May 16, 2020

I'm seeing a lot of adulation of Kayleigh McEnany coming from the right...

... but I watched this one in real time yesterday...

... and I thought it was clumsy and nonresponsive. I felt a little embarrassed for her. Later, looking at social media, I saw her extolled by people who, I think, are expressing their real enthusiasm.

For example, at Instapundit, there's Ed Driscoll, offering that clip and saying: "REPORTER ASKS KAYLEIGH MCENANY TO EXPLAIN OBAMAGATE AND THE CRIMES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED, IMMEDIATELY REGRETS IT." No, I don't think that reporter regretted it, immediately or later. I think he believed he put her on the spot and followed up accurately and intensely and brought out her inability to state clearly and concisely what the "Obamagate" crimes are supposed to be.

And on Twitter, Mike Cernovich presented the same clip and remarked — again, with the all caps — "WHO IS THIS QUEEN????" To which, Scott Adams chimed in, "It’s a slaughter."

Do they know they're doing propaganda or are they simply enthralled? Or am I wrong to stand apart and aloof and resist what is a stunningly articulate spokeswoman with a true and a powerful message to deliver?

ADDED: McEnany was absolutely on notice that she needed to have a better answer than Trump, who said, when asked basically the same question: "You know what the crime is, the crime is very obvious to everybody, all you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours."


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 261 of 261
RonF said...

From what I heard her say, the crimes were a) various Federal officials lying under oath and b) obtaining a FISA warrant using fake information.

Darrell said...

Althouse repeats the shit the NYT publishes everyday, even though it is propaganda--and wrong--the majority of the time. McEnany didn't list any crimes--just like Althouse does. Hillary committed almost a million felonies and Althouse didn't see anything to pursue.

hombre said...

Big Mike said...
‘“As a former law clerk to a federal judge, you know that the criminal indictments that Durham will be filing will list all of the crimes. Durham will do his job.” @David Begley, I hope so, but increasingly I don't think so.’

As another former law clerk, I don’t think so either. D.C. is a sanctuary for Democrat criminals.

narciso said...

They still refuse to report on the actual resolutions of this case, because they were in large part accessories after the fact, in the Flynn case, in the page case, in manafort's case, because their sources were the self same coup plotters, take devlin barrett he took the leak from strzok about McCabe, he reported every crumb mueller put out, without any scrutiny,

Crazy World said...

I admire her just facing the vile press. The good thing about Obama gate is it’s not going away and we’re all in this together. Ha!

Bruce Hayden said...

I am not sure if I have made this argument before here. If I have, you can safely ignore this as a rehash.

The 4th Amdt reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This applies in full force for what FISA terms as “US Persons” (citizens and lawfully resident aliens). This has long been interpreted to include interception of phone calls, etc. The Wiretap Act was enacted to give law enforcement guidelines for intercepting phone calls of US Persons. FISA was enacted later to regulate interception of electronic communications that involve foreigners either here, or outside the US talking to someone here. Later, after the 9/11/01 attacks, FISA was extended to cover database searching of massive NSA databases set up to aid the FBI in their fight against terrorism. The laws for database searching are in FISA Title VII, while those for electronic surveillance pursuant to a warrant are in Title I. There are two legally valid reasons to utilize either FISA Title: counterintelligence and counterterrorism. Everything here involves purported counterintelligence. AD Bill Priestap was in charge of counterintelligence in the FBI, and DAD Peter Strzok was his deputy. Most everyone involved in Spygate were working for those two in the FBI, or their counterparts in the National Security Division in the DOJ, their bosses, or near the top of other Intelligence Community agencies (notably Clapper and Brennan, who provided bogus predication for the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation of Trump and his people.

Getting back on track. These various counterintelligence (and counterterrorism) tools used by the Obama Administration people and their holdovers have different levels of predication required to keep from violating the 4th Amdt rights of any US Persons involved. Title I FISA wiretap warrants are supposed to require a higher level of predication, when US Persons are targeted, or even incidentally surveilled, than Wiretap Act warrants, because they are more susceptible to abuse and no crime is being alleged. Minimization is supposed to protect US Persons when their conversations are inadvertently intercepted pursuant to valid Title I warrants (such as probably the case of Flynn, whose call was very likely intercepted based on a standing FISA warrant on the Russian Ambassador). DAG Yates, several years before this all happened, apparently greatly weakened the requirements for unmasking and dissemination of unmasked FISA intercepted communications. What that doesn’t mean is that the interceptions of communications under FISA were magically allowed under the 4th Amdt, but rather that more interceptions of conversations allowed under color of FISA no longer didn’t violate the 4th Amdt.

But then they cheated. The 85% of tens of thousands of database searches by contractors were justified as maintenance. That was illegal. The CIA working with the FBI CD attempted to compromise Trump campaign people in order to provide a counterintelligence predicate of Russian Collusion for a counterintelligence investigation of Trump, etc. That too was illegal. They then knowingly used DNC and Clinton financed false information (the Steele Dossier) to open the Crossfire Hurricane Counterintelligence investigation of Trump and his campaign. It was submitted to support four FISA warrants on Carter Page, in order to legally justify all of the previous spying on American citizens they had been doing, despite knowing that that information had been financed by Trump’s political opponent, was being pushed hard by their opponent’s agents, and lacked almost anything in corroboration.

Bruce Hayden said...


You can argue all day whether or not FISA was criminally violated by these actions. I think that it was. But it is hard to argue that they didn’t violate the 4th Amdt rights of those being surveilled, unmasked, or tracked. It has long been held that warrant based on false information is invalid, and thus searches made pursuant to them unconstitutional. Ditto being tracked under the pretense of database interface maintenance. Playing cute Lawfare inspired word games doesn’t change that these actions very likely violated the 4th Amdt rights of the US Persons involved who had their email read, their phone calls intercepted, etc.

narayanan said...

Blogger mezzrow said...

With Cruel Neutrality as her sword, Althouse ....
I never saw a decent definition provided by Emerita Professora : can somebody refer me to one.

Q: assuming this post is instance of demonstration of such - reveals one edge of the sword ; waiting to see the other edge before drawing conclusions

effinayright said...

Ann Althouse said...
Now, it's possible that what Obamagate means is that there was a conspiracy to commit treason (the "coup attempt") and *that*'s what Trump meant by "the crime is very obvious to everybody."

If so, I'm not surprised they won't say it in clear words.

It is very disturbing to read that a Con Law professor would call these seditious and otherwide-define conspiratorial acts "treason" in the vernacular sense. YOU KNOW how the Constitution defines that term.

What "armed enemy" was the Obama administration giving aid and comfort to?

Additionally, why should a press secretary be called upon in a press conference to cite statutes that were violated? Barr is careful not to do that in his public statements. YOU KNOW that a non-legal person working in the White House has no authority to do that, as it just gives the adversarial press a reason to claim that Trump and his people have pre-judged the case.

Did Comey ever cite statutes during the Clinton private server investigation? IIRC he kept saying to the press, "I can't comment on an on-going investigation." Did the press ever bait him to name the exact statutes?

narayanan said...

here is segment of Media actively suggesting Press Conferences are inappropriate

was this ever blogged by Emerita Professora?


Owen said...

wildswan@ 10:56: "How I see it."

Very well put. And, yes, I think it would be strategically and tactically unwise for Kayleigh Press Goddess McEnany to specify any crimes. It's above her pay grade and it could spoil the coming offensive by tipping off the wrong people. Let them sweat. And why should she do the reporters' job for them? She is exactly on target to keep asking them to start being reporters. Their incuriosity is complete, unanimous and lasting --in the face of the biggest story of their lifetimes. Astonishing. How much are they being paid? Who is holding their children as collateral?

rhhardin said...

Trump always lets you share in in making the joke.

The lady wants to own it herself.

Fritz said...

OldManRick said...

I seem to remember that she noted several Obama appointees who lied under oath to congress. Based on the reactions here, I guess I'm going to have to assume that that's not a crime if you are an Obama democrat.

It's enforced almost as often as the Logan Act.

narayanan said...

isn't suffix -gate itself a term of opprobrious objection

and reluctance and rejection of its affixion to one's preferred narrative / actor a form of belief and acceptance

Bruce Hayden said...

“ Lots of behavior can be legal but unethical. There may be a few crimes in Obamagate, but a whole lot of unethical behavior.”

Unethical behavior can easily move into illegal (under the Civil Rights Act) when deprivations of Constitutional rights (e.g. 4th Amdt) are involved.

minnesota farm guy said...

Apparently I offended Ann by my comment that included the afterthought that she might have been a bit jealous of McEnany's youth and good looks.

Amadeus 48 said...

Today's newspaper is tomorrow's fish wrap.

This is barely worth noting, like so much of what fills the hours these days.

chickelit said...

At one point in time, Althouse considered Obama to be "like a boyfriend" whence the tag that has umpteen entries. Why would she ever seriously consider turning on an imaginary paramour?

And don't forget that she whispered out loud to a son the morning after Obama was elected in 2008: "We did it!"

Althouse made the fatal mistake of thinking that Obama was some sort of Jimi Hendrix of politics -- a racially unifying voice; in fact, Barack Obama was just another toxic embodiment of Chicago dirty politics writ larger.

Not Sure said...

Usually I'm annoyed by the automatic attachment of "gate" to any alleged scandal, but in this case I think it's quite apt.

The actual criminal convictions in Watergate were either directly related to the burglary or for "obstruction of justice" arising from the burglary. Probably survivable for Nixon were it not for the release of the tapes. In less than two years after he was reelected in a landslide, Nixon became--dare I say--toxic to Republicans because of the venality, coarseness, and cynicism that was on display in those tapes. Sure, other presidents were probably similar--maybe worse--but this time the public had its nose rubbed in the dirt. Nixon had to go because he no longer seemed worthy of his office.

We don't know enough yet to say for sure what Obama knew, when he knew it, and what he ordered done to obstruct Trump, and we won't have audio tapes to make vivid whatever we do find out. But the potential damage to the general public's view of the nature of the intel community, the rest of the permanent bureaucracy, and the Democrats in general is real, and massive. The actual criminal charges will be secondary to the shocking immorality that "Obamagate" could come to represent.

narayanan said...

Blogger iowan2 said...
Flynn was under FBI counter intelligence investigation.
from my POV Flynn was under investigation even when he was part of Obama administration which continued after he was fired - for objecting to Iran Nuclear Deal.

Anybody he contacted also came into 'scrutiny'

His joining Trump campaign was 'manna from heaven' because now "Obama minions" could get inside scoop on Trump doings.

It is mistake to harp on FISA at least wrt Flynn.

I am not clearing Flynn - he also is using the cover of 'that is classified - I will have to kill you if after I tell you'

Laslo Spatula said...

Althouse is cranky because she has to find reasons for why she will later admit her vote for Biden.

She was willing to believe the worst about Kavanaugh because she doesn't trust the right.

She wants to believe the best about Obama because she doesn't trust the right.

The catch is, she can never trust the right: they are, and will always be, the 'Frat Boys'.

"...There is, indeed, something we call the "frat boy." I've had an aversion to this type of person since I was a college student and no one I knew would want anything to do with a frat boy. At the time, I believed fraternities were obsolescent and would soon be gone. I thought football was about to die too. Clearly, I was wrong, but I'm just saying I never liked the "frat boy" I never wanted anything to do with. I mean, there was one frat boy I once went to a movie with. I can't remember his name. Let's say it was Bob. The friends I had called him "Frat Boy Bob," and though I liked him, I never overcame my aversion to the general stereotype that I and my friends had stamped onto him..."

Althouse is a bright woman, but there is too much already baked in the cake. And naming a frosting for the cake 'cruel neutrality' doesn't make it a Cruel Neutrality Cake.

I am Laslo.

Robert Cook said...

"We have already seen that Clapper clearly gave conflicting testimony to the Senate versus what he was saying in public. Is that perjury? It's certainly lying, but is that always perjury?"

Yes. Clapper knew he was telling a lie to the Senate, which he tried to soften with his "not wittingly" comment. He later lied when he said he had not lied to Congress. He's a lying liar.

Michael K said...

You can argue all day whether or not FISA was criminally violated by these actions. I think that it was. But it is hard to argue that they didn’t violate the 4th Amdt rights of those being surveilled, unmasked, or tracked. It has long been held that warrant based on false information is invalid, and thus searches made pursuant to them unconstitutional.

FISA just needs to be repealed as the FBI and CIA cannot be trusted to act legally in these matters. The Watergate story and the role of Mark Felt means that the FBI was spying on presidents before Nixon. This is how Hoover kept his power over Kennedy and Johnson. You could argue that the FBI and CIA need to be dismantled, and that is probably correct with the CIA but the FBI in local matters serves a useful purpose. My daughter is doing health care fraud investigations. and that may need more than purely local assets.

What we don't need is another Watergate or Obamagate. We now know that Judge Sirica was just as compromised as Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case. They were both political.

wildswan said...

Events, especially the dropping of the prosecution against Michael Flynn, have forced Obama off the sidelines. He has stated that "the rule of law" is being undermined in this country by the Department of Justice. He has thrown his personal popularity into the scale against General Flynn and against all the other investigations and so then, basically, against Trump. Now, Obama threw all his popularity and all the power of his office - and also powers his office does not have - behind Hillary, and so then, basically, against Trump, and it wasn't enough in 2016. So I think I know what will happen in 2020. I think Obama supporters shouldn't force him into supporting the abuses of the last three years or into supporting Slow Joe. His popularity may remain high but his words will just become like rain in the desert and evaporate before they touch the ground and do anything useful. I think the California special election has rendered the Dems desperate and they are throwing a Hail Mary pass which is what relying on Obama to get down in there and fight really is. He has always left the risks to others.

Big Mike said...

Take another look at the beginning of the video clip, and contemplate this:

It is a small point, but every time you see a well-coiffed journalist or politician on television, you should ask: why is it that he can get a haircut, and I can’t? Nothing exposes the class divide like an “emergency.”

(Hat tip to Powerline)

Michael K said...

Andy McCarthy has a significant column on the Flynn case today.

The Flynn call with the Russian ambassador was NOT a FISA abuse.

It was a CIA operation.

The CIA played a central role. The agency collaborated — I’m tempted to say colluded! — with a variety of friendly foreign intelligence services, especially NATO countries that Trump made a habit of bashing on the campaign trail. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what former CIA director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee:

I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion — cooperation occurred.

Brennan elaborated that, with respect to “leads that involved U.S. persons” that came to the CIA’s attention, he “made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the bureau.”

The CIA was recording Flynn since 2015.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. This is not just about unmasking. It is about how pervasively the Obama administration was monitoring the Trump campaign.

Freeman Hunt said...

Just watched it. Thought she was pretty fantastic.

Harold Boxty said...

1. Using a dossier they knew was fake to lie to a court in order to obtain a FISA warrant is a crime.
2. Unmasking Flynn is a crime.
3. Leaking Flynn's identity to the press is a crime.
4. Lying to investigators is a crime.
5.Lying to Congress under oath is a crime.

Five crimes from the video from the first two and a half minutes. Or do these not sound like crimes to you?

narayanan said...

Blogger Darkisland said...
OT but difi's driver reminded me of a story from wwii
post WWII

there is tale of Russian embassy driver who was KGB chief of station that host country did not know about.

narayanan said...

Blogger Laslo Spatula said...

Althouse is cranky because she has to find reasons for why she will later admit her vote for Biden.

She was willing to believe the worst about Kavanaugh because she doesn't trust the right.

She wants to believe the best about Obama because she doesn't trust the right.

The catch is, she can never trust the right: they are, and will always be, the 'Frat Boys'....

Althouse is a bright woman, but there is too much already baked in the cake. And naming a frosting for the cake 'cruel neutrality' doesn't make it a Cruel Neutrality Cake.

I am Laslo.

Thanks Laslo for clearing that up. I shall lay to bed my crogglement about 'cruel neutrality' : it had begun to look like daily affirmation a la "Daily Affirmations With Stuart Smalley"

I mainly read only the comments anyway.

narciso said...

indeed felt who was supervising the 'black bag' operations against sds and panthers, the records were recorded at the media Pennsylvania warehouse,

narayanan said...

Blogger Joan said...

Cronus titan, Althouse is retired, hence her going rate of $1000/hour to grade exams. Sounds about right to me!
I enjoy doing math :
40 hrs /week x say 50 weeks / yr = 2000 hrs x $1000/hr = $ 2,000,000 per annum

Is that much paid out in pension FOR each professor?


narayanan said...

May I suggest that professora need to disquisition on the word is called for with recourse to unlinkable OED

my meager attempt shows that it does not always involve statutes or law


crime noun

Definition of crime

1 : an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity efforts to fight crime
4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful It's a crime to waste good food.

Gk1 said...

Isn't it funny how the Obama administration actively spied on Trump's campaign and they still managed to lose! And we can all bet they were just as incompetent covering up this spying too. It will come out in the sunlight for everyone to look at. Liberals can pretend they are fine with it but it's demoralizing for them at a personal level.

Look at the FBI's "A Team" of Jim Comey, Andy McCabe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. I wouldn't let these people paint a fence much less protect the country. They got lazy and stupid thinking Hillary was going to cruise to victory so they thought they didn't have to be too careful. You know there is much gnashing of the teeth in the swamp that Flynn hadn't kept his guilty plea and been pardoned by Trump already.

Bruce Hayden said...

“The CIA was recording Flynn since 2015.”

Far be it for me to question Andy McCarthy. But there are two ways to legally record the conversations of US Persons in the US. And the CIA sitting somewhere outside this country doing it isn’t one of them. One is through a Wiretap Act warrant granted by a US District Court based on probable cause that a prosecutable crime (thus not covering Logan Act violations) had been committed. The other is through the use of a Title I FISA warrant the CIA incidentally wiretapping Flynn in the US talking to someone overseas still requires a FISA warrant on the target. Of course, if the actual target had been Flynn, they would have required the same sort of paperwork they needed for Carter Page, including some level proof that he was, at the time, an agent of a foreign power. I expect that the FISC might have looked more closely at an application targeting the incoming NSA, than some poor stuck supposedly working for the Russians, esp when they downplayed the political aspects in the Carter Page application.

But keep in mind that the FBI has been routinely recording calls from the Soviet, then Russian, ambassador at least since FISA was enacted over 40 years ago. Just figure that if the calls of whoever holds that position can be recorded, they have been. But what can be, and I am increasingly certain probably did happen, is that Flynn was essentially reverse targeted. The FBI (or CIA) identified when he talked to the Russian ambassador, then pulled the recording that the FBI/NSA already had of that conversation, knowing that the US Person talking to the ambassador was Flynn. They may have found out from the CIA. Or alternatively from a pen register attached to Flynn’s phone, that would have shown time and call number. In any case, no unmasking was required because they knew before reading the call transcript that the US Person on the call was Flynn, their real target. This would actually have been illegal (since in actuality Flynn was the target, thus requiring a Title I warrant on him) but very hard to prove.

buster said...

@ wildswan 10:56

"a small crime (about on the level of a third rate burglary...."

I agree with what you're saying, but changing a 302 is not equivalent to a third rate burglary. Third rate burglars don't get innocent people thrown in prison.

Birkel said...

The crime is deprivation of civil liberties of American citizens under color of state authority.
It's the same thing Alabama sheriffs during the Civil Rights Movement has held against them.

That's the safest answer available.
And it has the advantage of being true.

Chris of Rights said...

I always go with the simple response as to what Obamagate is.

Up until 2016, we all thought it was horrible for a sitting President to spy on the campaign of candidates of the opposing party. Some people went to jail for it in the 70s.

narciso said...

there was the cicero case, where it was a driver at the Turkish embassy no,

Nichevo said...

Ann, you know quite well that citing chapter and verse on statutes is problematic. Since you do know, it's a cheap con on your part. Certainly not worth a grand even if you threw in an around the world. You're not twenty anymore.

And what a stupid red herring for you to trail, treason. Disrespectful of your audience. Even you probably read the Constitution once, and know how closely circumscribed is that charge, the only one defined in the document.

What would be more helpful from you, if you weren't the enemy, would be to help us to some understanding of what the proper charge for these offences is. (The closest I have gotten is sedition and conspiracy to commit sedition.)

But you are the enemy, aren't you.

effinayright said...

reading all these comments I am struck at how our Miss Ann expects the PressSec to pretend she's a lawyer (or a law student) prepared to offer and support a legal opinion---AS IF it's the PressSec's job.

Nichevo said...

And let me tell you, that if your honest answer is that the Obamaites were such clever and successful criminals and lawyers that they managed to figure out how to do their dirt without committing any justiciable offenses, and good for them!,

...then, well, while I don't cotton to Achilles' drumbeat of implied violence and vengeance, the truth is that despite your initial self-satisfaction, you're not going to like how that works out.

Bruce Hayden said...

Ok. I stand corrected. Flynn was apparently not in the US when his call with the Russian Ambassador was made. He was apparently in the Dominican Republic, and the Ambassador was probably back in Russia. No one seems to know. And neither of them being in the US at the time would likely take it out of FISA.

What McCarthy said sounds an awful lot like a Five Eyes (US, UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ) operation. We know that that relationship was abused by, in particular, CIA Dir Brennan in trying to take out Trump. One problem though is that helping the outgoing Administration try to take out the incoming NSA would be extremely high risk. The US is the senior member of that alliance, and the other countries could easily lose US support if they are caught unsuccessfully trying to take out the incoming US NSA.

Birkel said...

Would you like to know what the crimes are?


Have Trump say he's going to do the exact same things to the president-elect in 2024, if they are a Democratic.
We'll learn the crimes rather quickly.

Sebastian said...

"I am judging it politically"

Just like Althouse judged Hill's thousands of private-server and email-destruction crimes politically: no biggie to her.

Crimes are just fine if committed by the right person. No reason not to vote for them.

Dr Weevil said...

I thought it was perfectly obvious what Trump meant by "You know what the crime is", and I'm amazed that anyone can't see it. Obama, Hillary, and all their henchmen first tried to fix an election, then when that failed tried more than once to reverse it, primarily with the Russian hoax and the fraudulent impeachment. Those were obviously crimes, or rather masses of crimes, on a vast scale, and dozens of the perpetrators deserve to go to jail for the rest of their lives. Some arguably deserve the death penalty. They were fixing an election, for God's sake! However, only the lawyers can tell us whether the principal crime was treason, or sedition, or conspiracy to commit one or both of those, or something else. Similarly, if I shoved the old lady who lives across the hall down the stairs just for the Hell of it and permanently injured her, I'm sure I'd be going to jail for a long time. Whether it would be for assault, or battery, or both, or infliction of grievous bodily harm, or attempted homicide would be a matter for the lawyers to figure out, but there would be no doubt that it was a major crime.

hstad said...

AA it is very interesting that when you state, "... I'm saying she should have come straight at the question and listed crimes and the actions that fit or potentially fit within those crimes and thereby justified using the shorthand "Obamagate..." you are pushing an idea which you believe to be true - so sad. I watched the video and thought she did a decent job answering a B.S. question. Moreover, her answer that the MSM is falling down not doing investigations on Democrats. Sorry, AA, I know that your an attorney, which is problamic given the breaking of laws by Mueller and his Mafia of attorneys. I'm surprised you nit-pic one press conference. AA give me a break!

Churchy LaFemme: said...

Althouse is criticizing McEnany for not falling into the reporter's trap by giving him what they need to diffuse the issue.

Normally I would call that a usage error, but it works surprisingly well there! :-)

Bay Area Guy said...

I don't care what the crime is - that little vixen is hot!

12 USC something something, who gives a fuck?!!


walter said...

Well BAG, she has a bit of sumpin' over your other luv Pelosi.

wbfjrr2 said...

Althouse is a flaming liberal, and like my flaming liberal friends, is blindingly obtuse when it comes to seeing facts she doesn’t want to believe.

You’re not cruelly neutral, you’re blindingly obtuse, Althouse. You don’t think with your brain, you’re an emotional liberal. Thus you moved to WI to escape drowning in the Great Warming. Still waiting, are you?

Thus you voted for the Black Messiah (BM) empty suit though he obviously is/was.

Thus you never scrutinized the BM the way you do Trump.

You believed the Blasey Ford lies and had convicted Kavanaugh despite all empirically available facts. Presumed guilty. Not a good look for a self proclaimed constitutional expert.

Voted for Hilary, the most odious grifter ever to run for President, and but for Comey, Lynch, and Obama would be in prison now.

Unable to see the total corruption of the Russia Russia hit job, never challenging the narrative like you challenge Obamagate, an actual real thing.

Like my liberal friends, you likely still think Trump colluded with Russia, or are saddened that he isn’t a Putin stooge.

Maybe you would charge $1,000/hour to grade papers now, but we both know that’s not what you were paid to grade papers when you were working.

I read for the commenters, not you, Althouse.

Michael K said...

Isn't it funny how the Obama administration actively spied on Trump's campaign and they still managed to lose!

Who knew that someone running for president was honest ?

Do not attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.

ken in tx said...

I am surprised to see the word 'Treason' used so freely on this blog. By the constitution, treason can not be charged unless an official 'Enemy' exists, and the treason involves siding with the enemy. That usually requires a declaration of War. What is most likely going on here is Sedition, attempting to undermine the legally established government. Of course, Sedition does not sound as dramatic as Treason.

Big Mike said...

@ken in tx, I fully agree. Do you know whether Wilson's sedition laws are still on the books?

The Gipper Lives said...

#ObamaGate Explained

The previous Democrat President, his CIA Director, his FBI Director, his Attorney General, the Democrat Candidate and all their agencies and minions entered into a seditious conspiracy to thwart George Washington's Peaceful Transfer of Executive Power and rig the People's presidential election by wiretapping and framing Candidate and then President Donald Trump and his team.

This Attempted Coup is the Greatest Political Scandal in American History.

Any election interference by Russian Intelligence pales into nothingness compared to the massive and unprecedented criminal election interference by the entire American National Security Apparatus.

Congratulations--you are now an expert on #ObamaGate. Tell all your friends!

walter said...

The reporter kept hammering on being jailed.
He doesn't give a shit about the crimes.
Yeah...she consulted notes, Alhouse. At some point, the volume of shit becomes hard to keep track of.

Readering said...

The press secretary was prepared and
clearly reading off talking points. And yet it was still all BS on the subject of crimes by the former president. Too much to hope the scales are falling from AA's eyes?

DeepRunner said...

Meh. I saw the clip. First, Ed Driscoll's "post" was a link to a post with the same name at Not the most...independent...of views.

But McEnany did what Press Secretaries do...not answer the question. Has it been so long since the days of St. Mike McCurry's "I'm not going to parse the President's words"?

DeepRunner said...

Laslo Spatula said...
Althouse is cranky because she has to find reasons for why she will later admit her vote for Biden.

I find Ann Althouse to be provocative and insightful, and this blog is a must-read for me every day. That said, Althouse often comes across as a single-issue voter, or so it seems to me. The Roe Wars of the Early 70's, lo these almost 50 years later, are, you know, the thing, to quote the eloquent and intellectually-receding Joe Biden, and to vote for a Republican for President would be selling-out the movement.

FWIW, although I am an (R), I voted for Ross in '92. I found Bill Clinton to be a fascinatingly-excellent politician, with incredibly lucky timing to be President, Monica's Presidential knee pad era notwithstanding. I thought, for the most part, that Barack Obama at least looked Presidential in his first campaign, most of the time, and wanted his success after he was elected.

Marcus Bressler said...

The new press sec did her job.
The Hostess failed at hers, as a multitude of commenters pointed out. That's why I love theis blog: for the comments. I read opposing POVs and see the strengths of arguments. Most of this thread easily points out AA's failures in the original post and follow-up comments.


"Retired Law Professor REKTED by online blog commenters. You won't believe what she tried to say."

pamala palz said...

Am so happy to share this testimony with everyone about how i got my herpes cured from Dr. Obela the godfather of herbal medicine. I had been going from one country to another for medication for 3 years just to be cured from herpes but all seems in vain, i was confused and decided to search through the Internet if i could get any news concerning herpes so i do keep searching until i visited one particular site and i saw the great testimonies from different persons testifying how Dr. Obela has cure them from herpes and other diseases and i was shock and was thinking if this is real, after a due consideration i decided to contact him with the email address I found in the posted just to give it a trial and when i contacted him he proved to me that his herbal medicine can cure me if only i believe in him, so i requested for his herbal medicine and i got it and i applied it as prescribed and after 1weeks and 3 days of application i went for a test and to my greatest shock the herpes virus has disappeared and it was just like a dream. Today I am cured from herpes am so happy and thanking God for using Dr. Obela to cure me. so if you are out there and you are suffering for herpes cure or any kind of illness kindly contact Dr. Obela through he will help you to cure that illness. you can get in touch with him via: or call/whatsapp him on this number +2347084171950.. Thanks very much DR. Obela
he can also cure all type of disease like:
HIV/AID .... cancer disease......e.t.c

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 261 of 261   Newer› Newest»