When the Dems fail to convict Trump will they go into a tantrum and say the Senate is engaged in a coverup?
Does night follow day? Of course they will. It will be the crime of the century, and about the only thing they have to campaign on.
I also wouldn't put it past them to do impeachment 2.0. If they can get Dems to fall in line over this ham sandwich, it shouldn't be hard to find something else.
My hope is instead the country will be focused on Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Comey, and McCabe in orange jumpsuites.
You do know that if DJT was a dictator, then Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, etall would have been picked up by the security folks, taken to an un-named location, tortured for awhile (just for the hell of it) and then executed and buried in unmarked locations to keep all of the rest of us in line.
Curious that that has not happend, yes?
As to the impeachment farce, I do hope the POTUS' team keeps on point, hammers the lack of EVIDENCE presented by the Dems, and keeps it short and to the point.
And then, come November, the American citizens vote for DJT or whichever least insane preson the Dems have managed to coalesce around.
As for Chuck, the night manager at MickyDs who has pretentions of lawyerly grandeur, maybe the people in his life that care about him will do an intervention and get him, or her, or xi, the help they so desperatly need.
The Professor liked it. As did most of the legal minds that felt at home.
If there is a goal for the "President's Defense Team," it should be providing cover for the GOP Senators for their votes of acquittal. Hence a serious and principled approach was exactly what was needed.
Law is the least of this impeachment business. Law is a mcguffin in the melodrama. It is a PR exercise meant for multiple audiences.
I suspect the American voting public may not be the only, or even principal, target of the thing at this point. Other targets, probably, include foreign governments, where the point is to warn them off cooperating with the Trump administration in its attempts to limit the "deep state". Other targets may include the financiers of that cabal. And then there is the deep state itself, which at this point may need a morale boost.
(This is the God's truth. My word as a Biden) I knew this sad guy, that was mentally retarded (intellectually challenged, as they say now) He never was very smart, and what little capacity he had, was destroyed by gin. He'd rant and rant; and we'd Try to ignore him; But, he had this one trait that was just truly bizarre. He'd constantly be saying that he wanted to bet people "a million dollars" on something; and then he'd add, that the only reason he wouldn't do it is because the other guy wouldn't pay up. He once spent A MONTH going on and (and on (and on)) about he wanted to play President Trump in Golf, for the million dollars; and that the only reason he didn't, was because "Trump would cheat".
Now, this poor sap didn't have two dollars he could rub together, to his name. (he once agreed to be silent for a week and a half, if someone (anyone) would stake him to a bottle of gin: THAT'S how broke he was). But, this poor sap would KEEP saying, that "THE ONLY REASON" that he wouldn't bet someone "A MILLION DOLLARS", was because The OTHER Guy wouldn't be able to pay.
Looking back at that joker, it was all Really Sad. If you're a mentally retarded person, you shouldn't ALSO be an alcoholic
Anyway, as i said: This is the God's truth. My word as a Biden."
yes in deed, certainly zelensky took the hint and reassigned the investigation into burisma, to the same corrupt nabu Pripyat ('marsh) agency, the Iranians certainly thought their actions were not circumscribed in this instance, they learned a hard lesson,
I've had the misfortune to occasionally try to convince persons as obtuse as ted stryker, back during the kerfluffle over the kurds, that was how many drama queen cycles ago,
the method resembles the way the journalist the Iranian echo chamber, the rizzotto tray press operates, the same line is spread in a hundred different outlets, often using the same words, after the 5th or 10th time, it acquires the appearance of verisimilitude of truth, then as Rush so apply puts it 'they drive by' planting another narrative,
When reading the comments, and I see "Chuck said..." I keep scrolling. I have not read any of his comments for quite a while. He keeps commenting because others constantly respond. If nobody paid any attention to him. He'd burn himself out, and quit commenting. People responding to him are a big part of problem.
I disliked him as walsh's factotum, then appreciated him in the oj case, and found a host more reasons to loath him,
now you say it's just cnn, but nbc is the same way, and it even intruded into metv, the sanctuary from all this category error, this week, cbs did bow out, leaving abc to carry the ball,
Other targets, probably, include foreign governments, where the point is to warn them off cooperating with the Trump administration in its attempts to limit the "deep state".
That has been going on for two years plus with the Democrats, the GOPe and China and NK. China seems to be concluding the Dims are losing so it is willing to deal on trade. Mexico is the same. Canada and Fidel Jr are not yet convinced. so they will lose more jobs.
The mystery to me is still the "climate change" hoax and who is behind it. I assume it is an attempt to drive Socialism but that has not worked here before. The Gramscian march through colleges does seem to be having some effect. Now that Stanford has a POC Physics major, we mat see a few plane crashes and bridge collapses before sanity revives.
I do hope at some point it's pointed out that those so deeply invested in sussing Trump's conflict of interest and a "fair" trial have no concern over "jury" members actively seeking the defendant's job. Iowa's calling.
As usual all the Chuck hate is unfounded. Chuck has not posted much in this thread and what he has posted is consistent with the facts: Trump is an unworthy person to be the president of a great nation, Trump did in fact lean on the Ukrainians for personal political gain, and Tump is afraid to testify. The majority of people in this country agree with Chuck.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said after the Senate impeachment trial Saturday that President Donald’s Trump legal team had “shredded” the Democrats’ case for impeachment within two hours.
I guess the shredding only works if you have a mind for facts and logic.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of Dem senators and house members who are appalled and disgusted and outraged, thinking to themselves, "WTF are these nutcases doing?"
And yet not one of them is willing to stand up to it. They see the evil and how it is destructive of the republic, but won't do a damn thing about it. Which makes them even worse than the Schiffs and Nadlers and AOCs of the Party.
>>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.)
That's why he's here. To distract. I'm convinced he's being paid to do this.
“The majority of people in this country agree with Chuck.”
They haven’t realized this yet. It may be easier for them to grasp after the election.
This obsession with Chuck isn’t anything new and won’t be going away anytime soon. Obsessions with people who dare to dissent is a common feature of these comments sections.
I've been watching today's proceedings about 3.5 hours behind the live stream. Patrick Philbin, Deputy Counsel to the President, is giving (gave) an especially effective presentation. (It is not a coincidence that the nerdiest presenter—and I mean that in the nicest possible way—is speaking to issues that were of particular interest to me.)
ColoComment: I have developed a way of reading Althouse comments that works for me. There are a few commenters (who generate a lot of comments) that I just scroll by as a matter of course. Then there are comments, which are pretty easy to spot, that refer back to the comments I skipped. I give those a quick skim. Sometimes there is something interesting said there; sometimes I will go back and actually read a skimmed comment if it looks like it was particularly interesting or ridiculous.
It would be great if I didn't have to do all that scrolling and skimming to get to the good stuff, but that is how it is. The good stuff is good enough that I keep coming back. Althouse has tried valiantly to improve the situation, but that turns out to be a very difficult task. This blog, with its sometime problematic comment section, is still one of my favorite blogs. YMMV.
When reading the comments, and I see "Chuck said..." I keep scrolling. I have not read any of his comments for quite a while. He keeps commenting because others constantly respond. If nobody paid any attention to him. He'd burn himself out, and quit commenting. People responding to him are a big part of problem.
Unfortunately, I notice that some of the biggest of the big part of the problem does not appear to be here to read this since he/she is not obsessively being part of the problem now.
The Ever Forgetful Admiral Inga: "They haven’t realized this yet. It may be easier for them to grasp after the election."
When Lefty Narratives Collide!!!
Just yesterday, another day in which Inga reaffirmed her belief in the Trump/Russia Collusion hoax, the dems were telling us that Trump cheated his way to victory AND if not removed from office IMMEDIATELY he would do it again!!!
Since yesterday was more than 15 minutes ago, Inga forgets that and reverts to "The Walls Are Closing In" mode and confidently predicting a democrat victory as she did in 2016!
So in one fell swoop Inga provides evidence the dems claims of "urgency" to remove Trump is something she doesnt even believe.....unless she is told to believe it again tomorrow....
"He keeps commenting because others constantly respond. If nobody paid any attention to him"
I scroll past all that stuff, too, but I don't think this is true. Even on a couple boards that have nothing to do with politics but that have a general "chit chat" forum, I've seen people go for years trying to provoke. There are people who have financial interests, either being paid or thinking that it will somehow lead to a job. There are a lot of people who raise hell online just so they can tell other people, online or in person, how they slew the dragon today. Then there are people who have no interest in the merits of a position, but just want to master the abstract argument. I'm one of the people who held his nose and voted for Trump, and I've asked a couple of the annoyances who they were trying to convince, who they thought their audience was, and both said nobody. It's like Bin Laden's recordings from the cave: "You have a coherent philosophy, you apply information and make reasoned arguments. But I'm still here, so I win."
I believe there are enormous amounts of money - with consulting and handling fees attached - being shifted around between the countries around the world for "carbon offsets," etc., without much, if any, publicity.
ARM seems to think that Mick Mulvaney is next in the series of unicorns that will soon depose Trump.
Let's see. There was: Jim Comey Bob Mueller Paul Manafort Mike Flynn George Papadopolous Stormy Daniels Bob Avanatti Jerry Nadler Nancy Pelosi Adam Schiff The "whistleblower" The House "witnesses" who witnessed nothing Mickey Cohen, etc.
Next at bat: John Bolton Mick Mulvaney Mitt Romney Lisa Murkowski Susan Collins
What are the odds that the Lefty Unicorn will appear to slay the Trump dragon?
I never called for your banning. I merely voiced the view of MANY people here who are sick of your obsessive sexual-like fixation with You Know Who and the way that you routinely destroy comment threads with constantly responding to him.
I never called for your banning -- unless you consider me saying that you were just as bad as him (without ever mentioning you by name, by the way, you simply owned up to it) as being the same as calling for banishment.
ARM is, as usual, misstating what happened. Some reporter asked Mulvaney about a "quid pro quo" in foreign aid and Mulvaney, truthfully, said, "That is what happens all the time" or words to that effect,
Does ARM think the Marshall Plan had no quid pro quo ? It was offered to the USSR as an ally before the Cold War got started but there would have been no support if Europe had gone communist. Personally, I see no reason to ever give ANY foreign aid except as a quid pro quo.
In their scramble to try to make everything Trump says an offense, the left has sure spread a lot of silly bullshit around.
I have spent enough time in court to see that these Trump attorneys are really, really good. No yelling. No screaming. Just fact after fact, methodically laid out. I was very impressed.
I did like that they got into the fact that the “subpoenas” that Trump supposedly thwarted were not legal, because Schifty’s HPSCI (apparently pronounced essentially as “hip see”) didn’t have subpoena power at the time that they were issued. And, of course, they pointed out (from a letter from WH Counsel to Schifty), that that was why the President as not cooperating - which of course, countered the statement by the House managers that they had never been told why the WH wasn’t responding to the non subpoenas. They also effectively legally debunked and discredited the House Managers’ claim that this wasn’t required. Of interest to me, was the point by Trump’s attorneys that they couldn’t assert Executive Privilege (and Immunity) because they needed to do that in court, and not being legal subpoenas, they were not enforceable by a court, and thus not hearable by a court, where they could assert those privileges. For a federal court to hear a case, there must be a colorable Case or Controversy, and there never was one - which, of course, was why the House never attempted to enforce their illegal subpoenas in court.
One thing that bothered me a bit was the way that a couple of the attorneys kept swaying back and forth when the spoke. Then I realized that the remotely viewing audience, such as those of us here who watched are not their target audience, but rather that is the jury, the Senate. And that was likely what they were doing - essentially engaging and addressing the entire Senate as they talked,
The reason that the House Dems want Trump to testify is exactly the same reason that the rabidly partisan Mueller prosecutors wanted him to testify. In both cases, both the Mueller Obstruction claim, as well as the Abuse of Power article of impeachment, require a guilty state of mind, and they had no real evidence showing that guilty state of mind that they so desperately need(ed) to prove guilt. They desperately needed to get Trump under oath, where they could get him to screw up and impeach himself with the statements that they, very likely, would trick him into making (he is apparently a very poor trial witness, because he can’t keep his mouth shut, eve when he should). The burden, of course, in our Anglo/American justice system, is for the burden of proof be upon the prosecutors, and that means, in both case, not allowing Trump to testify wins the case for him, as it should.
TickTock said... " 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."
Then use your influence with our hostess and get him tossed out. It isn't his blog and he's using bandwidth that should rightfully go to someone who can contribute intelligently. no matter what their political affiliation. his high school level nonsense has gone on long enough.
Before today I thought these impeachment arguments required warnings of total collapse and world war. If we are going to have this logical thinky stuff with no theatrics or emotional appeals to all things decent and American, well I just can't drink to stuff like that. Maybe an old fashioned Three Stooges food fight is called for. Obviously Trump is innocent. Everybody already knows that, so lets get some shit flying here, like we had with the Dems. Those guys know how to make the Senate into Jersey Shore. These Republicans are missing the objective here. There's no reason to watch if you are just going to state facts and stuff.
Zach opines re the OJ trial: ...the prosecutors lost the jury by spending so much time laying out their evidence...
The prosecutors lost the jury when they brought on Mark Fuhrman. They also failed to question potential jurors about their racism re black men and white women. It was a pathetic prosecutorial effort, IMO, exceeded only by the Casey Anthony trial.
Watching a little bit of CNN coverage and when they cut back to the talking heads it looks like a morgue. If we had anything like a functioning media impeachment would never have gotten this far. Toobin couldn't pretend it was anything other than shredding of each democratic impeachment narrative.
Other than playing faithful stenographers for the latest democratic talking point, CNN has ill prepared their viewers for the shredding that's happening to each impeachment article.
The only drama is how much impeachment will lose by. The dems can forget about having new impeachment witnesses called. The republicans see what a shit show it will turn into like the Kavanaugh hearing whenever you open the door to democratic chicanery. Enough already.
" Trump did in fact lean on the Ukrainians for personal political gain..."
There was no leaning on, since we all read the transcript and know there wasn't, and those supposedly leaned-on never felt any pressure, and never acted like they did. So that part is provably false from the facts, but I'd have no problem if he did do that. Are you not interested in the question of whether or not a future President is a corrupt graft hound?
You suggest that a President should not have the right to ask recipients of American tax dollars to investigate corruption in their nation if there is any way it might benefit him politically.
Since the last time Meade said, "Chuck, leave." I have skipped over and ignored Chuck, with only two exceptions in these many months.
I would like to ask Drago to try making his points without all the sarcastic references though. Now and again is pithy, constant "sarcastic surprise" is getting old.
The thing is, Drago you make really good points, and have excellent knowledge and logic, but when they are only used to goad, I skip over them.
“ [Sorry to go OT here but, dammit, that case still rankles with me]”
Two things. First, the book by the black jurors claimed that the prosecutors never came close to overcoming reasonable doubt. For one thing, there was too much hinky stuff going on with the police and ME.
Secondly, soon after the trial, I was sitting next to a good friend of the LA DA. He apparently believed that the case was lost after a group of Black ministers met with the DA and essentially told him that if OJ were convicted by a white jury, LA would burn. In response, the DA moved the case downtown, where they would get a significant black constituency in their jury pool. At that point, the DA punted, Knowing that the case was likely lost, putting a third string team on the case, one black, and one female, as a Hail Mary, hoping against hope that they might get a conviction based on jury identification with the prosecuting attorneys. It didn’t work.
"Trump did in fact lean on the Ukrainians for personal political gain..."
This, of course, is why the Dems were so desperate to get Trump under oath. They had no real, hard, evidence of Trump’s state of mind, so wanted to get him examined under oath to prove the state of mind that they so confidently claim, by tricking him.
Annie C., good comment *********************************
Then use your influence with our hostess and get him tossed out.
I did not intend in any way that my initial comment should provoke tossing anyone out. I don't think anyone should be "tossed out." Not our blog; we're guests here. Nor should our hostess be encouraged to do so. If you toss one, do you also toss those who "take his bait"? Where do you draw the line? (Maybe someone would vote to toss me for bringing this up? Who knows?)
Anyone who's raised a toddler through the tantrum-throwing years knows that the best way to choke off a tantrum is just to leave the room (refuse to engage) and remove the toddler's audience.
...a tactic that should work here, as well, I think, inasmuch as the scenarios are somewhat analogous. : )
When did politics change? It's been gradual and incremental over the last 50 years. The Eisenhower-Kennedy years look like a rare Era of Good Feeling. Things started to fall apart in the Johnson years. Divisions became partisan and more bitter under Nixon and then Reagan.
With Clinton and Second Bush almost all the elements were there for even greater bitterness and polarization. New media: talk radio, cable, the internet. And the two parties were ideologically polarized to a greater degree than before. The latest stage came in the last decade, when the once mainstream media became more niche or fringe and freer to be more openly ideological.
I used to respect Chuck’s comments, and found them interesting. But now they are just almost always trolling, trying to get a response, and it’s sad.
I think Chuck is in a bad cycle. Since anytime he comments, no matter if he’s on point or trolling, some commenters immediately troll him back. And he responds. And it just pollutes the thread with non relevant junk.
Quick count. 1 post by Chuck. six humorous responses criticizing Chuck. 187 responses stating how responding to Chuck wastes time and space and stop responding.
The prosecutors lost the jury when they brought on Mark Fuhrman.
No, I watched all the afternoon sessions. I was in New Hampshire getting another degree and recovering from back surgery. I had a satellite dish and every day, the afternoon session began at 5 PM EST and I would lay down and rest and watch.
Marcia Clark lost it when she fudged the time of the limo driver. It was lost when the DA moved the trial to downtown LA but the ONLY transcript the jury asked to be read back in deliberations was the limo driver. Clark tried to lengthen the time to give OJ more time to get back to the house. She was caught in a lie.
I saw her recently in Discovery ID program. Didn't recognize her.
"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."
This pisses me off too. Don't fake quote sarcastically. Use quotes if it's a quote.
These people can't see why everyone, before, here, and in the future, can't understand exactly what they are understanding, at that moment in time, and so can't conceive that accurately quoting works ten years from now whereas shit quoting is eternally idiocy.
JackWayne thanks for the link - wow...I am hoping that comes to something, but it seems as though even with tons of evidence, the MSM ignores/twists, etc.
I’ll have you know this Dave fellow teaches Physics in the UC system...
No, Dave; didn’t create Reagan’s gilded 1980s cesspool; he did.
“Reagan didn’t vote to nominate and elect the Putin-fellating piece of fecal matter who currently occupies the White House; you did.
How will you ever face Grissom, White and Chaffee when you finally make it to the Big Launch Pad in the Sky, after voting to put a KGB agent’s bitch in the Flight Director’s seat at Mission Control?“
Dave (2c186f) http://patterico.com/2020/01/24/public-service-announcement-2/#comment-2297948
The republicans see what a shit show it will turn into like the Kavanaugh hearing whenever you open the door to democratic chicanery.
One problem with this is that both sides of the aisle fundraised off the Kavanaugh hearings. Further, the Democrats will be getting lots of press from the primary season, while Republicans will miss out. Some Republicans might just want to extend this. I hope not, but I've seen too much of the "well, if you insist then we'll play along" game from Republicans since 2017, and each time they make bank while doing it.
Otherwise, I agree. This is shit show serving shit sandwiches and it needs to go away now.
A counter to my concern is that individual members need to campaign for their seats in their primary.
Mock, the OJ case rankles me too. I watched it every day and OJ's guilt seemed convincing to me but I have to admit that at that time, I had no idea that police would actually contaminate a case to obtain convictions. Not to say that is what happened in the OJ trial, but the blacks evidently felt that it was a rampant problem in L.A. And it might have been. Furman might have been a straight arrow but he didn't help the prosecution.
Annie C: "The thing is, Drago you make really good points, and have excellent knowledge and logic, but when they are only used to goad, I skip over them."
Pay attention Blog Monitor (Self-Appointed) Mark.
This is how you make a request that gets traction.
When did politics change? It's been gradual and incremental over the last 50 years. The Eisenhower-Kennedy years look like a rare Era of Good Feeling. Things started to fall apart in the Johnson years. Divisions became partisan and more bitter under Nixon and then Reagan.
There were plenty of Democrats who villainized Eisenhower back in the day. Nixon really drove the leftists crazy. My liberal godmother believed that all Republicans were either stupid or as evil as Hitler.
The difference is that the media has become more overtly leftist. When CNN and MSNBC promote their blatant anti-Republican agenda, it frees the major networks and newspapers to be less discreet about their bias.
In case I helped to establish a pattern of not acknowledging Al. S. I refute that now: AS. has been one of the finest persons I've, courtesy of the Althouse blog, encountered online and I hated when he was called out as other than authentic American Hero.
Thank you for doing more than almost anyone could understand.
On the OJ trial- I think he was clearly guilty, but I also think the police tried to frame him. I do think Fuhrman planted that glove. OJ, I think, methodically planned to kill his ex, and I don't think he would have been careless enough to leave that glove where it was found. Had Goldman not been there, I think there would have been no evidence at all linking Simpson to the crime- he planned everything pretty well except having to kill one other person, an adult male, who put up enough of a struggle to screw up his plans to some extent.
Iman said (re Buwaya): "I have a keen interest in how excuses are made for the abject poverty and misery to be found over there."
I doubt that he needs to make excuses (I need to review the subsequent posts to be sure, I'm arriving late): The problem is that the place is full of Filipinos.
They throw off one like our learned friend every now and then, but other than such changelings, you tend to have your basic low-performance-type Asian (see Malaysia, etc).
Kind of like how the Africans produce the odd Clarence Thomas once or twice a generation, but perhaps slightly more often than they can manage.
"Uh Mr. Fung. ... Mr. Fung, when you handled the bloody glove ... ... on the day when you handled the bloody glove, did you .... shampoo? Mr. Fung, did you. ... ... cream rinse?"
Where the Democrats made their biggest mistake was allowing Nadler and Schiff do the presenting. Neither one has any self-awareness of how their partisan nature undermines their presentation. And Althouse was correct the other day- it was endless repetition. I haven't watched a single moment of the trial, but I did read quickly through the transcripts of the Dem's presentation at the end of each day- it repeated evidence multiple times. 24 hours of presentation had only enough relevant material to fill up a single 3 hour session, tops. I could have made their case with all their evidence in less than two hours, and I wouldn't have bored you to death doing it.
What the Democrats needed were non-partisan lawyers with a long history trying cases before judges and, especially, juries. That was the difference between the Nadler/Schiff and today's presentation- Trump's team didn't let their partisan beliefs get in the way and dominate what they were saying and presenting. I think it would be a mistake for anyone else to present on Monday than the people who did it today. Stick with these guys- you don't need House Republicans for this- you got good talented lawyers, so use them.
Reading today's transcripts reminded me strongly of the House Judiciary hearings with the two liberal law professors and Jonathan Turley. The Democratic witnesses simply couldn't control their anti-Trump nature, and Turley made them look foolish in comparison because he didn't come to the hearing with a partisan axe to grind.
In short, the Democrats spent 24 hours preaching to the choir, and the three hours today was actually spent well in trying to persuade anyone who might not have already made up their mind about the matter.
buwaya @12:32 PM: "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."
Not only banana republics, but wide-ranging conspiracies as well, as I recall.
It is good to have a framework in which to fit the largely chaotic and merciless reality of human existence. I hope, and assume, that this one provides some comfort to you, although I think it's possible that you could do better. But so be it and bon appetit as they say.
Colocomment @4:16, If it means I have to take a hit for the team I'm willing to sacrifice.
Ray - SoCal said... "I used to respect Chuck’s comments, and found them interesting. But now they are just almost always trolling, trying to get a response, and it’s sad.
I think Chuck is in a bad cycle. Since anytime he comments, no matter if he’s on point or trolling, some commenters immediately troll him back. And he responds. And it just pollutes the thread with non relevant junk." He's been lying since he got here.
I think there were few that didn't think oj did it, but they didn't care, no one had ever shown care for their loved ones, was it jury nullification probably,
is the phillipines that much different from western Europe today, I referred to mapagal, arroyo's clan, aquino and the marcos, they sort of wait their turn out of power, that's why an outsider like Duterte, is popular, the last one Estrada, their schwartzenegger, didn't quite work out, theres even a former coup plotter Honasan, in the assembly, and a McCain like figure in triana,
one can't even catch up to the distortion field that the ap and the times, has put up in this matter, of course the progs lie as easy as taking a drink of water,
I'm thinking maybe Wednesday or Thursday next week would be a good time for U.S. Attorney Durham to publish his report. Right after the Trump Team wraps up and before any votes are taken on next steps. May change the entire ballgame.
May I beg the other commenters to adopt the appelation HWSNBN (he who shall not be named) for the loathesome-chancre-LLR? I step through the comments to hush the poor child, bless its heart. 90% of the instances of its name are y'all referring to or addressing it. LET'S JUST IGNORE IT!
durham is just the sort to conduct this investigation, but we know eickenrode, formerly of the plame unpleasantness, was assigned to shadow his investigation, and throw pillows to the times,
so fuhrman wanted to impress a screenwriter with a sub ellroy screen play, that excuses double murder, that along with the dodge that the menendez brothers used to get off, made me think less of defense attorneys, then about a decade later we see how irresponsible prosecutors can be,
as referenced before Schiff has played fast and loose in the Richard miller case, his sentence was ultimately reduced to time served,
What is so hard about skipping Chuck and Inga and any comments that mention them? Can you skim, brah? My mouse has a scroll wheel and I am the kill file. I never feel oppressed by bullshit at Althouse. Stop, stop, stop your sobbing.
The OJ trial. The only people who thought he was innocent were idiots. Lets see:
Goldman and Nicole's blood found in OJ's car. Sock with Nicole blood found in his house. Glove with their Blood found on OJ's estate. OJ's blood found at murder scene Expensive Italian Glove (matching one at Estate) found at murder scene Murderer had size 12 shoes, Expense rare brand. So did OJ. Murderer cut hand, OJ cut his hand at almost the same time OJ unavailable during time the murder was committed. OJ was estranged from her, had argued with her on the Telephone just before killing.
Yeah, other than that it was quite the puzzling case. Hope OJ finds the REAL killer.
The black jury wasn't going to convict because OJ killed a white woman. Its that simple. Judge on CNN kept saying that from Day 1 on Larry King. Turned out to be right.
of course it is, remember the kerfluffle over the us attorneys including the one who wouldn't indict bill Richardson, david Iglesias, he was supposedly the model for lt caffrey, in a few good men,
Rory@5:57... It is so ironic. As you have pointed out, Dems have ruled, (ruined), this country for most of Post WWII history. Now their "protected class" whines about how "Evil Republicans" have been keeping them suppressed. Truly a failure of the educators/education system.
Donald Trump had his motorcade stop when he saw firefighters saluting him. Trump exited the Beast and spent some time with these folks.
I understand that Lawfare, working with their dem and LLR-lefty allies, are recommending a new impeachment investigation into Trump for Impeding Public Employees In The Performance Of Their Duties.
Bipartisanship was an illusion based on Democratic domination of Congress for 50-60 years. It's been scorched earth ever since it became competitive.
From my age, I think it was Ronnie. The electorate started turning. The rats lost the Senate ‘86? Got it back, then the earthquake. People weren’t happy with FOE - friend Of Epstein.
another lurker, sometimes commenting: I also don't like the attacks on Chuck, but then I also don't like Chuck's attitude, lies, and most of his comments. If it says 'Chuck' sometimes I skip it but then have to go back & read to figure out some responses, and I REALLY hate that. I wish everyone would just shun him, religious context.
"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."
This pisses me off too. Don't fake quote sarcastically. Use quotes if it's a quote.
These people can't see why everyone, before, here, and in the future, can't understand exactly what they are understanding, at that moment in time, and so can't conceive that accurately quoting works ten years from now whereas shit quoting is eternally idiocy.
First of all, it's called paraphrasing. it is not a quote, hence not quotations.
Second of all, you accuse me of posting in bad faith. I resent that. The paraphrasing accurately depicts what was actually said.
Unless and until you can show my paraphrasing was inaccurate, you can shove your 'these people fake quoting' up your ass.
Seeing Red said. . . From my age, I think it was Ronnie. The electorate started turning. The rats lost the Senate ‘86?
DemRats lost the Senate in 1980 - same year that Reagan was elected. It was one of the most stunning and memorable nights of my "political life".
Like Chuck, I am nominally a "life-long Republican" going back to the days when my GOP father took me doorbelling in 1960 for Nixon. Hard for me to recognize that 1980 was probably the nadir, although GOP take-over of Congress (1994 - thanks to Newt G) was also game changing.
Bottom line - Dems controlled Congress (and GOP went along with it) for decades because everyone got a slice of the budget (bringing home the pork)to go along. Dems got the really big stuff (navy bases, highways, new federal buildings in district) and GOP got the small stuff (a park, a bridge repair).
Democrats continue to talk about the good old days when the GOP was "congenial".
The OJ trial. The only people who thought he was innocent were idiots. Lets see:
Goldman and Nicole's blood found in OJ's car. Sock with Nicole blood found in his house. Glove with their Blood found on OJ's estate. OJ's blood found at murder scene Expensive Italian Glove (matching one at Estate) found at murder scene Murderer had size 12 shoes, Expense rare brand. So did OJ. Murderer cut hand, OJ cut his hand at almost the same time OJ unavailable during time the murder was committed. OJ was estranged from her, had argued with her on the Telephone just before killing.
Yeah, other than that it was quite the puzzling case. Hope OJ finds the REAL killer.
1/25/20, 6:59 PM
Numerous domestic violence calls prior. "Domestic violence" between spouses became taken much more seriously after OJ slaughtered.
The OJ trial. The only people who thought he was innocent were idiots. Lets see:
After watching the trial, I was not sure. The guy who proved him guilty was Petrocelli, the civil suit lawyer who found the picture of the Bruno Magli shoes.
“ First of all, it's called paraphrasing. it is not a quote, hence not quotations.
“Second of all, you accuse me of posting in bad faith. I resent that. The paraphrasing accurately depicts what was actually said.”
President Trump’s attorneys called out Schifty today for doing this with the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian President. It was well done.
President Trump’s attorneys called out Schifty today for doing this with the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian President. It was well done.
No, Schiff got called out for lying. You calling me a liar?
Blogger Mark said... 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.
I expect that your comment was mostly intended as a personal insult of me, but insofar as you were attempting any seriousness at all...
Until the post-Trump catastrophe of the 2018 election, Michigan had for almost a decade been owned by smart Republicans. A Never Trump Republican governor, big state House and Senate majorities, a big conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, and some fantastically Republican-favorable legislative districting, state and federal. We had a Republican AG and Secretary of State. And the biggest/richest county, Oakland, with lots of purple, wealthy, educated suburbanites, was solid Republican.
Almost all of that is being lost in the Trump era. If four years counts as an”era.”
Support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 364 of 364When the Dems fail to convict Trump will they go into a tantrum and say the Senate is engaged in a coverup?
Does night follow day? Of course they will. It will be the crime of the century, and about the only thing they have to campaign on.
I also wouldn't put it past them to do impeachment 2.0. If they can get Dems to fall in line over this ham sandwich, it shouldn't be hard to find something else.
My hope is instead the country will be focused on Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Comey, and McCabe in orange jumpsuites.
You do know that if DJT was a dictator, then Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, etall would have been picked up by the security folks, taken to an un-named location, tortured for awhile (just for the hell of it) and then executed and buried in unmarked locations to keep all of the rest of us in line.
Curious that that has not happend, yes?
As to the impeachment farce, I do hope the POTUS' team keeps on point, hammers the lack of EVIDENCE presented by the Dems, and keeps it short and to the point.
And then, come November, the American citizens vote for DJT or whichever least insane preson the Dems have managed to coalesce around.
As for Chuck, the night manager at MickyDs who has pretentions of lawyerly grandeur, maybe the people in his life that care about him will do an intervention and get him, or her, or xi, the help they so desperatly need.
The Professor liked it. As did most of the legal minds that felt at home.
If there is a goal for the "President's Defense Team," it should be providing cover for the GOP Senators for their votes of acquittal. Hence a serious and principled approach was exactly what was needed.
he favors trial by combat, like in Wakanda,
how many words have been poured out, obfuscating the matter, has a been a million, five million, pixels are inumerate
indeed this flavor of peach mint came out of left field,
Law is the least of this impeachment business.
Law is a mcguffin in the melodrama.
It is a PR exercise meant for multiple audiences.
I suspect the American voting public may not be the only, or even principal, target of the thing at this point. Other targets, probably, include foreign governments, where the point is to warn them off cooperating with the Trump administration in its attempts to limit the "deep state". Other targets may include the financiers of that cabal. And then there is the deep state itself, which at this point may need a morale boost.
Chuck said...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.
--
Prove your innocence!
The "Steele dossier" takes you right into Clinton, Inc. and the Obama White House.
(This is the God's truth. My word as a Biden)
I knew this sad guy, that was mentally retarded (intellectually challenged, as they say now)
He never was very smart, and what little capacity he had, was destroyed by gin. He'd rant and rant; and we'd Try to ignore him; But, he had this one trait that was just truly bizarre. He'd constantly be saying that he wanted to bet people "a million dollars" on something; and then he'd add, that the only reason he wouldn't do it is because the other guy wouldn't pay up.
He once spent A MONTH going on and (and on (and on)) about he wanted to play President Trump in Golf, for the million dollars; and that the only reason he didn't, was because "Trump would cheat".
Now, this poor sap didn't have two dollars he could rub together, to his name.
(he once agreed to be silent for a week and a half, if someone (anyone) would stake him to a bottle of gin: THAT'S how broke he was).
But, this poor sap would KEEP saying, that "THE ONLY REASON" that he wouldn't bet someone "A MILLION DOLLARS", was because The OTHER Guy wouldn't be able to pay.
Looking back at that joker, it was all Really Sad. If you're a mentally retarded person, you shouldn't ALSO be an alcoholic
Anyway, as i said: This is the God's truth. My word as a Biden."
yes in deed, certainly zelensky took the hint and reassigned the investigation into burisma, to the same corrupt nabu Pripyat ('marsh) agency, the Iranians certainly thought their actions were not circumscribed in this instance, they learned a hard lesson,
"JUST IGNORE CHUCK."
Yes. Please. I scroll on by his comments, but then have to scroll on by the responses and soon enough the entire thread is gone.
I've had the misfortune to occasionally try to convince persons as obtuse as ted stryker, back during the kerfluffle over the kurds, that was how many drama queen cycles ago,
I scroll on by his comments, but then have to scroll on by the responses and soon enough the entire thread is gone.
That's the intent...
ADDED: I liked the restrained tone and the rhetoric in the form of inviting the Senators to think about various questions.
@Althouse, every senator has two ends, one for sitting and one for thinking. And since everything they have depends on their seat ...
the method resembles the way the journalist the Iranian echo chamber, the rizzotto tray press operates, the same line is spread in a hundred different outlets, often using the same words,
after the 5th or 10th time, it acquires the appearance of verisimilitude of truth, then as Rush so apply puts it 'they drive by' planting another narrative,
When reading the comments, and I see "Chuck said..." I keep scrolling. I have not read any of his comments for quite a while. He keeps commenting because others constantly respond. If nobody paid any attention to him. He'd burn himself out, and quit commenting. People responding to him are a big part of problem.
The process as punishment Left screwed up in the House and now demand control over Senate process.
Nyet.
Philbin was perfect. Maybe not for a TV audience, for this attorney observer and (much more importantly) any truly open-minded Senators.
might as well be hunter's brother,
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2020/01/25/toobin-bashes-white-house-and-white-people-wonders-if-women-will-be
I disliked him as walsh's factotum, then appreciated him in the oj case, and found a host more reasons to loath him,
now you say it's just cnn, but nbc is the same way, and it even intruded into metv, the sanctuary from all this category error, this week, cbs did bow out, leaving abc to carry the ball,
for purpura's first outing, I thought he did well, I'm sure he was counseled by starr and co on delivery, and selection of facts,
Other targets, probably, include foreign governments, where the point is to warn them off cooperating with the Trump administration in its attempts to limit the "deep state".
That has been going on for two years plus with the Democrats, the GOPe and China and NK. China seems to be concluding the Dims are losing so it is willing to deal on trade. Mexico is the same. Canada and Fidel Jr are not yet convinced. so they will lose more jobs.
The mystery to me is still the "climate change" hoax and who is behind it. I assume it is an attempt to drive Socialism but that has not worked here before. The Gramscian march through colleges does seem to be having some effect. Now that Stanford has a POC Physics major, we mat see a few plane crashes and bridge collapses before sanity revives.
Darrell... no law license... maybe a learner's permit. Chuck L. Hedd esq.
Always up for something new... "SKEEVY" lovin it!
I do hope at some point it's pointed out that those so deeply invested in sussing Trump's conflict of interest and a "fair" trial have no concern over "jury" members actively seeking the defendant's job.
Iowa's calling.
yes, he seems much like lionel hutz,
https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1221040198869573632?s=20
much of the 'climate change' foolishness was pushed by steyer with Bloomberg coming along later, the former has discovered he doesn't wear well,
Blogger Annie C. said...
“When do they toss Trump in the water to see if he floats?”
The BIG Floater in all this is Schiff.
As usual all the Chuck hate is unfounded. Chuck has not posted much in this thread and what he has posted is consistent with the facts: Trump is an unworthy person to be the president of a great nation, Trump did in fact lean on the Ukrainians for personal political gain, and Tump is afraid to testify. The majority of people in this country agree with Chuck.
Biden has immunity!
"How dare you!"
foundations like ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller seem largely responsible as with every other astroturf push,
From Breitbart:
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said after the Senate impeachment trial Saturday that President Donald’s Trump legal team had “shredded” the Democrats’ case for impeachment within two hours.
I guess the shredding only works if you have a mind for facts and logic.
From Gateway Pundit:
CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin admitted on Saturday that President Trump and the Republicans are destroying the Democrats.
“I just think that the Republicans are winning here. The President is winning here,” CNN’s chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on Saturday.
When you have lost Jeffrey Toobin it is time to stop smelling the unicorn farts.
admission against interests,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/u-s-sanctions-china-linked-oil-network-doing-business-with-irans-quds-terror-outfit/
it smells like 'praline or fudge ripple'
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1221155563695853568?s=20
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of Dem senators and house members who are appalled and disgusted and outraged, thinking to themselves, "WTF are these nutcases doing?"
And yet not one of them is willing to stand up to it. They see the evil and how it is destructive of the republic, but won't do a damn thing about it. Which makes them even worse than the Schiffs and Nadlers and AOCs of the Party.
that was romney doing his best impression of a bourbon,
Big Problem: When the Trump team said there was no evidence of anyone who directly heard Trump call for holding up military assistance to Ukraine they must have forgotten about Mick Mulvaney—who told the entire country. Did they really forget this?
"Trump afraid to testify" is the new leftwing talking point. Spreads like runny schitt.
ARM: "As usual all the Chuck hate is unfounded. Chuck has not posted much in this thread and what he has posted is consistent with the facts:"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
ARM and Chuck, just yesterday, proclaimed Trump guilty of ordering the assassination of a US ambassador.
Just yesterday.
More LLR-lefty Chuck/ARM "facts"...
>>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.)
That's why he's here. To distract. I'm convinced he's being paid to do this.
Inga’s world is caving in on her. Probably hitting the sauce in front of her wall size portrait of Obozo the Magnificent!
“The majority of people in this country agree with Chuck.”
They haven’t realized this yet. It may be easier for them to grasp after the election.
This obsession with Chuck isn’t anything new and won’t be going away anytime soon. Obsessions with people who dare to dissent is a common feature of these comments sections.
I've been watching today's proceedings about 3.5 hours behind the live stream. Patrick Philbin, Deputy Counsel to the President, is giving (gave) an especially effective presentation. (It is not a coincidence that the nerdiest presenter—and I mean that in the nicest possible way—is speaking to issues that were of particular interest to me.)
ColoComment: I have developed a way of reading Althouse comments that works for me. There are a few commenters (who generate a lot of comments) that I just scroll by as a matter of course. Then there are comments, which are pretty easy to spot, that refer back to the comments I skipped. I give those a quick skim. Sometimes there is something interesting said there; sometimes I will go back and actually read a skimmed comment if it looks like it was particularly interesting or ridiculous.
It would be great if I didn't have to do all that scrolling and skimming to get to the good stuff, but that is how it is. The good stuff is good enough that I keep coming back. Althouse has tried valiantly to improve the situation, but that turns out to be a very difficult task. This blog, with its sometime problematic comment section, is still one of my favorite blogs. YMMV.
@Inga
Althouse is a confirmed liberal Democrat who openly dislikes Trump, who’s slowly being pushed over into supporting Trump by this BS.
If this is happening with Althouse, what’s happening to other voters?
When you aren’t lying deliberately, you’re reliably dumb as fuck. You’re something of a expert at dumb as fuck.
Shouting Thomas,
I think Inga masquerades as Marcy, another moron, over at Hot Air
When reading the comments, and I see "Chuck said..." I keep scrolling. I have not read any of his comments for quite a while. He keeps commenting because others constantly respond. If nobody paid any attention to him. He'd burn himself out, and quit commenting. People responding to him are a big part of problem.
Unfortunately, I notice that some of the biggest of the big part of the problem does not appear to be here to read this since he/she is not obsessively being part of the problem now.
The Ever Forgetful Admiral Inga: "They haven’t realized this yet. It may be easier for them to grasp after the election."
When Lefty Narratives Collide!!!
Just yesterday, another day in which Inga reaffirmed her belief in the Trump/Russia Collusion hoax, the dems were telling us that Trump cheated his way to victory AND if not removed from office IMMEDIATELY he would do it again!!!
Since yesterday was more than 15 minutes ago, Inga forgets that and reverts to "The Walls Are Closing In" mode and confidently predicting a democrat victory as she did in 2016!
So in one fell swoop Inga provides evidence the dems claims of "urgency" to remove Trump is something she doesnt even believe.....unless she is told to believe it again tomorrow....
I think Inga masquerades as Marcy
I still maintain that Inga masquerades as Inga.
Damn. I guess I jinxed it.
Oh, wait. I see that he/she has been here earlier.
Still waiting on Blog Monitor Mark to call for Banned Commenters Chuck and Inga to stay banned.
I'm sure its just an oversight on his part which will be rectified shortly.
Lol
https://mobile.twitter.com/irishspy/status/1221160891648897024
"He keeps commenting because others constantly respond. If nobody paid any attention to him"
I scroll past all that stuff, too, but I don't think this is true. Even on a couple boards that have nothing to do with politics but that have a general "chit chat" forum, I've seen people go for years trying to provoke. There are people who have financial interests, either being paid or thinking that it will somehow lead to a job. There are a lot of people who raise hell online just so they can tell other people, online or in person, how they slew the dragon today. Then there are people who have no interest in the merits of a position, but just want to master the abstract argument. I'm one of the people who held his nose and voted for Trump, and I've asked a couple of the annoyances who they were trying to convince, who they thought their audience was, and both said nobody. It's like Bin Laden's recordings from the cave: "You have a coherent philosophy, you apply information and make reasoned arguments. But I'm still here, so I win."
Its very very important to Blog Monitor Mark that no one make note of previous comments and ongoing logic fails of Banned Commenters Inga and Chuck.
Why, Blog Monitor Mark was so upset by my illustrating the dishonesty of banned commenters Inga and Chuck that he called for my banning.
To what end one might wonder....
Election? We can't trust the presidency to no stinkin' election!
The threat is now! It's expodential!
I believe there are enormous amounts of money - with consulting and handling fees attached - being shifted around between the countries around the world for "carbon offsets," etc., without much, if any, publicity.
ARM seems to think that Mick Mulvaney is next in the series of unicorns that will soon depose Trump.
Let's see. There was:
Jim Comey
Bob Mueller
Paul Manafort
Mike Flynn
George Papadopolous
Stormy Daniels
Bob Avanatti
Jerry Nadler
Nancy Pelosi
Adam Schiff
The "whistleblower"
The House "witnesses" who witnessed nothing
Mickey Cohen, etc.
Next at bat:
John Bolton
Mick Mulvaney
Mitt Romney
Lisa Murkowski
Susan Collins
What are the odds that the Lefty Unicorn will appear to slay the Trump dragon?
What do unicorn farts smell like ARM?
Trump - or somebody - put a temporary "hold" on a Ukraine aid account that was not needed within the time the "hold" was in effect.
I mean..NOW in the sense that waiting a month just made it more apparent. Err..THREAT!
I never called for your banning. I merely voiced the view of MANY people here who are sick of your obsessive sexual-like fixation with You Know Who and the way that you routinely destroy comment threads with constantly responding to him.
Of course not providing weapons from 2014-2017, perfectly above board.
I never called for your banning -- unless you consider me saying that you were just as bad as him (without ever mentioning you by name, by the way, you simply owned up to it) as being the same as calling for banishment.
There are stylistic choices, going after ted is like shooting womprats not very satifying.
ARM is, as usual, misstating what happened. Some reporter asked Mulvaney about a "quid pro quo" in foreign aid and Mulvaney, truthfully, said, "That is what happens all the time" or words to that effect,
Does ARM think the Marshall Plan had no quid pro quo ? It was offered to the USSR as an ally before the Cold War got started but there would have been no support if Europe had gone communist. Personally, I see no reason to ever give ANY foreign aid except as a quid pro quo.
In their scramble to try to make everything Trump says an offense, the left has sure spread a lot of silly bullshit around.
Mark, zip it please.
I have spent enough time in court to see that these Trump attorneys are really, really good. No yelling. No screaming. Just fact after fact, methodically laid out. I was very impressed.
I did like that they got into the fact that the “subpoenas” that Trump supposedly thwarted were not legal, because Schifty’s HPSCI (apparently pronounced essentially as “hip see”) didn’t have subpoena power at the time that they were issued. And, of course, they pointed out (from a letter from WH Counsel to Schifty), that that was why the President as not cooperating - which of course, countered the statement by the House managers that they had never been told why the WH wasn’t responding to the non subpoenas. They also effectively legally debunked and discredited the House Managers’ claim that this wasn’t required. Of interest to me, was the point by Trump’s attorneys that they couldn’t assert Executive Privilege (and Immunity) because they needed to do that in court, and not being legal subpoenas, they were not enforceable by a court, and thus not hearable by a court, where they could assert those privileges. For a federal court to hear a case, there must be a colorable Case or Controversy, and there never was one - which, of course, was why the House never attempted to enforce their illegal subpoenas in court.
We just need to provide an unconditional UBI to all countries.
Because "LOVE!"
Exactly, and why the subpoenas in the clinton case were:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/ten-ways-the-democrats-own-impeachment-witnesses-destroyed-their-case-against-trump/
Did Bill Clinton testify during his impeachment trial? No?
Then why should the standards be any different this time?
One thing that bothered me a bit was the way that a couple of the attorneys kept swaying back and forth when the spoke. Then I realized that the remotely viewing audience, such as those of us here who watched are not their target audience, but rather that is the jury, the Senate. And that was likely what they were doing - essentially engaging and addressing the entire Senate as they talked,
Obsessions with people who dare to dissent is a common feature of these comments sections.
So. Brave.
Blog Monitor Mark: "I merely voiced the view of MANY people here who are sick of your obsessive sexual-like fixation..."
Hmmmm.
Tell us more.....
The reason that the House Dems want Trump to testify is exactly the same reason that the rabidly partisan Mueller prosecutors wanted him to testify. In both cases, both the Mueller Obstruction claim, as well as the Abuse of Power article of impeachment, require a guilty state of mind, and they had no real evidence showing that guilty state of mind that they so desperately need(ed) to prove guilt. They desperately needed to get Trump under oath, where they could get him to screw up and impeach himself with the statements that they, very likely, would trick him into making (he is apparently a very poor trial witness, because he can’t keep his mouth shut, eve when he should). The burden, of course, in our Anglo/American justice system, is for the burden of proof be upon the prosecutors, and that means, in both case, not allowing Trump to testify wins the case for him, as it should.
TickTock said...
" 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."
Then use your influence with our hostess and get him tossed out. It isn't his blog and he's using bandwidth that should rightfully go to someone who can contribute intelligently. no matter what their political affiliation. his high school level nonsense has gone on long enough.
ColoComment at 12:15. I agree with you.
Another crack in the stone. Getting closer to Obama and his minions. More intel on the whistleblower.
Before today I thought these impeachment arguments required warnings of total collapse and world war. If we are going to have this logical thinky stuff with no theatrics or emotional appeals to all things decent and American, well I just can't drink to stuff like that. Maybe an old fashioned Three Stooges food fight is called for. Obviously Trump is innocent. Everybody already knows that, so lets get some shit flying here, like we had with the Dems. Those guys know how to make the Senate into Jersey Shore. These Republicans are missing the objective here. There's no reason to watch if you are just going to state facts and stuff.
Scrolling too
Zach opines re the OJ trial: ...the prosecutors lost the jury by spending so much time laying out their evidence...
The prosecutors lost the jury when they brought on Mark Fuhrman. They also failed to question potential jurors about their racism re black men and white women. It was a pathetic prosecutorial effort, IMO, exceeded only by the Casey Anthony trial.
Watching a little bit of CNN coverage and when they cut back to the talking heads it looks like a morgue. If we had anything like a functioning media impeachment would never have gotten this far. Toobin couldn't pretend it was anything other than shredding of each democratic impeachment narrative.
Other than playing faithful stenographers for the latest democratic talking point, CNN has ill prepared their viewers for the shredding that's happening to each impeachment article.
The only drama is how much impeachment will lose by. The dems can forget about having new impeachment witnesses called. The republicans see what a shit show it will turn into like the Kavanaugh hearing whenever you open the door to democratic chicanery. Enough already.
Plus, Ito should have recused himself as his wife was a police officer who had once been supervisor over Mark Fuhrman.
[Sorry to go OT here but, dammit, that case still rankles with me]
I watched a bit more commentary by lib media.
Next week you're going to hear "distorting facts" and "conspiracy theory" until your eyes bleed.
Also, not fair the President's lawyers get the last word. Schiff already saying he wants another crack at it when the defense rests.
" Trump did in fact lean on the Ukrainians for personal political gain..."
There was no leaning on, since we all read the transcript and know there wasn't, and those supposedly leaned-on never felt any pressure, and never acted like they did. So that part is provably false from the facts, but I'd have no problem if he did do that. Are you not interested in the question of whether or not a future President is a corrupt graft hound?
You suggest that a President should not have the right to ask recipients of American tax dollars to investigate corruption in their nation if there is any way it might benefit him politically.
C'mon man!
It [Marshall Plan] was offered to the USSR as an ally before the Cold War got started
IIRC, G.F. Kennan in his Memoirs wrote that they thought the offer had to be made but expected that it would be refused.
Since the last time Meade said, "Chuck, leave." I have skipped over and ignored Chuck, with only two exceptions in these many months.
I would like to ask Drago to try making his points without all the sarcastic references though. Now and again is pithy, constant "sarcastic surprise" is getting old.
The thing is, Drago you make really good points, and have excellent knowledge and logic, but when they are only used to goad, I skip over them.
“ [Sorry to go OT here but, dammit, that case still rankles with me]”
Two things. First, the book by the black jurors claimed that the prosecutors never came close to overcoming reasonable doubt. For one thing, there was too much hinky stuff going on with the police and ME.
Secondly, soon after the trial, I was sitting next to a good friend of the LA DA. He apparently believed that the case was lost after a group of Black ministers met with the DA and essentially told him that if OJ were convicted by a white jury, LA would burn. In response, the DA moved the case downtown, where they would get a significant black constituency in their jury pool. At that point, the DA punted, Knowing that the case was likely lost, putting a third string team on the case, one black, and one female, as a Hail Mary, hoping against hope that they might get a conviction based on jury identification with the prosecuting attorneys. It didn’t work.
"Trump did in fact lean on the Ukrainians for personal political gain..."
You know, Trump would personally gain from an investigation by Ukraine only if Joe Biden and his son were guilty of corruption.
If the Bidens were innocent, they should have no fear of investigation.
"Trump did in fact lean on the Ukrainians for personal political gain..."
This, of course, is why the Dems were so desperate to get Trump under oath. They had no real, hard, evidence of Trump’s state of mind, so wanted to get him examined under oath to prove the state of mind that they so confidently claim, by tricking him.
The Left was for leaning on/leaning in before they were against it,
Annie C., good comment
*********************************
Then use your influence with our hostess and get him tossed out.
I did not intend in any way that my initial comment should provoke tossing anyone out. I don't think anyone should be "tossed out." Not our blog; we're guests here. Nor should our hostess be encouraged to do so.
If you toss one, do you also toss those who "take his bait"? Where do you draw the line? (Maybe someone would vote to toss me for bringing this up? Who knows?)
Anyone who's raised a toddler through the tantrum-throwing years knows that the best way to choke off a tantrum is just to leave the room (refuse to engage) and remove the toddler's audience.
...a tactic that should work here, as well, I think, inasmuch as the scenarios are somewhat analogous. : )
I did not realize that Ito’s wife was a police officer.
I figured the goal of the DA was to lose gracefully, Bruce Hayden’s comment supports that.
Interesting what happened to OJ after, and how the Black view of his guilt has changed.
My lesson from this debacle was money helps a lot in court. And woe to those that can’t afford excellent counsel.
When did politics change? It's been gradual and incremental over the last 50 years. The Eisenhower-Kennedy years look like a rare Era of Good Feeling. Things started to fall apart in the Johnson years. Divisions became partisan and more bitter under Nixon and then Reagan.
With Clinton and Second Bush almost all the elements were there for even greater bitterness and polarization. New media: talk radio, cable, the internet. And the two parties were ideologically polarized to a greater degree than before. The latest stage came in the last decade, when the once mainstream media became more niche or fringe and freer to be more openly ideological.
I used to respect Chuck’s comments, and found them interesting. But now they are just almost always trolling, trying to get a response, and it’s sad.
I think Chuck is in a bad cycle. Since anytime he comments, no matter if he’s on point or trolling, some commenters immediately troll him back. And he responds. And it just pollutes the thread with non relevant junk.
In response, the DA moved the case downtown, where they would get a significant black constituency in their jury pool.
Yes, that was the moment the case was lost. And, of course, the DA was the father of the current LA Mayor.
Quick count. 1 post by Chuck. six humorous responses criticizing Chuck. 187 responses stating how responding to Chuck wastes time and space and stop responding.
Is that ironic?
Blog Killfile - Add-ons for Firefox
Blog Comment Killfile - Chrome Web Store
The prosecutors lost the jury when they brought on Mark Fuhrman.
No, I watched all the afternoon sessions. I was in New Hampshire getting another degree and recovering from back surgery. I had a satellite dish and every day, the afternoon session began at 5 PM EST and I would lay down and rest and watch.
Marcia Clark lost it when she fudged the time of the limo driver. It was lost when the DA moved the trial to downtown LA but the ONLY transcript the jury asked to be read back in deliberations was the limo driver. Clark tried to lengthen the time to give OJ more time to get back to the house. She was caught in a lie.
I saw her recently in Discovery ID program. Didn't recognize her.
"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."
This pisses me off too. Don't fake quote sarcastically. Use quotes if it's a quote.
These people can't see why everyone, before, here, and in the future, can't understand exactly what they are understanding, at that moment in time, and so can't conceive that accurately quoting works ten years from now whereas shit quoting is eternally idiocy.
Things aren't perfect, and they should be, because science is perfect.
This summarizes 40% of twitter, and will for many years.
Good for twitter.
Better for Trump, who like JFK and Reagan, used media to crush foolish opposition.
Surely logic says we look to Spain for something? They do something different, and what we do is bad, so expats declaim bad bad bad America.
Okay, yet Spain isn't better, right?
Just less influenctial, I meant influential but I'll leave in the "c" just in case it has relevance to Bu.
Men don't run from God's chosen land and claim neutrality. Thank you for not, like our blog host, doing that.
JackWayne thanks for the link - wow...I am hoping that comes to something, but it seems as though even with tons of evidence, the MSM ignores/twists, etc.
I’ll have you know this Dave fellow teaches Physics in the UC system...
No, Dave; didn’t create Reagan’s gilded 1980s cesspool; he did.
“Reagan didn’t vote to nominate and elect the Putin-fellating piece of fecal matter who currently occupies the White House; you did.
How will you ever face Grissom, White and Chaffee when you finally make it to the Big Launch Pad in the Sky, after voting to put a KGB agent’s bitch in the Flight Director’s seat at Mission Control?“
Dave (2c186f) http://patterico.com/2020/01/24/public-service-announcement-2/#comment-2297948
The republicans see what a shit show it will turn into like the Kavanaugh hearing whenever you open the door to democratic chicanery.
One problem with this is that both sides of the aisle fundraised off the Kavanaugh hearings. Further, the Democrats will be getting lots of press from the primary season, while Republicans will miss out. Some Republicans might just want to extend this. I hope not, but I've seen too much of the "well, if you insist then we'll play along" game from Republicans since 2017, and each time they make bank while doing it.
Otherwise, I agree. This is shit show serving shit sandwiches and it needs to go away now.
A counter to my concern is that individual members need to campaign for their seats in their primary.
Mock, the OJ case rankles me too. I watched it every day and OJ's guilt seemed convincing to me but I have to admit that at that time, I had no idea that police would actually contaminate a case to obtain convictions. Not to say that is what happened in the OJ trial, but the blacks evidently felt that it was a rampant problem in L.A. And it might have been. Furman might have been a straight arrow but he didn't help the prosecution.
Annie C: "The thing is, Drago you make really good points, and have excellent knowledge and logic, but when they are only used to goad, I skip over them."
Pay attention Blog Monitor (Self-Appointed) Mark.
This is how you make a request that gets traction.
when they are only used to goad
Right over your head, obviously.
Way to prove the point.
When did politics change? It's been gradual and incremental over the last 50 years. The Eisenhower-Kennedy years look like a rare Era of Good Feeling. Things started to fall apart in the Johnson years. Divisions became partisan and more bitter under Nixon and then Reagan.
There were plenty of Democrats who villainized Eisenhower back in the day. Nixon really drove the leftists crazy. My liberal godmother believed that all Republicans were either stupid or as evil as Hitler.
The difference is that the media has become more overtly leftist. When CNN and MSNBC promote their blatant anti-Republican agenda, it frees the major networks and newspapers to be less discreet about their bias.
I thought the Profs wanted to get back at Nixon for Alger Hiss?
Progs
In case I helped to establish a pattern of not acknowledging Al. S. I refute that now: AS. has been one of the finest persons I've, courtesy of the Althouse blog, encountered online and I hated when he was called out as other than authentic American Hero.
Thank you for doing more than almost anyone could understand.
I felt a gut punch when our hosts called you out.
On the OJ trial- I think he was clearly guilty, but I also think the police tried to frame him. I do think Fuhrman planted that glove. OJ, I think, methodically planned to kill his ex, and I don't think he would have been careless enough to leave that glove where it was found. Had Goldman not been there, I think there would have been no evidence at all linking Simpson to the crime- he planned everything pretty well except having to kill one other person, an adult male, who put up enough of a struggle to screw up his plans to some extent.
Iman said (re Buwaya): "I have a keen interest in how excuses are made for the abject poverty and misery to be found over there."
I doubt that he needs to make excuses (I need to review the subsequent posts to be sure, I'm arriving late): The problem is that the place is full of Filipinos.
They throw off one like our learned friend every now and then, but other than such changelings, you tend to have your basic low-performance-type Asian (see Malaysia, etc).
Kind of like how the Africans produce the odd Clarence Thomas once or twice a generation, but perhaps slightly more often than they can manage.
"Uh Mr. Fung. ... Mr. Fung, when you handled the bloody glove ... ... on the day when you handled the bloody glove, did you .... shampoo? Mr. Fung, did you. ... ... cream rinse?"
rhhardin @12:57 PM: Your genius, sir, is your ability to be both restrained and passive-aggressive at the same time.
I'll grant that you probably have other talents, but this one seems to be especially well-developed. Congratulations.
Where the Democrats made their biggest mistake was allowing Nadler and Schiff do the presenting. Neither one has any self-awareness of how their partisan nature undermines their presentation. And Althouse was correct the other day- it was endless repetition. I haven't watched a single moment of the trial, but I did read quickly through the transcripts of the Dem's presentation at the end of each day- it repeated evidence multiple times. 24 hours of presentation had only enough relevant material to fill up a single 3 hour session, tops. I could have made their case with all their evidence in less than two hours, and I wouldn't have bored you to death doing it.
What the Democrats needed were non-partisan lawyers with a long history trying cases before judges and, especially, juries. That was the difference between the Nadler/Schiff and today's presentation- Trump's team didn't let their partisan beliefs get in the way and dominate what they were saying and presenting. I think it would be a mistake for anyone else to present on Monday than the people who did it today. Stick with these guys- you don't need House Republicans for this- you got good talented lawyers, so use them.
Reading today's transcripts reminded me strongly of the House Judiciary hearings with the two liberal law professors and Jonathan Turley. The Democratic witnesses simply couldn't control their anti-Trump nature, and Turley made them look foolish in comparison because he didn't come to the hearing with a partisan axe to grind.
In short, the Democrats spent 24 hours preaching to the choir, and the three hours today was actually spent well in trying to persuade anyone who might not have already made up their mind about the matter.
buwaya @12:32 PM: "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."
Not only banana republics, but wide-ranging conspiracies as well, as I recall.
It is good to have a framework in which to fit the largely chaotic and merciless reality of human existence. I hope, and assume, that this one provides some comfort to you, although I think it's possible that you could do better. But so be it and bon appetit as they say.
Colocomment @4:16, If it means I have to take a hit for the team I'm willing to sacrifice.
Ray - SoCal said...
"I used to respect Chuck’s comments, and found them interesting. But now they are just almost always trolling, trying to get a response, and it’s sad.
I think Chuck is in a bad cycle. Since anytime he comments, no matter if he’s on point or trolling, some commenters immediately troll him back. And he responds. And it just pollutes the thread with non relevant junk."
He's been lying since he got here.
Take that, Rogan:
Michael Knowles
@michaeljknowles
Thank you to all of the listeners who have pushed “VERDICT with @TedCruz
” to #1 on the charts!
mockturtle @10:01 AM: "Purpura is a condition of red or purple discolored spots..."
I guess that makes him a Person of Color (the Color Purple of course) and thus immune to criticism.
"When did politics change? It's been gradual and incremental over the last 50 years."
Bipartisanship was an illusion based on Democratic domination of Congress for 50-60 years. It's been scorched earth ever since it became competitive.
GOP Senator John Barrasso Says He Saw ‘Blood Drain From Schiff’s Face’ When Trump’s Defense Team Played Video of Fake Call and Transcript (VIDEO)
I'm as tired of the posters that respond to Chuck as I am of Chuck. This applies to a lesser degree wrt Inga, but that's because she posts less.
I think there were few that didn't think oj did it, but they didn't care, no one had ever shown care for their loved ones, was it jury nullification probably,
is the phillipines that much different from western Europe today, I referred to mapagal, arroyo's clan, aquino and the marcos, they sort of wait their turn out of power, that's why an outsider like Duterte, is popular, the last one Estrada, their schwartzenegger, didn't quite work out, theres even a former coup plotter Honasan, in the assembly, and a McCain like figure in triana,
OMG.In Major Deal, The Babylon Bee Purchases Competing Satire Site CNN.
as I've said before satire has gone zombie,
one can't even catch up to the distortion field that the ap and the times, has put up in this matter, of course the progs lie as easy as taking a drink of water,
you can see how orwell depicted how doublethink and triplethink operated in his dystopia, unconvenient points go down the memory hole,
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1221102160609456130
I'm thinking maybe Wednesday or Thursday next week would be a good time for U.S. Attorney Durham to publish his report. Right after the Trump Team wraps up and before any votes are taken on next steps. May change the entire ballgame.
May I beg the other commenters to adopt the appelation HWSNBN (he who shall not be named) for the loathesome-chancre-LLR?
I step through the comments to hush the poor child, bless its heart. 90% of the instances of its name are y'all referring to or addressing it. LET'S JUST IGNORE IT!
durham is just the sort to conduct this investigation, but we know eickenrode, formerly of the plame unpleasantness, was assigned to shadow his investigation, and throw pillows to the times,
so fuhrman wanted to impress a screenwriter with a sub ellroy screen play, that excuses double murder, that along with the dodge that the menendez brothers used to get off, made me think less of defense attorneys, then about a decade later we see how irresponsible prosecutors can be,
as referenced before Schiff has played fast and loose in the Richard miller case, his sentence was ultimately reduced to time served,
What is so hard about skipping Chuck and Inga and any comments that mention them? Can you skim, brah? My mouse has a scroll wheel and I am the kill file. I never feel oppressed by bullshit at Althouse. Stop, stop, stop your sobbing.
The OJ trial. The only people who thought he was innocent were idiots. Lets see:
Goldman and Nicole's blood found in OJ's car.
Sock with Nicole blood found in his house.
Glove with their Blood found on OJ's estate.
OJ's blood found at murder scene
Expensive Italian Glove (matching one at Estate) found at murder scene
Murderer had size 12 shoes, Expense rare brand. So did OJ.
Murderer cut hand, OJ cut his hand at almost the same time
OJ unavailable during time the murder was committed.
OJ was estranged from her, had argued with her on the Telephone just before killing.
Yeah, other than that it was quite the puzzling case. Hope OJ finds the REAL killer.
The black jury wasn't going to convict because OJ killed a white woman. Its that simple. Judge on CNN kept saying that from Day 1 on Larry King. Turned out to be right.
Media are now saying it's illegal to fire anyone from the Obama era.
Included the female who cries and expects to keep her posh government job indefinitely because she is a loyal democrat.
Ray-SoCal... From soundtrack, 'O Lucky Man', a favorite movie of mine ca. 1973.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTKt8M9Tg6o
"Justice" by Alan Price, keyboardist of the ANIMALS. Take a listen.
of course it is, remember the kerfluffle over the us attorneys including the one who wouldn't indict bill Richardson, david Iglesias, he was supposedly the model for lt caffrey, in a few good men,
Rory@5:57... It is so ironic. As you have pointed out, Dems have ruled, (ruined), this country for most of Post WWII history. Now their "protected class" whines about how "Evil Republicans" have been keeping them suppressed. Truly a failure of the educators/education system.
Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite
Must read.
Donald Trump had his motorcade stop when he saw firefighters saluting him. Trump exited the Beast and spent some time with these folks.
I understand that Lawfare, working with their dem and LLR-lefty allies, are recommending a new impeachment investigation into Trump for Impeding Public Employees In The Performance Of Their Duties.
the beginning of this Gramscian marathon was detected here:
http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2008/07/01/the-reece-committee-social-science-as-a-tool-for-control/
as pointed out earlier, Robert welch rather crudely sketched out the right pattern, just the wrong particular
After hearing Profiles you will appreciate the all corrupt all the time level of Corruption the District of Criminals. It is like a SWAMP.
I liked the restrained tone and the rhetoric in the form of inviting the Senators to think about various questions.
How nice of you to compliment the tone and rhetoric given how lacking the whole charade was in content and substance.
Bipartisanship was an illusion based on Democratic domination of Congress for 50-60 years. It's been scorched earth ever since it became competitive.
From my age, I think it was Ronnie. The electorate started turning. The rats lost the Senate ‘86? Got it back, then the earthquake. People weren’t happy with FOE - friend Of Epstein.
another lurker, sometimes commenting: I also don't like the attacks on Chuck, but then I also don't like Chuck's attitude, lies, and most of his comments. If it says 'Chuck' sometimes I skip it but then have to go back & read to figure out some responses, and I REALLY hate that. I wish everyone would just shun him, religious context.
Guildofcannonballs said...
"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."
This pisses me off too. Don't fake quote sarcastically. Use quotes if it's a quote.
These people can't see why everyone, before, here, and in the future, can't understand exactly what they are understanding, at that moment in time, and so can't conceive that accurately quoting works ten years from now whereas shit quoting is eternally idiocy.
First of all, it's called paraphrasing. it is not a quote, hence not quotations.
Second of all, you accuse me of posting in bad faith. I resent that. The paraphrasing accurately depicts what was actually said.
Unless and until you can show my paraphrasing was inaccurate, you can shove your 'these people fake quoting' up your ass.
Seeing Red said. . .
From my age, I think it was Ronnie. The electorate started turning. The rats lost the Senate ‘86?
DemRats lost the Senate in 1980 - same year that Reagan was elected. It was one of the most stunning and memorable nights of my "political life".
Like Chuck, I am nominally a "life-long Republican" going back to the days when my GOP father took me doorbelling in 1960 for Nixon. Hard for me to recognize that 1980 was probably the nadir, although GOP take-over of Congress (1994 - thanks to Newt G) was also game changing.
Bottom line - Dems controlled Congress (and GOP went along with it) for decades because everyone got a slice of the budget (bringing home the pork)to go along. Dems got the really big stuff (navy bases, highways, new federal buildings in district) and GOP got the small stuff (a park, a bridge repair).
Democrats continue to talk about the good old days when the GOP was "congenial".
rcocean said...
The OJ trial. The only people who thought he was innocent were idiots. Lets see:
Goldman and Nicole's blood found in OJ's car.
Sock with Nicole blood found in his house.
Glove with their Blood found on OJ's estate.
OJ's blood found at murder scene
Expensive Italian Glove (matching one at Estate) found at murder scene
Murderer had size 12 shoes, Expense rare brand. So did OJ.
Murderer cut hand, OJ cut his hand at almost the same time
OJ unavailable during time the murder was committed.
OJ was estranged from her, had argued with her on the Telephone just before killing.
Yeah, other than that it was quite the puzzling case. Hope OJ finds the REAL killer.
1/25/20, 6:59 PM
Numerous domestic violence calls prior. "Domestic violence" between spouses became taken much more seriously after OJ slaughtered.
Browndog -- and everyone else who does similar things -- it's a reasonable request.
The OJ trial. The only people who thought he was innocent were idiots. Lets see:
After watching the trial, I was not sure. The guy who proved him guilty was Petrocelli, the civil suit lawyer who found the picture of the Bruno Magli shoes.
Clark and Darden really screwed it up.
“ First of all, it's called paraphrasing. it is not a quote, hence not quotations.
“Second of all, you accuse me of posting in bad faith. I resent that. The paraphrasing accurately depicts what was actually said.”
President Trump’s attorneys called out Schifty today for doing this with the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian President. It was well done.
It doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Thanks BumbleBee for the video! I enjoyed watching it.
Narciso - great catch on context.
I was wondering why our resident troll mentioned Fisa.
I’m leaning towards Rusty’s view of Liar, that is how I see his recent comments, and it’s annoying.
Blogger ColoComment said...
"Not that anyone cares what I might think, but I'm going to say this anyway:"
(snip some stuff about Chuck being tedious)
Chuck is best ignored, it's pretty obvious he's spamming in order to derail interesting discussion here.
Leave the fighting to the cats, they have the more melodious yowls.
President Trump’s attorneys called out Schifty today for doing this with the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian President. It was well done.
No, Schiff got called out for lying. You calling me a liar?
Blogger Mark said...
Browndog -- and everyone else who does similar things -- it's a reasonable request.
So, unless you have a direct quote, you're not allowed to accurately protray what somebody said?
Paraphrasing is now banned on Althouse?
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.
1/25/20, 10:19 AM
Nameless llr traitor, I want to bet you $1000000 that you don't have $1000000.
Blogger Mark said...
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.
I expect that your comment was mostly intended as a personal insult of me, but insofar as you were attempting any seriousness at all...
Until the post-Trump catastrophe of the 2018 election, Michigan had for almost a decade been owned by smart Republicans. A Never Trump Republican governor, big state House and Senate majorities, a big conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, and some fantastically Republican-favorable legislative districting, state and federal. We had a Republican AG and Secretary of State. And the biggest/richest county, Oakland, with lots of purple, wealthy, educated suburbanites, was solid Republican.
Almost all of that is being lost in the Trump era. If four years counts as an”era.”
Post a Comment