Pat Cippolone (sp?) did a good job spelling things out in a concise and coherent manner. The guy following him is sort of all over the place.
My sense is that the Trump team has an extremely target rich environment and needs to be disciplined rather than going after all of the lies, distortions and omissions in the House record.
Purpura is a condition of red or purple discolored spots on the skin that do not blanch on applying pressure. The spots are caused by bleeding underneath the skin secondary to platelet disorders, vascular disorders, coagulation disorders, or other causes.
The most likely to be influenced by the arguments are Dems in purple areas. If anyone. I assume the vote will be Party line, but just a few defectors would help cement the fact that this scam had no foundation.
Chuck said... "You didn’t watch the House Mangers’ presentation, except on a random/accidental basis.
But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation.
It is your right, as a citizen and a blogger to choose to do that.
As a legal professional and as a student of argument in general, that is a bad joke"
She doesn't read you Chuck. You're a mid-level public sector employee with delusions of being a lawyer. The house managers presentation was an incoherent emotional mess. That you found it damning says more about your mental and emotional state. You need help.
All this discussion of the FISA court which has no relevance to the impeachment must be fascinating to you, Althouse. If you’re still watching. If you’re still watching this, your capacity to resist boredom is much greater than I imagined. Congrats.
It’s chumming for the Hannity/Savage/Infowars/Breitbart audiences.
This is not about legal argument. It never was. The world is complex, with many perspectives.
When real power is at stake there is no such thing as law, and arguments are of a different sort, conducted by other rules.
The Romans had a better idea of argument, in their art of rhetoric, which was much broader than the crabbed ritual of American practice. I refer you to Cicero, again. And even Cicero could only get so far. He lost, ultimately, as collateral damage in a real power struggle, beyond the limits of his art, where the argument was conducted with sesterces and legions.
Chuck, you might not like the president; there are some things unlikeable about him.
But you cannot be seriously convinced that he has done anything worthy of impeachment. And the Democrats whom you seem to favor despite your aversions to be a life long Republican, cannot be seen to be anything but fraudulent in their efforts to impeach the president of the United States by any informed and intelligent person.
How can you allow your personal feelings about the President to control your behavior on this blog with respect to evaluation of the Republicans' position vs the Democrats' position?
The fact that the FISA court was corrupted and the FBI was interfering in politics are points that illustrate an indisputable fact - that law, as you conceive it, is a fiction. Law exists only so far as people believe in it. And its obvious that nobody in your elite believes. They are openly contemptuous of the law. And it seems that the plebs are losing their belief as well.
Buwaya, You are right. If the population has no confidence in the law, it loses its meaning except as a tool used by dictators to enforce their will on the population.
That is the gravest result of the deep state's activities and the reason that punishment must be levied. The people's confidence in government must be restored.
Mockturtle wrote: Does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the arguments, anyone is going to be influenced in his or her vote on impeachment?
You are so cynical, Mockturtle ....
... and probably quite right.
However, the President's lawyers need to expose the complete corruption of the House Democrats. They seem to be doing a good job, but it is an easy task.
One should never assume such things as how institutions "should" behave, or be used. Words on paper are useless in themselves. They can be used, rhetorically, by persons with skill and power, as symbols to elicit emotions from the populace. This is part of that art of illusion that is politics.
What matters is the virtue and interests of the people who have the power and ability to use those words on paper. Indeed power is all - you can be as rhetorically skillful as anyone, on a soapbox in the park, and get nowhere. Youtube can, after all, shut you down overnight.
Besides that, there really is a good case for not paying much attention to the House presentation but paying attention to the President's lawyers.
The House, under the leadership of these two men, had complete control over everything that happened, dominating the news cycle, and chose (chose!) to exclude any counter-arguments. The way they conducted the impeachment is up to them, to be sure, but it's odd to say that the current trial is somehow where they finally get to present their case. Everything they presented, everything they did, is a matter of record. Meanwhile, this is the first chance we get to hear a public and official response.
"You didn’t watch the House Mangers’ presentation, except on a random/accidental basis.
But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation."
We have heard only one side of these issues for months. We're quite familiar with the Democrat claims. They have been repeated endlessly by both the Democrats and their toady media. Getting to hear the other side is a welcome relief. I guess you'd prefer we not be allowed to hear the President's side?
Blogger Chuck said... “All this discussion of the FISA court which has no relevance to the impeachment must be fascinating to you, Althouse. If you’re still watching. If you’re still watching this, your capacity to resist boredom is much greater than I imagined. Congrats.”
You are correct that it shouldn’t have any relevance, EXCEPT that some of the same people are involved. In particular, former DOJ NSD AAG Mary McCord went to work for Schifty and his HPSCI to work setting up and executing his impeachment inquiry, culminating in the trial going on right now in te Senate. Her DOJ NSD employees were the ones who approved the four Carter Page FISA warrants, two of which, so far, have been admitted to have been fraudulently obtained (and therefore violating the civil rights of Page, plus everyone else surfeited pursuant to them). She was the highest ranking person in the DOJ approval chain, right below both DAGs Yates and Rosenstein, who provided the formal signatures for the FISC. And her personal DOJ attorney, while DOJ NSD AAG, is none other than IC IG Michael Atkinson - the same IC IG who changed the IC IG Whistleblower form to allow 2nd and 3rd level hearsay, then allowed the whistleblower to illegally send his whistleblower report back to Schifty and his HPSCI, instead of to the (Barr) DOJ. Without McCord and Atkinson, both heavily involved in the FISA abuse, there wouldn’t have been the fake whistleblower report that led to the impeachment trial going on in the Senate today.
Chuck, you might not like the president; there are some things unlikeable about him.
But you cannot be seriously convinced that he has done anything worthy of impeachment.
This is evidence of the insanity of the left. The argument is not if but when they became insane. We had some discussion of this at Ricochet. I say the 2000 election but others disagree.
It is all relevant as it is all part of the same power struggle. There is no real difference between any of these things. It is as if one were to claim that, in a total war, on a given day one must care only about tactics in one square mile of the front.
They seem organized in the approach must better than anything I've seen up to this point. Also, having a Saturday morning to watch without the filter of the media was a smart choice on timing.
It’s chumming for the Hannity/Savage/Infowars/Breitbart audiences.
Why does the left (and that is you, Chuck) always assume that their opponents get news only from Fox./Breitbart? This is a common theme on Facebook, too. I guess it is their delusion that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and has only one source of information.
It is part of their delusion that they are intelligent and anyone who disagrees is not. An interesting inversion of the facts.
Steve Bannon and his boys want a firebreathing defense. But the overall tone and approach was muted and kinda nerdy (which is fine). It suggests the Trump team didnt think the public would be watching this fine Sat morning, so they decided to target the wavering Senators (Collins, Murkowski, Delecto, et al.). 2 hours and out.
Glad to see the beanpole lawyer explain why Pelosi's failure to hold a vote in the full House to launch an impeachment inquiry that had actual subpoena powers explains why The Exec Branch declined to respond. Without that proper launch, the subpoenas were powerless in the face of normal separation of powers. The Exec is not compelled to respond and most presidents would not. Obama sure didn't.
I also like how he called attention to the Whistleblower and how this key to the whole case did a fast fade once it was learned that Shiff or his staff coordinated in advance of the WV's complaint. In congress speak he very politely called Stiff a liar. s he should.
Pelosi and Shiff better find some very very smart "Beach friends" this weekend who can come up with a Plan B, because Dems' case is in smoldering ruins already.
The argument is not if but when they became insane. We had some discussion of this at Ricochet. I say the 2000 election but others disagree.
In 1991, the Democrat Party was nearly dead and on its way to extinction. Bill Clinton's fluke election in 1992 gave them life. And once the Dems got power, they were never going to willingly let go. Hence the attempted overthrow, by any means necessary, of the 2000 election. And all the Bush is Hitler stuff after that. And so on.
But really it goes back to the last time they tasted blood, in the frenzy of 1972-74, and even before then to the Democrat Convention riots in 1968.
"You didn’t watch the House Mangers’ presentation, except on a random/accidental basis. But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation. It is your right, as a citizen and a blogger to choose to do that. As a legal professional and as a student of argument in general, that is a bad joke."
I asked you yesterday, Chuck, to tell us just one thing that the Democrats' team revealed about the impeachment effort that wasn't already public knowledge from the House inquiry and the massive media coverage of it. Just tell us one thing that Althouse could have only learned by watching the Senate trial. You ignored the question, and, yet, here you are again bad mouthing the host for not watching the Democrats presentation.
Althouse didn't need to watch it- she has followed the story in the news since it first got going at the end of September. I think pretty fucking obvious that all the details didn't persuade her from September through last weekend- she has pretty clearly already made up her mind based on the evidence itself and doesn't feel she needs someone, even a delusional $1000/hr attorney, to use those same facts to convince her.
Judging the "performance" should be bifurcated between two audiences . For the Senators that was a magnificent presentation. But for the voters that was appellate court serious and slow. Good thing though is only Senators and political junkees were watching it.
Chuck - you ignore the corruption on the left because you hate Trump. All of the corruption on the left is a tangled mess and it is related. All the the corruption has a common thread. all the leftwing sewer lines lead to Schitt.
But if you really want to know the roots of it all, consider that the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, secession and segregation. They were willing to destroy the Union, not to mention even denying the very humanity of millions of people in reducing them to chattel.
However, the President's lawyers need to expose the complete corruption of the House Democrats. They seem to be doing a good job, but it is an easy task.
No question, Fernando D. They're playing to the broader audience of public opinion. And winning!
And in the 60s through the 80s, thet were the Soviets devils advocates pelosi was among the most vociferous of san francisco democrats, barbara lee who worked for ron red dellum biden and the council for livin
"Does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the arguments, anyone is going to be influenced in his or her vote on impeachment?"
In the Senate, no- every vote was surely known to the Senators themselves by the time the House voted in December. At best, the Democrats will get 4 votes from the Republicans for conviction, and the Republicans will get, maybe, two from the Democrats. My prediction is that the vote will be 52-48 for acquittal (only Murkowski votes for conviction).
If you haven't followed the story since it started and aren't a hardcore partisan, then watching/reading the trial itself might persuade you one way or the other, but the truth is that only the hardest of the hardcore partisans are watching this at all, or even following it in the media at this point. I would guess that less than 5% of the voting public could give an accurate one paragraph description of what it is about and the basic facts. The one thing that will persuade such people, though, is this- Trump's acquittal, which Trump will use to declare exoneration and victory, and fully justified in doing so.
"Law exists only so far as people believe in it. And its obvious that nobody in your elite believes. They are openly contemptuous of the law. And it seems that the plebs are losing their belief as well."
How is the justice system working in your country? Do the elite flout and sneer at the law, Buwaya?
That was illuminating. It turns out the President’s henchmen just presumed he wanted them to shakedown Ukraine. He didn’t actually want them to do it, their bad. Too bad there aren’t other witnesses, closer to the President, who could be called to confirm that. But those awful Senators have voted not to call those witnesses. Oh well.
"if Doug Jones of Alabama supports impeachment, he will go down in November, sure as shootin'."
Doug Jones is going to lose regardless of how he votes. His own self-interest requires him to vote for conviction unless he switches parties before the election.
Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are candidates for President and are running against Trump for that office. They have both clearly articulated their partisan opposition to Trump and their hope for his impeachment.
As Trump's election adversaries will they be required to recuse themselves in the impeachment trial and vote "present"?
Yes a small group of families run the phillipines probably going back to colonial period. The marcos the magapals (sic) the aquinos, and their retainers
Why would Althouse bother to read Chuck? His motivations are not to the truth but to removing a President he does not like by any illegal means necessary.
But its striking, how such an utter fraud upon the courts, against the law, against civil liberties can go on for monthes, for years if you include the recent predicate.
Debbie Stabenow: I've been in the Senate since 2001 and this is the first time the GAO said the President broke law.
Also: There's no need to go to court for anything. We have a Supreme Court Justice sitting right there. We can ask him, and he can make a ruling on the spot.
Chuck - you ignore the corruption on the left because you hate Trump.
Not quite. Chuck relishes the corruption because he is a fully committed leftist pretending to a Republican.
This is the guy who pretended to be a "Republican" election judge in Michigan and did not see any problems with Detroit precincts voting 110% Democrat. It was his Sergeant Schultz moment.
A consensus seems to be forming that he is a low level government employee. My guess is that he is in the running for an AFSME board seat and must show his mettle to the comrades.
Does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the arguments, anyone is going to be influenced in his or her vote on impeachment?
Of the 47 D's - all 47 will vote in lockstep and vote for impeachment - on at least one article. In 1998, all the D' voted in lockstep and voted Not Guilty
Of the 53 R's - I predict at least 4 will vote Guilty on one of the impeachment articles: Collins, Mittens, Lisa Murkey, and Gardner. None of these 4 can resist the temptation to Grandstand and be thought as "Mavericks". Look forward to Mittens writing another WaPo Oped about his "thoughtful, agonizing struggle" to "Put country over party".
Who knew that Chuck was a "legal professional". I'm not quite sure what that is. Lawyer admitted to the bar? Legal secretary? Paralegal? Law professor? Court clerk? Judge? House counsel to a local Republican party organization? The term "legal professional" covers a lot of sins.
The Committee to Defend the President—one of America’s largest pro-Trump super PACs—is running a new billboard in New York City, criticizing Democrat candidate Joe Biden over the Ukraine scandal. The billboard, located at 1500 Broadway and 43rd Street, is two-sided and both sides will feature the video of Biden admitting to withholding aid to Ukraine until its government fired the prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter. Here is the video: [video] The billboard will also direct New Yorkers to visit SubpoenaBiden.com, where the Committee is now running a signature collection petition that will ultimately be sent to Senate Republicans, urging them to subpoena Biden for his Ukrainian corruption.
The D's gave us 24 hours of bullshit. Now the R's will tell us that the bullshit was bullshit.
Its boring either way. BTW, NPR couldn't help themselves and talked over the Trump's final closing sentences. Yeah, they couldn't wait 2 minutes. "And so, Senators please remember..." "Breaking in, this is NPR we will be blah blah in the a few moments, stay tuned blah blah ..."
Graham said questions from senators may include asking Schiff about his contact with Ciaramella. Schiff would be required to answer those questions. Under oath.
ETBASS - I don't want "confidence in government" restored, I want suspicion of government, at all levels, restored. For too long we the people have mostly ignored those who govern us because the majority of us are either busy with our commitments to family, work and/or recreation or we just can't be bothered to take the time to really scrutinize those people who want to wield power over us. And make no mistake, we the people give that power to the power seekers. Two decades ago, when I ran for and won local, non-partisan elections, it was normal for only 15% of the eligible voters to vote. And the people who did vote always voted and they were always the most vocal and demanding. The majority of the demands directed at me were reasonable but there were other demands, from the "minority", that were self-serving and punitive toward the majority. Putting it another way, only about 5% of my registered voters were active in getting me and my other board members to do their bidding, no questions permitted. No-one should have "confidence" in any level of government since most of the "governors" are elected by and beholden to a minority of eligible voters.
“All of the corruption on the left is a tangled mess and it is related.”
See my previous comments about former DOJ NSD AAG and current HPSCI staffer Mary McCord, and former McCord attorney and current IC IG Michael Atkinson.
"She doesn't read you Chuck. You're a mid-level public sector employee with delusions of being a lawyer.
Rusty I want to bet you one million dollars that that is untrue. How much are you worth? Are we on? Of course we aren’t because you won’t do it."
Oh. Shit. Why be a piker, Chuck? it's the internet. Here every mid level public sector employee can claim untold wealth and achievement. Lets make it ten million. I'm sure you're good for it. She still doesn't read you. You're a shit liar and a poor poker player. You know what the tell was? Betting a million dollars you don't have. Now fuck off like a good little internet make believe lawyer.
Nobody here, or likely anywhere, gives a damn what Chuck thinks. He just serves as a useful avatar for the masses of Democrats who have willingly given up their dignity in order to achieve a political victory.
Blogger Francisco D said... Chuck - you ignore the corruption on the left because you hate Trump.
Not quite. Chuck relishes the corruption because he is a fully committed leftist pretending to a Republican.
This is the guy who pretended to be a "Republican" election judge in Michigan and did not see any problems with Detroit precincts voting 110% Democrat. It was his Sergeant Schultz moment.
A consensus seems to be forming that he is a low level government employee. My guess is that he is in the running for an AFSME board seat and must show his mettle to the comrades.
More personal attacks on me, veering away from Althouse’s blog post.
I did not work the 2016 election, of which you speak. Trump had by then turned me off to volunteering for the Party. And I’ve told you that before, and you’ve been too stupid or too dishonest to accept it. I didn’t pretend to be an election judge. I was a poll watcher and indeed a supervisor of dozens of front-line poll watchers.
If you nasty shitheads get enough money together, I will prove that I am what I say I am. A lot of money. Until then, you should do Althouse a favor and stop your endless, pointless personal attacks.
Somebody needs to enlighten Debbie Stabenow that her Messiah, Barack Obama was admonished by the GAO 7 times for breaking the law. Maybe she didn't know because she didn't hear it on the Propaganda channels she listens to...https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/seven-times-gao-found-former-president-obama-broke-law-list
rcocean said... 1/25/20, 11:47 AM "NPR couldn't help themselves and talked over the Trump's final closing sentences. Yeah, they couldn't wait 2 minutes.
I, too was listening on NPR & had the same reaction. They cut in, if memory serves, with the NPR identification during each speaker's last few minutes.
I turned it off when the moron said they were going to "fact check" the Trump lawyers.
The feedback from folks I respect is that the Trump lawyers did a great job. Prof. Jonathan Turley opines:
"By giving up much of the first day, the White House gave a concise opening, relieved the jury, and pushed the main argument to Monday with a larger television audience. It was a sophisticated and effective strategy that paid off. A very strong start to their case"
Chuck's little "money dares" are adorable. The old fat guy's version of "Oh, yeah, let's meet up and I'll kick your ass". Classic internet tough guy who knows that the Internet insulates him from real life repurcussions.
They made a good case to call witnesses, and somehow ignored Mulvaney and lied about Ukraine not knowing about the hold before the 25th, when they did. A nice talking point was the Russian claim about the server in contrast to our seventeen intelligence agencies.
"I don't give a damn what Chuck thinks. I don't know why so many do."
I don't care care. The guy's dishonest and I don't respect his opinion. The fact that he supports what the government did in the "Russian collusion" travesty speaks volumes to me.
But there are two reasons I pay attention to him. This first one, frankly, is simple entertainment. The second is he gives me insight into the never Trumpers. Not a politician playing out an act, but he honest to God thinks he's righteous, and if we have to break a few laws to get what we want then so be it.
"Yes a small group of families run the phillipines probably going back to colonial period. The marcos the magapals (sic) the aquinos, and their retainers."
Heh, narciso... I have a DIL who is of Filipino descent and her parents (here in NorCal) have family in/close ties to the Philippines. I have a fairly good idea how it works over there, but have an interest in reading Buwaya's opinion. Buwaya often seems bemused by the goings on in the U.S., so I have a keen interest in how excuses are made for the abject poverty and misery to be found over there.
Not that anyone cares what I might think, but I'm going to say this anyway:
I am so sick of Althouse comment threads that are otherwise really interesting and written by smart people from whom I want to learn stuff I don't know, but degenerate into inane attacks that target Chuck (whoever the hell he might be.)
It may be fun for some here to wallow in that kind of pointless commenting, but for me it really gets tiresome to see it, over and over and over. Really.
Thanks. I just wanted to say that, in case anyone else felt the same way.
We can address the dubious nature of the crowdstrike attributions another day, thats another 'take on faith' moment like fti and bogus bezos tie to the saudis
The Philippines has always been a banana republic. As noted by narciso, it was run by a conspiracy of families, often squabbling but usually tacitly if not openly collaborating.
It is probably somewhat less corrupt these days, and it was quite surprising to me to realize this, because of social and economic change. A lot of humble people are getting into the middle class, and the GINI coefficient is shifting, and, less positively, most economic power has accumulated in Chinese hands.
Spain is different. At a high level there is, IMHO, far less corruption, and the state and the general ruling class is much less unified. In part this is because of regionalism - tribalism, with jealous local authorities generally prevailing over the center. In part this is because the prize of power is a fairly small pot. In part because every party is implicated in pervasive local corruption, and use that to kick each other out of power on a regular basis. Power is very uncertain.
The left launch their entire BS off of lies and half-truths.
Here are the six key facts.
"First, 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" in the July 25 call.
"Second, President [Volodymyr] Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything," Purpura added. Indeed, they have insisted this many times.
"Third, 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."
"Fourth, not a single witness testified that the president himself said there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else," he added.
"Fifth, the security assistance flowed on September 11 and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations." In other words, if there was any quid pro quo to begin with, the quid pro quo failed.
Finally, Purpura noted that none of the Democrats' arguments can "change the fact that — as attested to by the Democrats' own witnesses — that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor."
These six key facts were established by the evidence the Democrats themselves presented in the impeachment trial, Trump's lawyer argued. These powerful arguments eviscerate the impeachment argument that the president engaged in "abuse of power" by pressuring Ukraine to supposedly interfere in the 2020 presidential election.
In fact, Democrats' own impeachment case is arguably an attempt to interfere in the election."
The problem is that the people of Michigan are heavily indoctrinated due to an underlying liberal culture that is not really challenged, so they don't know any better. Certainly the media there is very weak. Even some of my fairly conservative family members there sometimes get some crazy notions in their heads.
"The White House did a particularly good job explaining its position on refusing discovery and also the unfair process. Moreover, it was a brilliant decision to limit the opening to a few hours. The House subjected the Senate to mind-numbing repetition for 22 hours."
Call it luck, fate or providence, thankfully I got out of there. Although places like my native Ann Arbor are the worst, the whole area really is tainted.
The whole impeachment show is an attempt - and I think so far successful - to distract attention from all the high-level perjury around the FISA applications?
It does go back to the colonial periid, and before that. Traditional society in the Philippines was medieval, feudal even before my Original Gangsters, Legaspi's expedition, showed up.
The Spanish did not overthrow that system of chieftains, nor did they do much to introduce Spainish chieftains, rather they co-opted the natives. This preserved the ancient social-economic system largely unchanged through most of the country.
One thing might be,that Trump’s mindset about the FBI and DoJ was set and affected his thinking in the Ukraine matter.
Okay; then let’s have the President’s testimony. And test all of it under cross examination.
For a lawyer you have it backwards. The President doesn't have to prove his intent, through anything, much less personal testimony, the impeachment managers have to prove it. All the defense has to point out is that another intent exists and is probable, even possible.
In this country, we don't judge a defendant by his refusal to testify.
Besides, he doesn't care what you think, and Trump's winning.
In any case, I like to think that I have a thorough understanding of banana republics, and therefore have the right frame in which to fit American facts.
You better think (think) Think about what you're trying to do to me Think (think, think) Let your mind go, let yourself be free
Let's go back, let's go back Let's go way on, way back when I didn't even know you You couldn't have been too much more than ten (just a child) I ain't no psychiatrist, I ain't no doctor with degrees But, it don't take too much high IQ's To see what you're doing to me
You better think (think) Think about what you're trying to do to me Yeah, think (think, think) Let your mind go, let yourself be free
Agree with Colocomment and the many others who have made the same point. The back and forth between Chuck and those who take his bait is wasted space and detracts from the quality of the blog and comments.
The whole impeachment show is an attempt - and I think so far successful - to distract attention from all the high-level perjury around the FISA applications?
I think it's more likely an attempt to deprive Bernie of the nomination by any means possible.
Because like Trump and the Republicans in 2016, there is no support for him by the people running the party.
Okay; then let’s have the President’s testimony. And test all of it under cross examination.
For a lawyer you have it backwards. The President doesn't have to prove his intent, through anything, much less personal testimony, the impeachment managers have to prove it. All the defense has to point out is that another intent exists and is probable, even possible.
In this country, we don't judge a defendant by his refusal to testify.
But if you really want to know the roots of it all, consider that the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, secession and segregation. They were willing to destroy the Union, not to mention even denying the very humanity of millions of people in reducing them to chattel.
What more do you need to know.
And the party of freeing criminals, inviting more theft (see SF, Chicago, NYC policies) and not allowing freed slaves and the rest of us (see Virginia) to defend ourselves on what they are unleashing on us.
And poop and the diseases that come with public defecation (see SF & LA and probably Austin and Seattle).
ColoComment - I agree 100% with your comments. Who gives a flying fuck about Chuck ARM .... or the pointless back and forth. Most comment on the Internet is unbearably stupid, this place can at times be an exception to the rule. Too often lately it is not.
But I think both sides would be wise to do a sober, just the facts presentation.
The goal is not to affect the vote (the Senators have probably largely made up their minds). It's to justify that vote in the upcoming elections.
If you go around throwing a tantrum, talking about dictators and kings and coups, your side will be in an uncomfortable position in the upcoming election.
If you stick to the facts, your side has a ready made justification for their votes: "I listened to both sides fairly, and it did/didn't meet the threshold for removing a president." If you go around sounding crazy, the Senator looks crazy for listening to you.
How many of the "seventeen intelligence agencies" foresaw the fall of the USSR? Watching the USSR and taking its measure was job #1 for them, wasn't it? How many of the "seventeen intelligence agencies" predicted 9/11? How many said that Saddam had active WMD programs? Our intelligence agencies are shit.
"I liked the restrained tone and the rhetoric in the form of inviting the Senators to think about various questions."
See, the presidents' lawyers are playing to the TV audience, giving the Althouses of America something with which to rationalize their vote in November.
Also, shorter days filled with the best arguments gives you more control over the news coverage.
I remember reading a book about the OJ Simpson trial which pointed out that the prosecutors lost the jury by spending so much time laying out their evidence. It was great evidence, but the jury tuned it out. It would have been wiser to start with the limo driver and the crime scene to give a story of what happened, then use the glove, the shoes, and the DNA tests to prove that that's what actually did happen.
Click here to enter Amazon through the Althouse Portal.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
364 comments:
1 – 200 of 364 Newer› Newest»Elvis Costello is watching the detectives.
I'm watching it rain.
A prayer to God starts the proceedings.
Let us know, please, if they’re anything like tuning forks.
Trump is watching them, too. He’s ready to tweet at them if they perform poorly.
Great lawyers! Hammering the Dems with their own words and the FACTS.
Purpura is great!
Pat Cippolone (sp?) did a good job spelling things out in a concise and coherent manner. The guy following him is sort of all over the place.
My sense is that the Trump team has an extremely target rich environment and needs to be disciplined rather than going after all of the lies, distortions and omissions in the House record.
Dunking all over the Dems. A complete and total beatdown!
Very methodical on purpuras part.
One was a relay filibuster 'full of sounda d fury told by an idiot' the other are the facts.
The clip of Ambassador Sondland was perfectly placed.
You didn’t watch the House Mangers’ presentation, except on a random/accidental basis.
But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation.
It is your right, as a citizen and a blogger to choose to do that.
As a legal professional and as a student of argument in general, that is a bad joke.
Watching the President’s lawyers.
"They're so cute."
Pipe down ted,
Appears to be clear and concise. Using video from PBS and C-SPAN to debunk the DemCong is a nice touch.
Nadless and Schiff-for-Brains look like the fools and liars they are.
Absolutely owning the skeevy Dems with their own words. It's glorious.
Does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the arguments, anyone is going to be influenced in his or her vote on impeachment?
Purpura is a condition of red or purple discolored spots on the skin that do not blanch on applying pressure. The spots are caused by bleeding underneath the skin secondary to platelet disorders, vascular disorders, coagulation disorders, or other causes.
Did they come in with swords and pikes and point them at Romney and Collins?
The most likely to be influenced by the arguments are Dems in purple areas. If anyone. I assume the vote will be Party line, but just a few defectors would help cement the fact that this scam had no foundation.
"Chuck said...
You didn’t watch the House Mangers’ presentation, except on a random/accidental basis.
But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation.
It is your right, as a citizen and a blogger to choose to do that.
As a legal professional and as a student of argument in general, that is a bad joke."
Assumes facts not in evidence. As for bad jokes, your legal opinion qualifies, as does your judgment.
Pipe down ted:
https://mobile.twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1221094481245720584
Chuck said...
"You didn’t watch the House Mangers’ presentation, except on a random/accidental basis.
But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation.
It is your right, as a citizen and a blogger to choose to do that.
As a legal professional and as a student of argument in general, that is a bad joke"
She doesn't read you Chuck. You're a mid-level public sector employee with delusions of being a lawyer. The house managers presentation was an incoherent emotional mess. That you found it damning says more about your mental and emotional state. You need help.
As a legal professional and as a student of argument in general, that is a bad joke.
Chuck, why do you keep posting these big targets for ridicule? Everybody knows what the Democrats had been alleging.
There is some interest in seeing how the rebuttal goes. Not enough for me to watch it but I know it is all bullshit.
All this discussion of the FISA court which has no relevance to the impeachment must be fascinating to you, Althouse. If you’re still watching. If you’re still watching this, your capacity to resist boredom is much greater than I imagined. Congrats.
It’s chumming for the Hannity/Savage/Infowars/Breitbart audiences.
Reciting the bibliography sends senators to TikTok
Its a very sharp direct presentation, that focuses on what are the facts amd what underlay his state of mind during the interval in question,
There was fraud continuing from the fall of 2015, through the steele dossier till this fall
"All this discussion of the FISA court which has no relevance to the impeachment ..."
Of course it's relevant. Impeachment is just the latest democrat attempt to take down a President. It's a pattern.
Have you even admitted the illegitimacy of Crossfire Hurricane?
That schiff was a party to, at the very list he should be disbarred at worst jailef for this malpractice.
Then theres this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/pspoole/status/1221101370733998081
She doesn't read you Chuck. You're a mid-level public sector employee with delusions of being a lawyer.
Rusty I want to bet you one million dollars that that is untrue. How much are you worth? Are we on? Of course we aren’t because you won’t do it.
The FBI lied to the FISA Court multiple times. You have no problem with that, Chuck?
No ted doesnt think blatant violation of section 13 and 14 of the fisa are relelcant.
Don't bet with Chuck, Rusty. He's right. He's actually a low level public sector employee.
This is not about legal argument.
It never was.
The world is complex, with many perspectives.
When real power is at stake there is no such thing as law, and arguments are of a different sort, conducted by other rules.
The Romans had a better idea of argument, in their art of rhetoric, which was much broader than the crabbed ritual of American practice. I refer you to Cicero, again.
And even Cicero could only get so far. He lost, ultimately, as collateral damage in a real power struggle, beyond the limits of his art, where the argument was conducted with sesterces and legions.
Relevant, and failure to update over three renewals.
Last night Jerry Nadler condemned Trump as a dictator. First time Nadler had an unkind thought about a tater.
Chuck, you might not like the president; there are some things unlikeable about him.
But you cannot be seriously convinced that he has done anything worthy of impeachment. And the Democrats whom you seem to favor despite your aversions to be a life long Republican, cannot be seen to be anything but fraudulent in their efforts to impeach the president of the United States by any informed and intelligent person.
How can you allow your personal feelings about the President to control your behavior on this blog with respect to evaluation of the Republicans' position vs the Democrats' position?
Are you really serious?
Re: Ukraine. They are using the House’s OWN witnesses to rebut the charges. Brilliant lawyering.
It resembles ciceros denunciations against catiline as recorded by sallust.
But cicero knew not to test his audience patience.
Hmm, so the White House didn't just refuse to deal with the House.
The fact that the FISA court was corrupted and the FBI was interfering in politics are points that illustrate an indisputable fact - that law, as you conceive it, is a fiction. Law exists only so far as people believe in it. And its obvious that nobody in your elite believes. They are openly contemptuous of the law. And it seems that the plebs are losing their belief as well.
Yes article 2 was a bunch of bollocks as well.
Do you think Chuckles is related to Adam Schiff?
How about Jerry Nadler?
Chuckie Schumer?
There is a striking similarity in their insistence on smelling their own unicorn farts.
I'm glad they're hitting this point.
Pelosi didn't have the authority to open an impeachment inquiry by edict.
TIE every democrat running in 2020 to Adam Schitt.
Come on GOP - do it.
Buwaya, You are right. If the population has no confidence in the law, it loses its meaning except as a tool used by dictators to enforce their will on the population.
That is the gravest result of the deep state's activities and the reason that punishment must be levied. The people's confidence in government must be restored.
So far they are (lightly) pounding facts and the law.
The table breaths a sigh of relief.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR35j9sr13tCCspi55F9YlylKJG1aepzu-76muKhabEVkLrHU8cQDgOOctU&v=MteWjpOVSqk
Is this going to be another Chuck thread?
if Doug Jones of Alabama supports impeachment, he will go down in November, sure as shootin'.
if Jones opposes impeachment. He might hang on in November and that would be worse.
We assume critical tools like fisa, should be used sparingly with safe guards same with subpoeana powers
It's so nice to hear facts as opposed to beliefs, feelings, mind reading, and fortune telling.
Mockturtle wrote: Does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the arguments, anyone is going to be influenced in his or her vote on impeachment?
You are so cynical, Mockturtle ....
... and probably quite right.
However, the President's lawyers need to expose the complete corruption of the House Democrats. They seem to be doing a good job, but it is an easy task.
One should never assume such things as how institutions "should" behave, or be used.
Words on paper are useless in themselves. They can be used, rhetorically, by persons with skill and power, as symbols to elicit emotions from the populace. This is part of that art of illusion that is politics.
What matters is the virtue and interests of the people who have the power and ability to use those words on paper. Indeed power is all - you can be as rhetorically skillful as anyone, on a soapbox in the park, and get nowhere. Youtube can, after all, shut you down overnight.
I think it's illegal in America to allow Trump to fight back.
Can't the gulag-left simply steam roll over him? It's in The Constitution! No one is above the law!
"You! A lawyer!" makes an appearance.
Besides that, there really is a good case for not paying much attention to the House presentation but paying attention to the President's lawyers.
The House, under the leadership of these two men, had complete control over everything that happened, dominating the news cycle, and chose (chose!) to exclude any counter-arguments. The way they conducted the impeachment is up to them, to be sure, but it's odd to say that the current trial is somehow where they finally get to present their case. Everything they presented, everything they did, is a matter of record. Meanwhile, this is the first chance we get to hear a public and official response.
Blogger Chuck said...
"You didn’t watch the House Mangers’ presentation, except on a random/accidental basis.
But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation."
We have heard only one side of these issues for months. We're quite familiar with the Democrat claims. They have been repeated endlessly by both the Democrats and their toady media. Getting to hear the other side is a welcome relief. I guess you'd prefer we not be allowed to hear the President's side?
Watching clips of Schiff talking in circles (lying) is kinda fun.
Blogger Chuck said...
“All this discussion of the FISA court which has no relevance to the impeachment must be fascinating to you, Althouse. If you’re still watching. If you’re still watching this, your capacity to resist boredom is much greater than I imagined. Congrats.”
You are correct that it shouldn’t have any relevance, EXCEPT that some of the same people are involved. In particular, former DOJ NSD AAG Mary McCord went to work for Schifty and his HPSCI to work setting up and executing his impeachment inquiry, culminating in the trial going on right now in te Senate. Her DOJ NSD employees were the ones who approved the four Carter Page FISA warrants, two of which, so far, have been admitted to have been fraudulently obtained (and therefore violating the civil rights of Page, plus everyone else surfeited pursuant to them). She was the highest ranking person in the DOJ approval chain, right below both DAGs Yates and Rosenstein, who provided the formal signatures for the FISC. And her personal DOJ attorney, while DOJ NSD AAG, is none other than IC IG Michael Atkinson - the same IC IG who changed the IC IG Whistleblower form to allow 2nd and 3rd level hearsay, then allowed the whistleblower to illegally send his whistleblower report back to Schifty and his HPSCI, instead of to the (Barr) DOJ. Without McCord and Atkinson, both heavily involved in the FISA abuse, there wouldn’t have been the fake whistleblower report that led to the impeachment trial going on in the Senate today.
Chuck, you might not like the president; there are some things unlikeable about him.
But you cannot be seriously convinced that he has done anything worthy of impeachment.
This is evidence of the insanity of the left. The argument is not if but when they became insane. We had some discussion of this at Ricochet. I say the 2000 election but others disagree.
Buwaya - 10:32
Yes. That. add to that a corrupt media - uninterested in any corruption on team D, because they are team D.
Wow! They brought up Schiff lying about the "evidence" he saw of Trump colluding with Russia. Good. For. Them.
But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation.
Ah to hear the lamentations of their incels.
It is all relevant as it is all part of the same power struggle.
There is no real difference between any of these things.
It is as if one were to claim that, in a total war, on a given day one must care only about tactics in one square mile of the front.
Yes its the continuation of war by other means, doesnt the new regime in spain convern you?
Can't the gulag-left simply steam roll over him? It's in The Constitution! No one is above the law!
Unless you’re illegal.
Nice emphasis on the Facts. As opposed to the shrieking idiocy of the House hearing.
They seem organized in the approach must better than anything I've seen up to this point. Also, having a Saturday morning to watch without the filter of the media was a smart choice on timing.
Monday? What more is there to say?
Seeing Red: "the gulag-left"
The gulag-left/LLR-Left.
FIFY
Sweet.
Gave us a taste of the bloody beat down that lies ahead.
It’s chumming for the Hannity/Savage/Infowars/Breitbart audiences.
Why does the left (and that is you, Chuck) always assume that their opponents get news only from Fox./Breitbart? This is a common theme on Facebook, too. I guess it is their delusion that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and has only one source of information.
It is part of their delusion that they are intelligent and anyone who disagrees is not. An interesting inversion of the facts.
I'll grant Chuck a consideration. I'll listen to CNN for analysis.
Steve Bannon and his boys want a firebreathing defense. But the overall tone and approach was muted and kinda nerdy (which is fine). It suggests the Trump team didnt think the public would be watching this fine Sat morning, so they decided to target the wavering Senators (Collins, Murkowski, Delecto, et al.). 2 hours and out.
Glad to see the beanpole lawyer explain why Pelosi's failure to hold a vote in the full House to launch an impeachment inquiry that had actual subpoena powers explains why The Exec Branch declined to respond. Without that proper launch, the subpoenas were powerless in the face of normal separation of powers. The Exec is not compelled to respond and most presidents would not. Obama sure didn't.
I also like how he called attention to the Whistleblower and how this key to the whole case did a fast fade once it was learned that Shiff or his staff coordinated in advance of the WV's complaint. In congress speak he very politely called Stiff a liar. s he should.
Pelosi and Shiff better find some very very smart "Beach friends" this weekend who can come up with a Plan B, because Dems' case is in smoldering ruins already.
"wandering in the wastelands of the Mueller report"
The play in the Senate is the thing. And we just got a smell of something Rotten in Dems-mark.
Who needed to watch the House Chuckles? You happily spread Shitt’s lies.
"weak performance, but if you are inclined to the defense point of view, there were facts and arguments..."
This suggests ken starrs very methodical atyle, perhaps some of dershowitz.
The argument is not if but when they became insane. We had some discussion of this at Ricochet. I say the 2000 election but others disagree.
In 1991, the Democrat Party was nearly dead and on its way to extinction. Bill Clinton's fluke election in 1992 gave them life. And once the Dems got power, they were never going to willingly let go. Hence the attempted overthrow, by any means necessary, of the 2000 election. And all the Bush is Hitler stuff after that. And so on.
But really it goes back to the last time they tasted blood, in the frenzy of 1972-74, and even before then to the Democrat Convention riots in 1968.
Having to watch CNN.
Anderson Cooper: Hey, If the President wanted to put up a defense, why didn't Trump make his case of the Sunday shows?
Chuck wrote:
"You didn’t watch the House Mangers’ presentation, except on a random/accidental basis.
But now you are watching the President’s lawyers’ presentation.
It is your right, as a citizen and a blogger to choose to do that.
As a legal professional and as a student of argument in general, that is a bad joke."
I asked you yesterday, Chuck, to tell us just one thing that the Democrats' team revealed about the impeachment effort that wasn't already public knowledge from the House inquiry and the massive media coverage of it. Just tell us one thing that Althouse could have only learned by watching the Senate trial. You ignored the question, and, yet, here you are again bad mouthing the host for not watching the Democrats presentation.
Althouse didn't need to watch it- she has followed the story in the news since it first got going at the end of September. I think pretty fucking obvious that all the details didn't persuade her from September through last weekend- she has pretty clearly already made up her mind based on the evidence itself and doesn't feel she needs someone, even a delusional $1000/hr attorney, to use those same facts to convince her.
Judging the "performance" should be bifurcated between two audiences . For the Senators that was a magnificent presentation. But for the voters that was appellate court serious and slow. Good thing though is only Senators and political junkees were watching it.
So, Professor, are you glad you’re retired, or do you miss the opportunity to teach this Impeachment lesson?
Blogger Original Mike said...
The FBI lied to the FISA Court multiple times. You have no problem with that, Chuck?
What is the relevance of that, to the articles of impeachment?
One thing might be,that Trump’s mindset about the FBI and DoJ was set and affected his thinking in the Ukraine matter.
Okay; then let’s have the President’s testimony. And test all of it under cross examination.
CNN wonman: The President's lawyers are so stupid! They called the transcript a transcript.
yes, she said stupid.
Chuck - you ignore the corruption on the left because you hate Trump.
All of the corruption on the left is a tangled mess and it is related. All the the corruption has a common thread. all the leftwing sewer lines lead to Schitt.
Seeing Red: "the gulag-left"
The gulag-left/LLR-Left.
FIFY
But if you really want to know the roots of it all, consider that the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, secession and segregation. They were willing to destroy the Union, not to mention even denying the very humanity of millions of people in reducing them to chattel.
What more do you need to know.
However, the President's lawyers need to expose the complete corruption of the House Democrats. They seem to be doing a good job, but it is an easy task.
No question, Fernando D. They're playing to the broader audience of public opinion. And winning!
Toobin upset that Trump's lawyers were all white men. "That says something.". I wish he had explained what it said, cuz I can't hear it.
And in the 60s through the 80s, thet were the Soviets devils advocates pelosi was among the most vociferous of san francisco democrats, barbara lee who worked for ron red dellum biden and the council for livin
I'll grant Chuck a consideration. I'll listen to CNN for analysis..
Or NPR! Don't forget one of his all-time favorite sources.
Mockturtle asked:
"Does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the arguments, anyone is going to be influenced in his or her vote on impeachment?"
In the Senate, no- every vote was surely known to the Senators themselves by the time the House voted in December. At best, the Democrats will get 4 votes from the Republicans for conviction, and the Republicans will get, maybe, two from the Democrats. My prediction is that the vote will be 52-48 for acquittal (only Murkowski votes for conviction).
If you haven't followed the story since it started and aren't a hardcore partisan, then watching/reading the trial itself might persuade you one way or the other, but the truth is that only the hardest of the hardcore partisans are watching this at all, or even following it in the media at this point. I would guess that less than 5% of the voting public could give an accurate one paragraph description of what it is about and the basic facts. The one thing that will persuade such people, though, is this- Trump's acquittal, which Trump will use to declare exoneration and victory, and fully justified in doing so.
Browndog said...
Anderson Cooper: Hey, If the President wanted to put up a defense, why didn't Trump make his case of the Sunday shows?
Are those your words, or did Anderson Cooper say them? If Cooper did, please use quote marks.
Browndog said...
CNN wonman: The President's lawyers are so stupid! They called the transcript a transcript.
Again, if that is a quote from the CNN woman, please use quotes of what she said.
"Law exists only so far as people believe in it. And its obvious that nobody in your elite believes. They are openly contemptuous of the law. And it seems that the plebs are losing their belief as well."
How is the justice system working in your country? Do the elite flout and sneer at the law, Buwaya?
"What is the relevance of that, to the articles of impeachment?"
My question was do YOU have a problem with that? I just want to know the type of person I'm talking to.
Do you, Chuck, have a problem with the FBI lying to the FISA Court multiple times to secure a warrant to spy on Carter Page and his associates?
Here comes the fact checking! (CNN)
Said they're glad they didn't get into Fox News conspiracy theories, but everything the lawyers said today wasn't true!
If this was a prize fight, the ref would stop it. Schiff is finished.
Allen, I'm watching it on tv. I don't have a written transcript.
If it was a direct quote you'd see quotation marks.
That was illuminating. It turns out the President’s henchmen just presumed he wanted them to shakedown Ukraine. He didn’t actually want them to do it, their bad. Too bad there aren’t other witnesses, closer to the President, who could be called to confirm that. But those awful Senators have voted not to call those witnesses. Oh well.
She doesn't read you Chuck. You're a mid-level public sector employee with delusions of being a lawyer.
"Rusty I want to bet you one million dollars that that is untrue. How much are you worth? Are we on? Of course we aren’t because you won’t do it."
Shades of Dr. Evil... remove the "mid-level" descriptor and make that bet, Rusty. Easiest million bucks you'll ever make.
To Jeff Toobin:
The House Managers were terrible regardless of race or gender.
Jail Chuck for illegal gambling. Take away his law license--if he has one. Officers of the Court need to be better.
Context is everything
https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkBednar/status/1221116172998934529
Be best.
"if Doug Jones of Alabama supports impeachment, he will go down in November, sure as shootin'."
Doug Jones is going to lose regardless of how he votes. His own self-interest requires him to vote for conviction unless he switches parties before the election.
Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are candidates for President and are running against Trump for that office. They have both clearly articulated their partisan opposition to Trump and their hope for his impeachment.
As Trump's election adversaries will they be required to recuse themselves in the impeachment trial and vote "present"?
Just wondering.
Toobin upset that Trump's lawyers were all white men. "That says something."
Sure does Toobin.... about you.
Also:
Here in 'Bama we've been told Senator Jones is leaning towards a split vote.
Not quite Solomon like.
"TIE every democrat running in 2020 to Adam Schitt."
Few voters will have a clue who that is.
Yes a small group of families run the phillipines probably going back to colonial period. The marcos the magapals (sic) the aquinos, and their retainers
Why would Althouse bother to read Chuck? His motivations are not to the truth but to removing a President he does not like by any illegal means necessary.
Gotta go shovel the walk.
About due process and doug jones, one could ask richard jewell, oh wait.
Why would Toobin even bring up the fact that all the great lawyers are white men?
Pat Cipollone has 10 kids!
But its striking, how such an utter fraud upon the courts, against the law, against civil liberties can go on for monthes, for years if you include the recent predicate.
Debbie Stabenow: I've been in the Senate since 2001 and this is the first time the GAO said the President broke law.
Also: There's no need to go to court for anything. We have a Supreme Court Justice sitting right there. We can ask him, and he can make a ruling on the spot.
Chuck - you ignore the corruption on the left because you hate Trump.
Not quite. Chuck relishes the corruption because he is a fully committed leftist pretending to a Republican.
This is the guy who pretended to be a "Republican" election judge in Michigan and did not see any problems with Detroit precincts voting 110% Democrat. It was his Sergeant Schultz moment.
A consensus seems to be forming that he is a low level government employee. My guess is that he is in the running for an AFSME board seat and must show his mettle to the comrades.
Do they grow them extra stupid in michigan well considering tlaib and the flint city council id say yes (michael moore was once a member)
Does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the arguments, anyone is going to be influenced in his or her vote on impeachment?
Of the 47 D's - all 47 will vote in lockstep and vote for impeachment - on at least one article. In 1998, all the D' voted in lockstep and voted Not Guilty
Of the 53 R's - I predict at least 4 will vote Guilty on one of the impeachment articles: Collins, Mittens, Lisa Murkey, and Gardner. None of these 4 can resist the temptation to Grandstand and be thought as "Mavericks". Look forward to Mittens writing another WaPo Oped about his "thoughtful, agonizing struggle" to "Put country over party".
Is Jeff Flake, that pompous poseur, still in the audience? Or did he vamoose once his picture got taken?
Who knew that Chuck was a "legal professional". I'm not quite sure what that is. Lawyer admitted to the bar? Legal secretary? Paralegal? Law professor? Court clerk? Judge? House counsel to a local Republican party organization? The term "legal professional" covers a lot of sins.
I'm sure Chuck will enlighten us at some point.
Via Lucianne:
The Committee to Defend the President—one of America’s largest pro-Trump super PACs—is running a new billboard in New York City, criticizing Democrat candidate Joe Biden over the Ukraine scandal. The billboard, located at 1500 Broadway and 43rd Street, is two-sided and both sides will feature the video of Biden admitting to withholding aid to Ukraine until its government fired the prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter. Here is the video: [video] The billboard will also direct New Yorkers to visit SubpoenaBiden.com, where the Committee is now running a signature collection petition that will ultimately be sent to Senate Republicans, urging them to subpoena Biden for his Ukrainian corruption.
Lolololol
I dont think so, mitts fainting spells are too obvious
why can't we know more about the individuals who make up the we-cannot-question- GAO?
"Government Accountability Office"
Orwellian.
The D's gave us 24 hours of bullshit. Now the R's will tell us that the bullshit was bullshit.
Its boring either way. BTW, NPR couldn't help themselves and talked over the Trump's final closing sentences. Yeah, they couldn't wait 2 minutes.
"And so, Senators please remember..."
"Breaking in, this is NPR we will be blah blah in the a few moments, stay tuned blah blah ..."
I don't give a damn what Chuck thinks. I don't know why so many do.
Ted is a atandard for any of the never trumoer nazguls.
Graham said questions from senators may include asking Schiff about his contact with Ciaramella. Schiff would be required to answer those questions. Under oath.
Trumper nazguls, now of course the state run media deserves to be on pikes, but you'd run out of pikes quickly.
ETBASS - I don't want "confidence in government" restored, I want suspicion of government, at all levels, restored. For too long we the people have mostly ignored those who govern us because the majority of us are either busy with our commitments to family, work and/or recreation or we just can't be bothered to take the time to really scrutinize those people who want to wield power over us. And make no mistake, we the people give that power to the power seekers. Two decades ago, when I ran for and won local, non-partisan elections, it was normal for only 15% of the eligible voters to vote. And the people who did vote always voted and they were always the most vocal and demanding. The majority of the demands directed at me were reasonable but there were other demands, from the "minority", that were self-serving and punitive toward the majority. Putting it another way, only about 5% of my registered voters were active in getting me and my other board members to do their bidding, no questions permitted. No-one should have "confidence" in any level of government since most of the "governors" are elected by and beholden to a minority of eligible voters.
“All of the corruption on the left is a tangled mess and it is related.”
See my previous comments about former DOJ NSD AAG and current HPSCI staffer Mary McCord, and former McCord attorney and current IC IG Michael Atkinson.
Chuck said...
"She doesn't read you Chuck. You're a mid-level public sector employee with delusions of being a lawyer.
Rusty I want to bet you one million dollars that that is untrue. How much are you worth? Are we on? Of course we aren’t because you won’t do it."
Oh. Shit. Why be a piker, Chuck? it's the internet. Here every mid level public sector employee can claim untold wealth and achievement. Lets make it ten million. I'm sure you're good for it.
She still doesn't read you.
You're a shit liar and a poor poker player. You know what the tell was? Betting a million dollars you don't have.
Now fuck off like a good little internet make believe lawyer.
The system relies on fair administation of thr law of regulatory tools, if there isnt tits just brute force in a velvet glove.
Administration, you expect schiff to tell the truth, when has that ever happened.
Republicans THINK, Democrats FEEL.
Nobody here, or likely anywhere, gives a damn what Chuck thinks. He just serves as a useful avatar for the masses of Democrats who have willingly given up their dignity in order to achieve a political victory.
Blogger Francisco D said...
Chuck - you ignore the corruption on the left because you hate Trump.
Not quite. Chuck relishes the corruption because he is a fully committed leftist pretending to a Republican.
This is the guy who pretended to be a "Republican" election judge in Michigan and did not see any problems with Detroit precincts voting 110% Democrat. It was his Sergeant Schultz moment.
A consensus seems to be forming that he is a low level government employee. My guess is that he is in the running for an AFSME board seat and must show his mettle to the comrades.
More personal attacks on me, veering away from Althouse’s blog post.
I did not work the 2016 election, of which you speak. Trump had by then turned me off to volunteering for the Party. And I’ve told you that before, and you’ve been too stupid or too dishonest to accept it. I didn’t pretend to be an election judge. I was a poll watcher and indeed a supervisor of dozens of front-line poll watchers.
If you nasty shitheads get enough money together, I will prove that I am what I say I am. A lot of money. Until then, you should do Althouse a favor and stop your endless, pointless personal attacks.
Somebody needs to enlighten Debbie Stabenow that her Messiah, Barack Obama was admonished by the GAO 7 times for breaking the law. Maybe she didn't know because she didn't hear it on the Propaganda channels she listens to...https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/seven-times-gao-found-former-president-obama-broke-law-list
rcocean said... 1/25/20, 11:47 AM
"NPR couldn't help themselves and talked over the Trump's final closing sentences. Yeah, they couldn't wait 2 minutes.
I, too was listening on NPR & had the same reaction. They cut in, if memory serves, with the NPR identification during each speaker's last few minutes.
I turned it off when the moron said they were going to "fact check" the Trump lawyers.
"More personal attacks on me, veering away from Althouse’s blog post."
Banned racist commenter sez wut?
We know now watergate was esseentially a revenge play by a gruntled gs 16 bureaucrat,
The feedback from folks I respect is that the Trump lawyers did a great job. Prof. Jonathan Turley opines:
"By giving up much of the first day, the White House gave a concise opening, relieved the jury, and pushed the main argument to Monday with a larger television audience. It was a sophisticated and effective strategy that paid off. A very strong start to their case"
Chuck's little "money dares" are adorable. The old fat guy's version of "Oh, yeah, let's meet up and I'll kick your ass". Classic internet tough guy who knows that the Internet insulates him from real life repurcussions.
"ADDED: I liked the restrained tone and the rhetoric in the form of inviting the Senators to think about various questions."
Oh, boy, Chuck is tearing out his hair plugs as I write this.
Bamned racist commenter Chuck: "Until then, you should do Althouse a favor and stop your endless, pointless personal attacks."
I know not what course others may take but as for me, I have just begun to fight the FakeCon LLR-operational leftists!!
They made a good case to call witnesses, and somehow ignored Mulvaney and lied about Ukraine not knowing about the hold before the 25th, when they did. A nice talking point was the Russian claim about the server in contrast to our seventeen intelligence agencies.
The same bureaucrat that almost went to jail for even more agregious offenses if not for a presidential pardon
"I don't give a damn what Chuck thinks. I don't know why so many do."
I don't care care. The guy's dishonest and I don't respect his opinion. The fact that he supports what the government did in the "Russian collusion" travesty speaks volumes to me.
But there are two reasons I pay attention to him. This first one, frankly, is simple entertainment. The second is he gives me insight into the never Trumpers. Not a politician playing out an act, but he honest to God thinks he's righteous, and if we have to break a few laws to get what we want then so be it.
’...in contrast to our seventeen intelligence agencies.’
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency rendered a verdict, re: the server?
"Yes a small group of families run the phillipines probably going back to colonial period. The marcos the magapals (sic) the aquinos, and their retainers."
Heh, narciso... I have a DIL who is of Filipino descent and her parents (here in NorCal) have family in/close ties to the Philippines. I have a fairly good idea how it works over there, but have an interest in reading Buwaya's opinion. Buwaya often seems bemused by the goings on in the U.S., so I have a keen interest in how excuses are made for the abject poverty and misery to be found over there.
Not that anyone cares what I might think, but I'm going to say this anyway:
I am so sick of Althouse comment threads that are otherwise really interesting and written by smart people from whom I want to learn stuff I don't know, but degenerate into inane attacks that target Chuck (whoever the hell he might be.)
It may be fun for some here to wallow in that kind of pointless commenting, but for me it really gets tiresome to see it, over and over and over. Really.
Thanks. I just wanted to say that, in case anyone else felt the same way.
. A nice talking point was the Russian claim about the server in contrast to our seventeen intelligence agencies.
Great point. I was still on the fence until the Coast Guard weighed in.
"in contrast to our seventeen intelligence agencies."
You are saying that ironically, right? You know there aren't 17 agencies?
We can address the dubious nature of the crowdstrike attributions another day, thats another 'take on faith' moment like fti and bogus bezos tie to the saudis
ColonComment
Stay strong!
Banned racist commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "
If you nasty shitheads get enough money together, I will prove that I am what I say I am."
Your posts for the last 5 years proves incontrovertibly and precisely what you are.
An operational leftist.
How you label yourself could not be more irrelevant.
Darrell
Stay classy!
The Philippines has always been a banana republic.
As noted by narciso, it was run by a conspiracy of families, often squabbling but usually tacitly if not openly collaborating.
It is probably somewhat less corrupt these days, and it was quite surprising to me to realize this, because of social and economic change. A lot of humble people are getting into the middle class, and the GINI coefficient is shifting, and, less positively, most economic power has accumulated in Chinese hands.
Spain is different. At a high level there is, IMHO, far less corruption, and the state and the general ruling class is much less unified. In part this is because of regionalism - tribalism, with jealous local authorities generally prevailing over the center. In part this is because the prize of power is a fairly small pot. In part because every party is implicated in pervasive local corruption, and use that to kick each other out of power on a regular basis. Power is very uncertain.
Is some lefty/LLR-lefty STILL pushing the hoax "17 intelligence agencies" claim?
Unbelievable.
Chuck said, "I will prove that I am what I say I am."
Chuck's version of the so-called "Popeye Defense"...
How badly did this go for the Dems?
Schiff's on TV talking about Putin.
The left launch their entire BS off of lies and half-truths.
Here are the six key facts.
"First, 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" in the July 25 call.
"Second, President [Volodymyr] Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything," Purpura added. Indeed, they have insisted this many times.
"Third, 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."
"Fourth, not a single witness testified that the president himself said there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else," he added.
"Fifth, the security assistance flowed on September 11 and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations." In other words, if there was any quid pro quo to begin with, the quid pro quo failed.
Finally, Purpura noted that none of the Democrats' arguments can "change the fact that — as attested to by the Democrats' own witnesses — that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor."
These six key facts were established by the evidence the Democrats themselves presented in the impeachment trial, Trump's lawyer argued. These powerful arguments eviscerate the impeachment argument that the president engaged in "abuse of power" by pressuring Ukraine to supposedly interfere in the 2020 presidential election.
In fact, Democrats' own impeachment case is arguably an attempt to interfere in the election."
Trump Defense Team Eviscerates Impeachment With Six Key Facts on Ukraine
Do they grow them extra stupid in Michigan
The problem is that the people of Michigan are heavily indoctrinated due to an underlying liberal culture that is not really challenged, so they don't know any better. Certainly the media there is very weak. Even some of my fairly conservative family members there sometimes get some crazy notions in their heads.
More from Prof. Jonathan Turley:
"The White House did a particularly good job explaining its position on refusing discovery and also the unfair process. Moreover, it was a brilliant decision to limit the opening to a few hours. The House subjected the Senate to mind-numbing repetition for 22 hours."
Call it luck, fate or providence, thankfully I got out of there. Although places like my native Ann Arbor are the worst, the whole area really is tainted.
The whole impeachment show is an attempt - and I think so far successful - to distract attention from all the high-level perjury around the FISA applications?
"Mind-numbing repetition" works well for leftwing cultists those who respond to lies and propaganda.
It does go back to the colonial periid, and before that.
Traditional society in the Philippines was medieval, feudal even before my Original Gangsters, Legaspi's expedition, showed up.
The Spanish did not overthrow that system of chieftains, nor did they do much to introduce Spainish chieftains, rather they co-opted the natives. This preserved the ancient social-economic system largely unchanged through most of the country.
That has been replaced only very slowly.
Just to be clear, does the above mean Chuck is willing to FIGHT all of us?
Push-up contest.
One thing might be,that Trump’s mindset about the FBI and DoJ was set and affected his thinking in the Ukraine matter.
Okay; then let’s have the President’s testimony. And test all of it under cross examination.
For a lawyer you have it backwards. The President doesn't have to prove his intent, through anything, much less personal testimony, the impeachment managers have to prove it. All the defense has to point out is that another intent exists and is probable, even possible.
In this country, we don't judge a defendant by his refusal to testify.
Besides, he doesn't care what you think, and Trump's winning.
In any case, I like to think that I have a thorough understanding of banana republics, and therefore have the right frame in which to fit American facts.
You better think (think)
Think about what you're trying to do to me
Think (think, think)
Let your mind go, let yourself be free
Let's go back, let's go back
Let's go way on, way back when
I didn't even know you
You couldn't have been too much more than ten (just a child)
I ain't no psychiatrist, I ain't no doctor with degrees
But, it don't take too much high IQ's
To see what you're doing to me
You better think (think)
Think about what you're trying to do to me
Yeah, think (think, think)
Let your mind go, let yourself be free
Oh, freedom (freedom), freedom (freedom)
Oh, freedom, yeah, freedom
Freedom (freedom), oh oh freedom (freedom)
Freedom, oh freedom
When the Dems fail to convict Trump will they go into a tantrum and say the Senate is engaged in a coverup?
Agree with Colocomment and the many others who have made the same point. The back and forth between Chuck and those who take his bait is wasted space and detracts from the quality of the blog and comments.
JUST IGNORE CHUCK.
The whole impeachment show is an attempt - and I think so far successful - to distract attention from all the high-level perjury around the FISA applications?
I think it's more likely an attempt to deprive Bernie of the nomination by any means possible.
Because like Trump and the Republicans in 2016, there is no support for him by the people running the party.
Okay; then let’s have the President’s testimony. And test all of it under cross examination.
For a lawyer you have it backwards. The President doesn't have to prove his intent, through anything, much less personal testimony, the impeachment managers have to prove it. All the defense has to point out is that another intent exists and is probable, even possible.
In this country, we don't judge a defendant by his refusal to testify.
Good Lord. Is Chuck even an American?
He prefers Napoleonic law?
@ DBegley
When the Dems fail to convict Trump will they go into a tantrum and say the Senate is engaged in a coverup?
Up next on CNN and Maddow.
ColoComment @ 12:15. Word.
Where are the shots of Bernie getting into his private jet to fly to Iowa?
You'd think some of those might be leaking about now.
The democrats are engaged in election rigging.
Chuck your comments about what we or especially Ann should watch are disgusting! STFU
But if you really want to know the roots of it all, consider that the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, secession and segregation. They were willing to destroy the Union, not to mention even denying the very humanity of millions of people in reducing them to chattel.
What more do you need to know.
And the party of freeing criminals, inviting more theft (see SF, Chicago, NYC policies) and not allowing freed slaves and the rest of us (see Virginia) to defend ourselves on what they are unleashing on us.
And poop and the diseases that come with public defecation (see SF & LA and probably Austin and Seattle).
BTW, They might have caught in Texas 6 AQ members who illegally crossed.
When the Dems fail to convict Trump will they go into a tantrum and say the Senate is engaged in a coverup?
Of course. It is all about the narrative that their propaganda media will promote over and over again.
Jerry Nadler gave that away in one of his moments of hysteria.
ColoComment - I agree 100% with your comments. Who gives a flying fuck about Chuck ARM .... or the pointless back and forth. Most comment on the Internet is unbearably stupid, this place can at times be an exception to the rule. Too often lately it is not.
When do they toss Trump in the water to see if he floats?
if Doug Jones of Alabama supports impeachment, he will go down in November, sure as shootin'.
He’s going down anyway. But if he stays on the plantation he might get some benefits in his post-senatorial career.
"Until then, you should do Althouse a favor and stop your endless, pointless personal attacks."
I hadn't noticed anyone was attacking Althouse.
ADDED: I liked the restrained tone and the rhetoric in the form of inviting the Senators to think about various questions.
Geez, can't women think about anything. It's not about feelz. It's about what's said.
Unless you're doing a communications expert evaluation of the effect on soap opera women, but I think Althouse it not going on about ratings here.
She just wants people to be unexciting and nice.
I'm not going to watch either side.
But I think both sides would be wise to do a sober, just the facts presentation.
The goal is not to affect the vote (the Senators have probably largely made up their minds). It's to justify that vote in the upcoming elections.
If you go around throwing a tantrum, talking about dictators and kings and coups, your side will be in an uncomfortable position in the upcoming election.
If you stick to the facts, your side has a ready made justification for their votes: "I listened to both sides fairly, and it did/didn't meet the threshold for removing a president." If you go around sounding crazy, the Senator looks crazy for listening to you.
Nobody's nicer than I am. Even Jesus went off on the money-changers. And talk about restrained tone, I'm restrained tone personified.
How many of the "seventeen intelligence agencies" foresaw the fall of the USSR? Watching the USSR and taking its measure was job #1 for them, wasn't it? How many of the "seventeen intelligence agencies" predicted 9/11? How many said that Saddam had active WMD programs?
Our intelligence agencies are shit.
"I liked the restrained tone and the rhetoric in the form of inviting the Senators to think about various questions."
See, the presidents' lawyers are playing to the TV audience, giving the Althouses of America something with which to rationalize their vote in November.
Also, shorter days filled with the best arguments gives you more control over the news coverage.
I remember reading a book about the OJ Simpson trial which pointed out that the prosecutors lost the jury by spending so much time laying out their evidence. It was great evidence, but the jury tuned it out. It would have been wiser to start with the limo driver and the crime scene to give a story of what happened, then use the glove, the shoes, and the DNA tests to prove that that's what actually did happen.
Post a Comment