's Prosecutorial team. The drip, drip, drip of revelations from the press & leakers. If you were a senator what would you think? "Oh gosh, with all that horseshit in there, there's a got to be a pony somewhere. Hand me a shovel!" Or, "You think we're all idiots, don't you?"
I'm voting for option B.
I'd also resent the manipulative attempts by the House Democrats to make the Senate do their work for them. They had their chance to build a case, and they blew it. That's not the Senate's problem, and don't expect me to make it so.
The truth keeps coming out, it will continue to come out all the way through to Election Day.
Indeed, I look forward to Durham's report.
What I find amusing is that "The Libruls" don't think this kind of shit show will ever happen to them. Perhaps, being the darlings of the left, they'll be spared. History knows otherwise.
BTW, dems got a history with this shit, they don't need witnesses, just the right length of rope.
reliable sources
https://twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1222389587277963269?s=20
Democrats are phobic that after more than 12 trimesters of Planned President, witch hunts, and warlock trials, their choice is not politically or legally viable.
On the one hand, I hope Bernie wins the nomination. On the other hand, I see all the benighted fools in here, and remember the "Beto" yardsigns in my area, and I know that there are enough idiots out there to hand us all a terrible surprise.
"No, not me. “
Skipped right to denial.
who can doubt them:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2020/01/30/msnbc-pundit-if-acquitted-trump-will-shut-down-voting-california
My Democrat friends seem to think this played out well for 2020. A Republican party cover up. I suspect that they are as delusional as you people. We will see in good time.
they are Chinese owned,
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/31/tiktok-live-action-abortion-lila-rose/
Well the Clintons have trained the Democrats well in looking the other way at wrongdoing. Now it’s a heinous crime to ask for documents related to election interference by Democrats. And Biden did nothing wrong. It’s just a coincidence that Burisma got their money’s worth putting BIden Jr on their board.
"My Democrat friends seem to think this played out well for 2020.”
I have been saying that this was the best case they could reasonably hope for. They didn’t want witnesses, they just want a bloody shirt.
This shameful impeachment trial under a Republican majority will bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008.
I am sure that Michigan precincts will vote 110% Democrat when they have "Republican" election judges like Lil' Chuckles as observers. However, their numbers will not be greater than in 2008.
The shamefulness of the impeachment is pretty obvious to people with a brain. I guess that leaves you out, Inga.
Mitt Romney proves again that he is a useful idiot. Really, the man is clueless. He has no idea.
oh laforge apparently survived the mars massacre by the synthetics, which were engineered by the Romulan deep state, the tal shiar,
It might have been what the Democrats wanted, but Biden is road kill and Trump’s numbers are better than they were when he won.
Inga said...
This shameful impeachment trial under a Republican majority will bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008.
Even with witnesses
1: Inga, honey, the House had 18 witnesses. They brought over transcripts from 17 of them (for some reason, they don't want us to know what the IC IG said).
You got witnesses, they just didn't see anything wrong.
2: You are right, a whole bunch of people who voted Democrat in 2008 are going to come out and vote because of this. Where you're wrong is that a lot of them are going to be voting for Trump.
Which is how Trump won in 2016. But this will be even more so
ruh roh
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/31/boltons_security_clearance_in_jeopardy_in_wake_of_book_leaks__142285.html
Sad but a cover up by any other name is still a cover up. And so history will note.
The "Get Trump" Squad drove the ball all the way down to the Red Zone, lead by crafty little QB Adam Schiff.
Yet, it's 4th and Goal at the 20 yard line, they are down by 8, and the swarming Trump defense is blitzing the QB.
"Sanders introduces bill to ban fracking.”
Putin’s little lap dog. “Fuck you and your two dollar gas America!"
There's an outside-the-impeachment-itself factor that I've not seen addressed. Maybe y'all can help me sort it out. Let me try to explain my thoughts.
Much of the focus of the arguments back and forth about Trump & Bidens and the July phone call has been that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate any corruption aspect of the appointment of H. Biden to the board at Burisma for his own (Trump's) political benefit. That is, for the purpose of smearing Trump's anticipated political opponent, J. Biden.
Let’s leave aside that I don’t see how one can “smear” someone by telling the truth about him. As others have noted (perhaps ad nauseam), J. Biden publicly confessed (video at CFR meeting) to his own exercise of exactly the "abuse of power" act that Dems are accusing Trump of: using his (J. Biden's) government position & authority to [improperly] influence an activity of a foreign government for personal (although indirect via his immediate family member) benefit.
I've watched the Senate daily sessions & followed the arguments presented by each side. And the impression I've gotten from the House Managers is that the Dems, as a party, would have preferred ignoring and hiding J. Biden's [improper] "abuse of power" from the primary, and if applicable general election, voters, its exposure. That is, and relying on their own arguments propping up their abuse of power Article against Trump, they would have preferred an "impeachable" Dem President possibly elected in 2020, to the exposure of his [confessed] conduct & his disqualification on that basis as a candidate for representing their party in a presidential election.
If Trump's "abuse of power" was a "high crime or misdemeanor," as they argue, then were J. Biden to be their nominee they would be supporting the election of a President who, by his own confession, had committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
Have I got that right?
Ann,
Why do you persist in linking to fake news sites like the Slimes?
"Sad but a cover up by any other name is still a cover up. And so history will note.”
Right. This “impeachment" was used as a coverup to prevent looking into Democrat corruption. And history will so note.
Maybe Schiff should have completed his investigation before sending it off half assed to the Senate.
The "Ban Fracking" agenda will play real well with the Pennsylvania frackers, I bet.
roesch/voltaire: "Sad but a cover up by any other name is still a cover up. And so history will note."
LOL
How dramatic! Cover up! History!
roesch/voltaire said...
Sad but a cover up by any other name is still a cover up. And so history will note.
1/31/20, 2:23 PM
Yeah, it's a shame that the trashy, thieving Biden family are probably going to get away with their corruption and douchbaggery.
and if applicable general election, voters, TO its exposure.
I looked that over at least three times, and... still, a typo. Arrggghhhhh
Mollie Hemingway summed it up very well:
"Once you see the media/Democratic operation, whatever it is -- Russia collusion hoax, anti-Kavanaugh smears, impeachment gambit -- it's hard to not see it. The alleged "bombshells," tightly scripted and carefully deployed, become expected instead of feared or taken seriously."
Just got home. Turned the tv on. It was on MSNBC (theyve had the best uninterrupted impechment coverage). All I hear is BOMBSHELL! EPIC!
Nicole Wallace tells me this ties everything together. Then some lawyer tells me she doesn't think they'll throw Trump's lawyers in jail, but probably just sanctioned for lying.
Something about Bolton.
The Chuck Shumer tells me this is just the start of bombshell leaks.
i don't know what's going on yet, but it sure sounds like they got him this time!
Schiff's so depressed his eyeballs have slunk back into their sockets and refuse to come out.
"oh laforge apparently survived the mars massacre by the synthetics, which were engineered by the Romulan deep state, the tal shiar"
Yay!!!! Go Geordi!!!!
"Yet, it's 4th and Goal at the 20 yard line, they are down by 8, and the swarming Trump defense is blitzing the QB.
No, they got sacked on 4th down. They are now arguing that the refs and replay officials are corrupt and begging the commissioner to overturn the result and award them victory. In other words, they are like Saints fans.
Back in December, following the House vote to impeach the President, I commented on a post here at Althouse that I hoped that impeachment would turn out to be the wheel upon which the Democratic Party would be broken.
So far, so good!
roesch/voltaire said...
Sad but a cover up by any other name is still a cover up. And so history will note.
1/31/20, 2:23 PM
So what did you do about it? Did you write Nancy, Shifty, Biden and tell them enough already? Or are you still projecting onto Trump?
If it’s all bullshit, you must acquit!
Speaking of synthetics....
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1223305946723704832
They lost any chance at witnesses when the House team literally insulted Murkowski when she asked them a question. These are the brightest bulbs?
I say we free up POTUS to do his fucking job.
Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding @DrEricDing2h
19. Again, these are new express published findings and not peer reviewed yet. Let’s not draw conclusions yet. But evidence suggest that 2 different HIV genes 🧬 are present in the #coronarvirus S gene region (that didn’t map to any other coronavirus, according to other studies).
2h
20. Further the authors add that “This indicates that these insertions have been preferably acquired by the 2019-nCoV, providing it with additional survival and infectivity advantage. Delving deeper we found that these insertions were similar to HIV-1.” 🤔
1h
21. Paper piles on: “these 🧬insertions are present at binding site of 2019-nCoV. Due to presence of gp120 motifs in 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein at its binding domain, we propose that these motif insertions could have provided an enhanced affinity towards host cell receptors.”🤒
1h
22. The authors dunked this final conclusion: “This uncanny similarity of novel inserts in the 2019- nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag is unlikely to be fortuitous”. Wow, they sure just went straight there! 😱 What a bold paper... I don’t know what to say 🤷🏻♂️
Should we start a GoFundMe and buy Chuck and Inga helicopters? Just asking.
This is going to play out like the ending of "The Screwtape Letters" With Schiff and Nadler sharing the role of Wormwood.
They had their chance to provide the feast, and failed. So they become the feast.
Is anyone wondering how much was really spirited out of Harvard with samples and vials ?research
Aunty Trump said...
"This shameful impeachment trial under a Republican majority will bring out Democratic voters in even larger numbers than when Obama won in 2008.”
Less an awful lot of Black voters, BTW, who know what it looks like to get railroaded.
If to be unfairly oppressed by The Man is the axis of the Black Experience...PDT is, beyond the shadow of a doubt...
The First Black President
Let’s waste more time on this shampeachment.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China.
Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston.
Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China.
Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019.
Don't get cocky! After Trump, then what?
For 2024 there are not only going to have to be new candidates, but new committee chairs and members, new issues, all around.
"Mitt Romney proves again that he is a useful idiot. Really, the man is clueless. He has no idea"
He's neither clueless nor stupid. Mitten's a backstabbing, grandstanding, egotist who hates Trump for succeeding where Romney failed. But you want to think well of Romney, and hope he'll "Change" - but he won't.
And fact that he's behaving the complete OPPOSITE of what he said in the 2018 Primaries, doesn't seem to faze Utah Republicans. Had Mittens told the truth, that he was going to sabotage Trump every chance he got, and spend his time "reaching across the aisle" he never would've been nominated. you think people would think badly of bald faced liars who play them for suckers, but the Center-Right, just laughs, and goes "poor mitt".
Section 31 was behind the destruction of the Mars Spaceyards. Kurtzman can't let that shit go. They were in cahoots with the Super-Secret Romulan secret police, not the Tal'Shiar.
Yancey Ward said...
They lost any chance at witnesses when the House team literally insulted Murkowski when she asked them a question. These are the brightest bulbs?
Yes, they are. because the last thing in the world they actually wanted was witnesses.
The IC IG, called to explain, under oath, exactly how it was that the "whistleblower" rules got changed. Who did he discuss this with? Anyone on Schiff's staff?
Schiff, under oath, being forced to discuss all his interactions with Vindman, the IC IG, and EC
EC, under oath: How did you learn about this conversation in the first place
HB under oath, so, what did you do for Burisma?
Joe under oath: Did you ever discuss your son's lobbying with Burisma with anyone? Bring in under oath the people who went on the record raising issues about this at the time.
Witnesses would have been an absolute sh!tstorm for the Dems. The only thing they wanted for "witnesses" was to gin up their moron base.
For which they succeeded.
@Yancey Ward,
Lemme play Democratic pol, for a moment.
If you continue to malign my bad football analogies, then you are a Putin asset.
Ok, I'm back.
معلم صحي
سباك
تسليك مجاري
فني صحي
فني صحي الكويت
معلم صحي ممتاز
معلم صحي
Kim Strassel sums it up nicely
Democrats approved two articles of impeachment that failed to identify a crime. Senators are instead asked to render verdicts on a vague “abuse of power” claim and on a “obstruction of Congress” charge that is the result of the House’s own decision not to litigate its demand for testimony. Those articles were passed by a partisan vote with no serious expectation of conviction, simply to make a statement: “He is impeached forever,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this month.
How about it's a fatal blow to the nation's civility, justice, and fairness?
“Civility bullshit” sighting!
Utah just passed a law allowing for the recall of Senators. Just saying.
Jay Sekulow is making a seemingly endless argument that the White House never had a chance to cross-examine witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry. And that the President’s counsel must be able to cross examine all of them.
Fine! We call that a trial.
Their fucking nerve; to call the House allegations “half-baked.” After the White House obstructed the production of virtually all documents and the most central witnesses.
And never any testimony at all from Trump.
"“He is impeached forever,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this month.”
He was impeached on the exact anniversary of the Clinton impeachment. The message could not be more stark." Do not look into Democrat corruption! ... Ever!"
"After the White House obstructed the production of virtually all documents and the most central witnesses.”
So what is the purpose of these judges you claim to care so much about, Chuck?
Where I come from, and that would be Michigan, they only have trials for crimes.
he's beyond satire, like William Atherton in ghost busters,
https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1223353694206316544?s=20
oh snorfle:
https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/1223317083137748993?s=20
I tried listening to Shifty-Schiff again -- it doesn't work. He is a master dissembler.
Philbin is nerdy, and thorough. He will go far in the legal field and make a lotta money. Maybe Trump should appoint him to the DC Circuit, Court of Appeals? (too soon, sorry).
He's neither clueless nor stupid. Mitten's a backstabbing, grandstanding, egotist who hates Trump for succeeding where Romney failed.
No, the first description is right. Romney is clueless, he is stupid. He's also a backstabbing, grandstanding, egotist. These characteristics are not exclusive to each other.
And Romney hates Trump, not because Trump succeeded, but because Romney is a backstabbing, grandstanding, egotist. He's a weasel and he does what weasels do. If it wasn't Trump here, it would be some other person or thing or issue.
Had Romeny become president himself, he would be acting the exact same way.
Patrick Philbin and Jay Sekulow just made excellent statements before the Senate.
Philbin has a mild demeanor and gets his points across in a detailed, logically consistent and factual manner. Very impressive.
Sekulow pointed out that the President's lawyers have not been allowed to cross examine the 17 House witnesses whose testimony was presented to the Senate. He also pointed out that due process (which was horribly violated by the House) is for fairness to the accused. Who does not understand that?
Apparently our Lil' Chuckles doesn't understand the law or the Constitution. And he is purportedly a lawyer?
I understand the idiots who just parrot the lefty talking points, but someone with legal training who abuses that training and public trust the way this obsessive lunatic does, is a menace to a free society.
Blogger Aunty Trump said...
"After the White House obstructed the production of virtually all documents and the most central witnesses.”
So what is the purpose of these judges you claim to care so much about, Chuck?
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993); the Senate’s gathering of evidence in an impeachment trial is nonjusticiable, because impeachment is a political question.
Francisco: "Apparently our Lil' Chuckles doesn't understand the law or the Constitution. And he is purportedly a lawyer?"
Chuck is an operational leftist.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/31/palestinians-angry-disillusioned-leaders-trumps-plan-looms/
Blogger Browndog said...
Where I come from, and that would be Michigan, they only have trials for crimes.
Your assertion will be astonishing to each of our circuit court and district court judges who have 500-800 civil cases on their trial dockets.
BAG: "Maybe Trump should appoint him to the DC Circuit, Court of Appeals? (too soon, sorry)."
Can't do it. LLR-lefty Chuck and his dem allies have already claimed any decisions such as that would be impeachable.
In fact, we are just about 15 minutes away from LLR-lefty Chuck telling us that campaigning against his beloved dems is a criminal act.
Kyle Drennen@kjdrennen
@NorahODonnell
warns of "anger on both sides" as she reports on threats of school shootings in Maine "if Senator Collins voted for acquittal" of Trump
Yes, we have the gates of Mar a Lago crashed by an SUV today. "It’s anger on both sides.” I think on the right, it’s more just the sads that we couldn’t have witnesses to really get to the bottom of it.
umm details are important,
The Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon, was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury but refused to resign from office even after he had been incarcerated. Nixon was subsequently impeached by the US House of Representatives, and the matter was referred to the Senate for a vote on Nixon's removal. The Senate appointed a committee to hear the evidence against Nixon and later report to the body as a whole. The Senate then heard the report of the committee and voted to remove Nixon from office. Nixon contended that this did not meet the constitutional requirement of Article I for the case to be "tried by the Senate."
narciso: "https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/31/palestinians-angry-disillusioned-leaders-trumps-plan-looms/"
Great article elsewhere explaining out the Trump ME (a place LLR-lefty Chuck couldn't find on a map) plan is a brilliant maneuver which bands together the Arab nations into the wider constraining of the Iranians, to whom LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved obama gave away the store....for nothing in return.
"Your assertion will be astonishing to each of our circuit court and district court judges who have 500-800 civil cases on their trial dockets.”
Why? Who are these people obstructing justice by taking their issues to the courts instead of just taking the word of the plaintiff?
Quite frankly I'm surprised LLR-lefty Chuck has the willpower to tear himself away from the TV and the visage of his magnificant Schiff-ty.
of course, we have another impeached judge, hastings who wrote the rules for this schrodinger's peach mint,
This will cheer you up Chuck!
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1223334525230411776
Your assertion will be astonishing to each of our circuit court and district court judges who have 500-800 civil cases on their trial dockets.
So what you're saying is, this is a civil trial, and that's why you need more witnesses?
I can be obtuse too.
The difference is I'm doing it on purpose.
by this standard Schiff and co, should be sent to prison,
Nixon was convicted in 1986 on perjury charges and sentenced to 5 years in prison. The offense stemmed from his grand jury testimony and statements to federal officers concerning his intervention in the state drug prosecution of Drew Fairchild, the son of Wiley Fairchild, a business partner of Nixon. Although the case was assigned to a state court, Wiley Fairchild had asked Nixon to help out by speaking to the prosecutor. Nixon did so, and the prosecutor, a long-time friend, dropped the case. When Nixon was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Department of Justice, he denied any involvement whatsoever. Subsequently, a federal grand jury was empaneled and he again denied his involvement. He was convicted of making false statements to a grand jury.[1] In 1989, he was impeached by the United States House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate, for committing perjury before a grand jury. Upon his conviction by the Senate, he was removed from office.[5]
Barbara Streisand calling for Schiff to run for President!!
We don't deserve to be THAT lucky.....
Seculow cut their throats. And he made it look easy. He shows the doubters of lawyers the critical value of good lawyers with true communication skills. Good work, Jay.
“I don't care what kind of nice, little, legal, Constitutional defenses that they came up with.” – Dem Sen. Mazie Hirono
The Brits are counting down their Independence Day. it is 5:00 PM EST.
This is the first “coverup” that included days of the airing of the "overwhelming airtight case."
Remember, LLR-lefty Chuck laughed and laughed and laughed about Brexit and anyone who bought into what that Farage and Johnson were saying about it.
LLR-lefty Chuck knows alot of "stuff" because he reads the New Yorker and the NYT and that's how he knew Brexit would never happen.
I can’t wait for the Hawaiian judge to strike down any and all measures to contain what may be a bioweapon.
Just hope McConnell didn't have to promise too much to Murkowski. Like having the final say on a SCOTUS pick...
He doesn't have to keep his promise.
Why didn't the Labour Party just get a Hawaiian judge to rule Brexit is illegal?
Sounds like that ruling says if the Senate doesn't want witnesses that's fine. House should have enforced its requests instead of agreeing that Trump was right to deny them, which is how we must interpret in a legal reading the House not challenging Trump.
The balls on these house managers! (I'm watching the tape from a couple hours ago.)
Prosecutor decides to not present certain important witnesses in a criminal trial. Prosecutor then demands that in order for there to be a fair trial, the defendant should be required to call witnesses against itself. Can't have a fair trial without witnesses. TDS has made half the country stupid.
Interesting article from NBC regarding the success of Trump's outreach to Mexico to solve the illegal immigrant border crossings. Seems those crossing are down to a trickle as compared to last year and asylum processing centers are mostly empty. Also, it appears Trump did get Mexico to pay for a "wall," only it's a virtual wall on Mexico's Southern border instead of our own. Chuck-the-Schmuck hardest hit!
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/president-trump/us-finds-ally-in-mexico-asylum-policy-first-year/2210691/
Chuck said...
"Blogger Aunty Trump said...
'After the White House obstructed the production of virtually all documents and the most central witnesses.'
So what is the purpose of these judges you claim to care so much about, Chuck?
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993); the Senate’s gathering of evidence in an impeachment trial is nonjusticiable, because impeachment is a political question."
I believe Aunty Trump was suggesting that the House during its impeachment inquiry, not the Senate during the impeachment trial, could have gone to court to try to enforce its subpoenas. Are you saying that that dispute would have been found nonjusticiable?
Browndog said...
Your assertion will be astonishing to each of our circuit court and district court judges who have 500-800 civil cases on their trial dockets.
So what you're saying is, this is a civil trial, and that's why you need more witnesses?
I can be obtuse too.
The difference is I'm doing it on purpose.
You claimed that we in Michigan only had trials for alleged crimes. That is of course nonsense. We have criminal trials and civil trials. Bench trials and jury trials. Et cetera.
What I am saying is that if a Senate majority had chosen to do so, they could have operated under Senate Rule XI and could have developed much more evidence and they could have done so with much more authority — including bu not limited to Nixon v United States, supra — and free of federal court supervision in a way that has not been so litigated with the House.
Now next time you have a question about what I am asserting, ask me directly instead of trying to paraphrase me.
"and could have developed much more evidence and they could have done so with much more authority”
What a fishing expedition that would be! Fleets of trawlers! Let’s abuse the power of the Senate for the partisan purpose of looking for dirt on Trump!
Schiff was trying to finesse the Constitution (“I have a scheme!”) in order to get Trump and the Senate wasn’t having it.
Chuck said...
Jay Sekulow is making a seemingly endless argument that the White House never had a chance to cross-examine witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry. And that the President’s counsel must be able to cross examine all of them.
Fine! We call that a trial.
Their fucking nerve; to call the House allegations “half-baked.” After the White House obstructed the production of virtually all documents and the most central witnesses.
And never any testimony at all from Trump.
Wow, Chuck, you really are stupid, aren't you.
1: The defendant doesn't have to testify. The burden of proof rests on the prosecutors, not the defendant. When your own witnesses say "no, I have no evidence that the President did anything wrong, other than my own personal suppositions", that's when a sane prosecutors folds up, and quits.
2: Calling the House case "half baked" IS a bit of a stretch. It never much got past quarter baked.
3: There's this concept known as "Executive Privilege." It's existed since the George Washington Presidency.
If you're going to impeach a President, then you have to have all the evidence you need outside the protections of Executive Privilege. Either because it isn't under the Executive's control, or because it's clearly relevant, and you're willing to go to court to sue to get it, all the way to the US Supreme Court.
If you don't know that, you're too stupid, and too ignorant, to have anything worthwhile to say. if you know it, but don't care, then you're too dishonest to listen to.
Which is it?
This impeachment travesty was a quarter-baked clown show, put on because the Democrat base is a bunch of morons, and the Democrat Party bosses have been leading their morons around, for years, promising that they would impeach that mean Trump.
Well, they did. And, in the process, proved they're utterly unqualified to have power.
I expect that, come this November, the voters will render that judgement, and President Trump will start his second term with a GOP controlled House and Senate, again.
All thanks to morons like you, Chuck.
The “abuse” that was proposed to the Senate by the House managers was four witnesses, all well known to the President’s defense team. All senior personnel, who were operating so closely to the scheme at issue and the President, that there were mumblings of “executive privilege.” They would be deposed by counsel for both sides and the final presentation of their testimony to the full Senate would be by agreement of the full Senate.
The most serious imaginable trial testimony; not any fishing expedition.
Browndog,
Do not question Lil' Chuckles on Michigan law.
He knows it well because he pretended to be a "Republican" election judge when certain Detroit precincts were going 115% Democrat. He saw nothing untoward. A real Sergeant Schultz - I saw nothing, noooothing.
His desperation is similar to his BFF Adam Schiff (for whom he has great affection) because he knows that he is also a total and shameless phony.
I was a bit surprised to see Inga show up here with her fantastic claims about the 2020 election. Of course from now to November is a political eternity, but if I were Inga I would not bet the mortgage on her claims. My favorite, though, is her claim that the "truth" will continue to come out. Again, if I were her that would scare me to death. Obviously she has not understood the slow dismantling of the FISA fairy tale and what that indicates about what John Durham is most likely investigating. Inga needs to practice keying "perjury" because that's going to be in the news a lot when Dunham's indictments come down. I am more optimistic about that investigation than I have been in quite some time as I se the Flynn case, the Page case and the FISA cases fall apart.
The House discarded all precedent of due process afforded previous Presidents, then came up with a novel scheme to strip Trump of his right to redress in the courts, and then when Trump didn’t go along, it was obstruction of justice. Do I have that right Chuck?
Aunty Trump: “I don't care what kind of nice, little, legal, Constitutional defenses that they came up with.” – Dem Sen. Mazie Hirono
Senator Hirono is awesome. She just doesn't get the widespread media-hyping and adulation from the prog public that she deserves for being the totally top-of-the-heap, first-tier, gold medal batshit dumbass that she is.
True excellence just isn't appreciated these days.
Blogger Aunty Trump said...
The House discarded all precedent of due process afforded previous Presidents, then came up with a novel scheme to strip Trump of his right to redress in the courts, and then when Trump didn’t go along, it was obstruction of justice. Do I have that right Chuck?
No.
Thanks for asking!
"The most serious imaginable trial testimony; not any fishing expedition.”
Did they know what they were going to find? No, they had their partisan suspicions that they might get lucky and find something.
I notice that any witnesses for Trump, for instance on the charge that any national interest motivation was completely absent seem not to be part of the Democrats’ plans. In fact they even turned down Bolton as a witness “off the table” said Schumer, to hide whatever it is that they are hiding.
So they gave Trump the same rights that the Republicans afforded Clinton?
The Brits are counting down their Independence Day. it is 5:00 PM EST.
Make that 2300 GMT, which is 6 p.m. EST. 47 minutes to go.
’Their fucking nerve; to call the House allegations “half-baked.” After the White House obstructed the production of virtually all documents and the most central witnesses.’
Pace yourself, little buddy. Five. More. Years.
the House during its impeachment inquiry, not the Senate during the impeachment trial, could have gone to court to try to enforce its subpoenas. Are you saying that that dispute would have been found nonjusticiable?
Actually, the House does have a sergeant at arms. And the House does have the power to arrest and transport people to the House and compel them to testify. It is an inherent Article I power.
So an Article III judge might very well tell the House to go enforce its process itself -- which is what the House should have done with Eric Holder when he obstructed justice. They should have sent the sergeant at arms to come drag his ass into the House and thrown him into a cell until he complied.
Chuck said...
The “abuse” that was proposed to the Senate by the House managers was four witnesses, all well known to the President’s defense team. All senior personnel
And therefore covered by executive privilege.
And no, the fact that 50% of the House voted to impeach the President does not make his Constitutionally granted powers go away.
A concept understood by anyone who is NOT an utter moron.
If the House needs those people testimony in order to impeach, then the House needed to go to court with subpoenas, and fight the executive privilege claim.
But the House didn't do that.
Instead, they held a clown show of an "impeachment", and then demanded, like petulant children, that the Senate do their work for them.
LOLGF
The President claiming executive privilege to keep his senior advisors from publicly testifying about their work with him and advise to him is not "abuse of power", it's the exact reason why we HAVE "executive privilege."
"Impeaching" the President for "abuse of power" for properly using his powers? THAT is an actual abuse of power.
I don't know what's more pathetic, the thought that you're too stupid to understand this? Or that you're just so dishonest you don't care that you're making an "argument" that won't work on any person with a functional brain.
"Utah just passed a law allowing for the recall of Senators. Just saying."
If Romney votes to convict on either count, he will be recalled.
We need witnesses!
....meaning John Bolton
...meaning his word will garner enough votes to remove Trump from office?
I was a bit surprised to see Inga show up here with her fantastic claims about the 2020 election.
minnesota,
Inga cannot respond. She is on vacation in Florida.
The last I heard she was driving a black SUV near Mar-a-Lago and had a misunderstanding with the Secret Service.
She is claiming they abused their power.
Saints fans are the worst.
What I am saying is that if a Senate majority had chosen to do so, they could have operated under Senate Rule XI and could have developed much more evidence and they could have . . .
Or, if they chose to do so, they could have decided they don't need to do all that and that the House charges are inadequate and the proffer of evidence inadequate and simply dismiss/acquit. And if that is there decision, it is nonjusticiable and none of the judiciary's business -- including the chief justice sitting as presiding officer. And because it is entirely within the Senate plenary authority, all those people bitching now should STFU.
30 minutes to freedom.
"Mark said...
Actually, the House does have a sergeant at arms. And the House does have the power to arrest and transport people to the House and compel them to testify. It is an inherent Article I power.
So an Article III judge might very well tell the House to go enforce its process itself -- which is what the House should have done with Eric Holder when he obstructed justice. They should have sent the sergeant at arms to come drag his ass into the House and thrown him into a cell until he complied."
Interesting idea. So, if the House had subpoenaed the President himself to testify about what he said to his advisers, and he had asserted Executive Privilege, the House Sergeant at Arms could have dragged the President's his ass into the House and thrown him into a cell until he complied?
Fox reporting they're going to give the Senators 10 min each to bloviate. More like Wednesday if that happens...
Couldn't the Senate pass a 'no bloviating' rule? Nah, not likely, I guess...
Blogger Francisco D said...
Browndog,
Do not question Lil' Chuckles on Michigan law.
He knows it well because he pretended to be a "Republican" election judge when certain Detroit precincts were going 115% Democrat. He saw nothing untoward. A real Sergeant Schultz - I saw nothing, noooothing.
His desperation is similar to his BFF Adam Schiff (for whom he has great affection) because he knows that he is also a total and shameless phony.
Fuck off, you nasty, stupid waste of time.
Nothing like what you suggest happened in Detroit and I did not work the 2016-18 elections. I was done with volunteering for the Republican Party after Trump’s nomination.
And — what all of these readers should understand — I have corrected you on this particular idiocy in the past, and here you are again cluttering Althouse’s comments pages with pointlessly false personal attacks on me. Nothing interesting from you; no citation to any legal or published authority. No personal expertise. Just you wasting our time and Althouse’s space.
Just you wasting our time and Althouse’s space.
It would be most useful if you printed that off on a piece of paper, rolled it into a tight ball and shoved it up your ass. Maybe that would help with your lack of self-awareness.
Chuck, this is why you are despised here- you are either dishonest, or the dumbest fuck this side of Inga:
"Jay Sekulow is making a seemingly endless argument that the White House never had a chance to cross-examine witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry. And that the President’s counsel must be able to cross examine all of them.
Fine! We call that a trial."
No impeachment has ever been run the way the Democrats in the House did it. Previously, during the House inquiries, the House allowed full unhindered cross examination of each witness by White House counsel and minority members. This was done for Nixon and Clinton. The House is supposed to produce the trial record that the Senate then examines with the aid of prosecution and defense. People on both sides are mischaracterizing how this is supposed to be like an investigation followed by trial- that is completely wrong on the historic record, but at least the people for Trump aren't mischaracterizing it dishonestly.
The proper analogy to a criminal trial is this- the House conducts the investigation and the trial at basically the same time- it is in the House that all previous impeachments questioned all the witnesses with vigorous cross examination and rebuttals. The proper analogy to what the Senate does is as an appeals court that takes the trial record from the House and determines whether or not the verdict of impeachment is to be upheld. No appeals court that I know of would go back to take witness testimony- at best they will remand the case back to the first criminal court if they think more witnesses are required, however, that isn't needed here since the House can still do whatever it wants with the issue regardless of whether or not Trump acquitted by the Senate.
Your dishonesty and stupidity are simply astonishing to me- even under anonymity, you should be deeply embarrassed to behaving so badly and stupidly. You literally have to the worse lawyer I have ever known.
tiktok-live-action-abortion-lila-rose
Tick Tock one-child meet selective-child, a minority choice. May they live in interesting times.
No, MM, because the chief executive is co-equal with the legislative. Congress is not supreme to the president. Neither is the judiciary.
But Congress can do so with a lesser officer, the same that a U.S. marshal sent from some judge could.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "I was done with volunteering for the Republican Party after Trump’s nomination."
Pity.
The democrats will miss you terribly. After all, its not common for a party to have both party's election reps working on the dems behalf.
Post a Comment