In the comments, Meade wrote: "Will Leahy be costumed in his horned animal skin shaman outfit?"
I said, "Can someone do a photoshop of this? I'd like to put it on the front page."
Asked. Received:
I'll credit the Photoshopper by name if he emails to say he wants to be named.
ADDED: We really ought to learn Photoshop here at Meadhouse. I can't do it at all, and Meade's effort was at a level that I call "South Park" (and find rather charming, especially coming from Meade):
I like that this image shows the Shaman/Leahy on the Senate dais, because that is where the Chief Justice belongs, if this is an impeachment trial that requires the Chief Justice.
ADDED: Laslo Spatula sends this:
And I do see that Senator Leahy was taken to the hospital after today's session. I wish him well. These jokes are just a way of saying if the Chief Justice should be presiding over this trial, then Leahy, like the QAnon Shaman, does not belong in that seat.
Posts
102 comments:
More photoshops are welcome. I'd especially like to see one with the shaman Leahy up on the Senate dais. The QAnon Shaman had no right to be there, and if Leahy takes over a role that belongs to the CJ, Leahy also does not belong there (even though sometimes, Leahy does belong there).
Doesn’t this make it easier to vote to acquit — a partisan judge, out of the usual constitutional order, overseeing the trial? Also, because the single article of impeachment seems to contain a single charge of incitement on a single day it is predictable that the House Managers will try to rely on additional events as part of the trial. Will Leahy display his bias by allowing it?
Including Depends in Leaky Leahy's photoshop pic would have been a nice touch.
The structures and strictures of the Constitution mean nothing to our Leftist friends. Absolutely nothing.
It is now rule by an absolutist duma.
If a crowd gathers outside during the trial, what will they do? They’d be inciting a crowd to gather. No telling where that might end. Do they keep on with it? If breaches occur, or even a few tussles, aren’t they then guilty of incitement?
I believe this is a farce of an impeachment. However, has the trial actually begun?
To me it is clear the Chief Justice has to preside over the trial.
But for preliminary matters? I just don’t know.
Great work!
I have seen Patrick Leahy's picture in the encyclopedia under the heading of "impartial, sober, and intelligent jurist," with explanations of how he has never engaged in partisan politics or tried to favor one political party over the other.
Yes, that Patrick Leahy.
There is no second impeachment. The "article" delivered to the Senate January 25th, is 5 days after the Term of President Trump ended.
The constitution list the officers, Congress has jurisdiction to impeach. Plus the President and Vice President.
What Democrats delivered is a bill of attainder.
Still waiting for the affirmative argument supporting Congress taking this Trump affair to an official proceeding.
After three years, Oliver Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey on 30 January 1661, the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I, and was subjected to a posthumous execution. His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn, London, and then thrown into a pit. His head was cut off and displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685.
In 1776, one of the first ships commissioned to serve in the American Continental Navy during the American Revolutionary War was named Oliver Cromwell. (Excerpted from Wiki)
I am beginning to think that this farce is primarily meant as a distraction from the bills that the House and Senate will pass in the next few weeks.
The Republicans have apparently not taken the bait. They will let the Democrats conduct a Soviet-style show trial that may surpass the Kavanaugh Inquisition for fake drama. In that sense, Leahy is there absolutely perfect presiding judge.
If Chief Justice Robert’s is required to preside under the Constitution and has declined, is he still the Chief Justice? The Constitution says that judges hold their offices during good behavior. Surely declining a Constitutional duty is bad behavior.
Surely declining a Constitutional duty is bad behavior.
Is he to be impeached as well?
If the office of Chief Justice is now vacant, President Biden can appoint a replacement!
Matt Vadum has a great piece on the thousand years of legal history relating to this subject over at FrontPageMag today. Quite a stunner, as they say about the really excellent puddings on that British baking show.
“If the office of Chief Justice is now vacant, President Biden can appoint a replacement!”
Right! And since Biden’s head is now vacant, Kamala Harris can appoint Oliver Cromwell’s remains to fill it!
Francisco D said...
I am beginning to think that this farce is primarily meant as a distraction from the bills that the House and Senate will pass in the next few weeks.
Everything the Democrats do publicly over the next 2 years will be a farce designed to distract from other things they're doing.
The Photoshops? There's a collection worth having.
And if Oliver Cromwell’s remains can’t be found, Malala can appoint a bowl of pudding from the British baking show.
(Mamala)
If we can't wear MAGA hats can we wear shaman suits on visits as tourists to the Capitol while the show trial is running?
Free Brandon Straka!
Who shot Ashli Babbitt?
Left Bank of the Charles said...If Chief Justice Robert’s is required to preside under the Constitution and has declined, is he still the Chief Justice?
Excellent example of begging the question! We see so few of those.
How about this: if the Chief Justice says he is not required under the constitution, who gets to say he's wrong?
Impeachable Offences? Joe brought a boatload of 'em with him to work.
Francisco nailed it. This entire Clown Show of an impeachment of a former President, a man they tried to remove from office for four years using every corrupt department head, Director, and bureaucrat in the Government to push it along, is a cover.
Its purpose is to direct all attention to the Big Top, while on the side, HR-1 sits poised to change the entire country for years...or forever. It is a grand show of corruption that we've not seen in our lifetime.
I truly cannot believe there are people who vote for Democrats. They have voted for their own enslavement.
Since congress can only impeach a sitting president, let them go ahead with their sham impeachment . When they’re done, tell them, “You know what? You just impeached Biden!”
I’m completely sure there’s some British baking recipe using Oliver Cromwell’s brains.
I've been informed that photo shopping is disinformation, subject to fact-checking, can and will be removed from twitter/facebook.
“You know what? You just impeached Biden!”
Sorry, you can’t impeach Biden. He wasn’t really ever elected.
“Excellent example of begging the question! We see so few of those.”
We see one in the title of this blog post.
You have to admit Kathy Griffin, holding Trump's severed head, was way aHEAD of Pealosi's crew. Griffin must have taken her high school history class seriously.
They’re trying to remove him via photoshop, as if that will have any impact on his MAGA accomplishments or how his followers view him.
In that sense, Leahy is there absolutely perfect presiding judge.
Bernie gets all the VT attention and I must admit I thought Leahy was dead, or at least long gone. Nope. Screwing things up since 1975. All those fucking Congressional fossils look like Breshnev's politburo.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
“Excellent example of begging the question! We see so few of those.”
We see one in the title of this blog post.
I took your comment to be a statement rather than a question. How about addressing my second question, which was the real crux of the whole thing:
If the Chief Justice says he is not required under the constitution, who gets to say he's wrong?
We can trust him
https://www.heritage.org/commentary/leaky-leahy-seeks-sensitive-info-again
I listened to the exchange between Censor George Stephanopoulos and Senator Rand Paul. George the Censor when he was George the Political Tool Reporter used to have a happy smirk. But the new George has a sneer. Sneering away, Censor George told the Senator that he and the other Censors were right in their claims about the 2020 elections because there aren't two sides to facts. And sneer. But how can Censor George say that he made up his mind based on the facts when it is his policy to only know half the facts. How can he know what he would think if he knew all the facts? It's stated policy at the NYT, WaPo, ABC etc. to only present a partial set of facts. It's policy to be one-sided. It's a fact that Censor George doesn't know all the facts through his own choice to refuse to know the other side's facts. And being one-sided in his fact collecting has led him astray in the past. When Censor George says he knows the facts on the 2020 election he doesn't mention the facts he used to know about the 2016 election. It's fact that he promoted the "Russian Collusion" as a fact on his news broadcasts in a one-sided way and kept it up for years. The facts Censor George "knew" in 2017 were proved in 2018 to be rumors or outright lies, a rather large fact Censor George doesn't mention. Censor George is currently stating that BLM is "mostly peaceful" without mentioning additional facts such as that 700 police officers have been injured, 46 people killed, 2 billion dollars sustained in damage. What with the facts he doesn't know and the facts he knows that aren't so, Censor George is limited in his ability to discern truth while he makes unlimited claims to know it to the point of censoring what the rest of us can say, especially when we try to tell facts he doesn't know to Mr. One-Sided.
So, Let's review
The House Voted to impeach, without hearing Any Arguments or Debate?
The Senate is going to have a trial, of a citizen, and since the citizen is NOT the President...
The trial won't have a judge presiding over the "Trial" ?
Instead, the citizen will be "tried" by a political party?
a political party, that is calling ALL (and ANY) dissent... Insurrection??
people are losing their jobs because they supported a Presidential Candidate?
Meanwhile, we're ARRESTING people because THEY ARE DANCING???
welcome to Our Brave New World!
I heard Alan Dershowitz yesterday saying Roberts could not preside. He said the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside in a trial of the President, but Trump is not the President, he's a private citizen. He said further that Harris, as a potential candidate against Trump in 2024, is conflicted and could not preside.
Apparently Brandon Straka was arrested by the FBI for his role in the violent, deadly insurrection.
Nothing says national unity like cutting the Chief Justice out of an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president.
Democrats, I know you despise Trump, I know you're angry, I know you're worked up into a Two Minute Hate by your media wing, but stop for a moment to consider what precedents you are about to set. It may seem today that Republicans will never again control all the levers of power. But things change.
They need someone with a reputation for cruel neutrality.
That photoshop image has all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign. As does everything else the Dems don't like.
Somebody photoshop Althouse into the shaman outfit.
The same party that was in favor of massive public unrest.
I like how the chest tattoo incorporates the nipple.
"I’m completely sure there’s some British baking recipe using Oliver Cromwell’s brains."
If one does not want want to spend cash on a taxidermist to mount a deer head, you can bury in the ground in the fall, unearth it in the spring and voila! it's been picked clean, brains and all. Amusing that it's known as a European mount.
We are ruled by an ossified gerontocracy.
Sorry, you can’t impeach Biden. He wasn’t really ever elected.
Yeah, but it was Chief Justice Roberts that swore him as President, not Senator Leahy.
Under these very unusual circumstances, I think Roberts owes the American people an explanation for declining to preside.
"tim maguire said...
Left Bank of the Charles said...
“Excellent example of begging the question! We see so few of those.”
We see one in the title of this blog post.
I took your comment to be a statement rather than a question. How about addressing my second question, which was the real crux of the whole thing:
If the Chief Justice says he is not required under the constitution, who gets to say he's wrong?"
This one's easy. Left Bank of the Charles.
Under these very unusual circumstances, I think Roberts owes the American people an explanation for declining to preside.
"The Chief Justice Shall preside over the trial of the President."
Its a simple answer. No one is claiming the Senate Trial involves Joe Biden. No Biden, no CJ.
I agree, @Bob Boyd at 7:57
Roberts needs to explain his decision.
If Roberts presides over the sham impeachment and it's legality is challenged in court and eventually makes it to the supreme court would Roberts have to step down from making a decision?
Muthafucka still cashin' them paychecks, but not goin' do his job?
What up with that, Mista Chief Justis? Jus' what the hale you doin' up in there? Inquirin' minds wanna know.
Apparently Brandon Straka had a FBI agent accompanying him wherever he went and writing down everything he said and did. We should find out how many FBI agents stormed the Capitol.
We are officially a banana republic.
Bob Boyd said...
Under these very unusual circumstances, I think Roberts owes the American people an explanation for declining to preside.
Since an unconstitutional conviction in the Senate would likely go to the Supreme Court, can the Chief Justice opine on the merits before the case arrives there?
CJ Roberts' absence is the missive.
Roberts needs to explain a lot of things.
You want mad photoshopping skillz? Recruit a 14-year-old girl as the graphic artist for your blog. Just DO NOT allow her to download all her photos to YOUR computer.
Trump is alleged to have incited an insurrection. Did Trump incite an insurrection against the government of which he was the leader and chief executive?
I've read that the Trump comments that incited the riot occurred after the riot started. Do the normal temporal rules for cause and effect apply?
Honestly, with Trump out of office, the political realm is no longer the right place to try him for crimes. Charge him and take it to trial. Real trial. Once the Supreme Court killed the Emoluments cases because Trump was no longer president, the writing was on the wall for the constitutionality of continuing the impeachment.
Still, neat photoshops.
I'll give Meade an up vote for his efforts. It makes Leahy look like an even bigger fool than your first image.
This has been a fun discussion, but I see that Donald Trump effectively conceded the jurisdiction of the Senate in a press release yesterday:
"Today, the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, formally opened the Office of the Former President. The Office will be responsible for managing President Trump's correspondence, public statements, appearances, and official activities to advance the interests of the United States and to carry on the agenda of the Trump Administration through advocacy, organizing, and public activism."
By acknowledging that he now holds the office of Former President, I think that settles the Chief Justice Roberts question too. But it will be fun to see if Trump's lawyers or Senatorial shills make arguments that are inconsistent with that in the Senate trial.
"This has been a fun discussion, but I see that Donald Trump effectively conceded the jurisdiction of the Senate in a press release yesterday:"
-- Weird way to read Trump admitting to be "former President" as him being the current President. So: How does Trump essentially having a dumb name for his presidential library admit he should be treated like the sitting president?
I've read that the Trump comments that incited the riot occurred after the riot started. Do the normal temporal rules for cause and effect apply?
Those same temporal rules applied to ballots received before they were sent.
Because former president is exactly the same as current president. But keep grasping that straw.
The Office of the Former President is a troll to Joe Malvolio's Office of the President-elect. Normally, former presidents retire quietly and let their successor carry out his duties. All that ended when the Dimocrats impeached DJT. The Dimocrats are going to get it, good and hard. Just like New Mexico has found out that its support of Malvolio has been spit upon.
They're the left, they can't change once they've decided. In the case of an old democracy with an established tradition of ridicule, that's a weakness. They aren't impressive and threatening, they're pompous, stupid and mean. And very old. The left is wheeling out these old guys as front guys to make it seem that we've still got our democracy because they're still around. They're a shell of what they were and in that sense they very well represent what is going on in our former nation's capital.
Adding on Wilbur's earlier comment -- when will we all realize that the Rule of Law means nothing to these people. They are the ones destroying our country in their quest for power and control.
I've read that the Trump comments that incited the riot occurred after the riot started. Do the normal temporal rules for cause and effect apply?
Ante hoc ergo propter hoc.
LOL at Meade's photoshop. I just love that.
Nancy should just get up and tear that damn Constitution in half like she did The State of the Union address. Why not??...they don't even know what's in it.
Who says they havent
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/americans-covid-stimulus-checks-biden-central-america-aid.amp
Is this Althouse’s first bespoke meme?
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
Somebody photoshop Althouse into the shaman outfit.
SECONDED!
“ We are officially a banana republic.”
SECONDED
Let me repeat my query from last night:
Ann, can Trump take a writ to SCOTUS? Would you advise this if you were counseling him? If Robert’s was the swing vote, it is clear how he would vote. It is unlikely there are 17 Republicans to convict so should Trump wait it out?
Discuss.
"Will Leahy be costumed in his horned animal skin shaman outfit?"
Who's a bigger threat to the Republic, Leahy or the Viking?
Unknown commented: "“ We are officially a banana republic.”"
Ken B. responded: SECONDED
@Ken B. I thought you were Canadian.
Q to ask all'yoreselves people ? has time arrived to give up all pretense at constitutional government and 'rule of law'
What is so hard about recognizing that impeachment is something you do to executive officials currently in office, but there is no limitation on when the Senate is meant to try the case? The fact that removal is not the -only- consequence (and the reality that a trial takes time) indicates that the trial need not conclude before the official is out of office.
But the Constitution is clear on the role of the Chief Justice: they only preside when the President is being tried. The President (Biden) is not being tried.
I love how the Gray Lady puts this:
“ Officials confirmed that Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, would preside over the trial in his role as president pro tempore of the Senate. Normally, the chief justice of the United States presides over such trials, but the fact that Mr. Trump is no longer in office creates some wiggle room.”
You would think the Senate rejected Roberts and not vice versa
The question is: How far gone down the road to Stalinism are the Democrats that they would even entertain this idea?
The optics of Leahy "presiding" are horrible even with favorable media coverage. He might as well be wearing the above outfit.
One of their major goals is to criminalize speech that they deem to be dangerous.
Be afraid of these fascist clowns. Be very afraid.
Engelbert
Example
Hump:”I am a douche”
Ken B:”Agreed!”
Most people can figure it out.
"By acknowledging that he now holds the office of Former President"
Cool. So he gets Fed paid staffers? Awesome.
Francisco D makes an interesting point. This looks so bad prima facie that you wonder why the Democrats would do it. And maybe the answer is gaslighting. “Yes this is a breach of normal standards but this situation is so dire, the threat so immediate, the danger so great, that desperate measures are needed.”
How To Write The Perfect Althouse Blog Comment
by MayBee @ 9:13 AM
And maybe the answer is gaslighting. “Yes this is a breach of normal standards but this situation is so dire, the threat so immediate, the danger so great, that desperate measures are needed.”
So say the people engaging in trespassing on Jan 6:
"The stealing of the election and massive vote fraud for Biden creates a situationso dire, a threat so immediate, a danger so great, that desperate measures are needed.”
So you run with that Ken
I think the gentlemen and gentlewomen would get more satisfaction if they took turns at a Trump pinata.
Jack said...
What is so hard about recognizing that impeachment is something you do to executive officials currently in office, but there is no limitation on when the Senate is meant to try the case?
Because there IS a limit:
The Constitution says the impeach official SHALL be removed from office.
"Shall" is mandatory language.
If you must do X as part of impeachment, and you can't do X for a person, then you can't impeach that person.
The fact that removal is not the -only- consequence (and the reality that a trial takes time) indicates that the trial need not conclude before the official is out of office.
Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States
In logic, if the 1st part of the "and" is false, the whole thing is false. In ordinary usage, if the first part is false, you don't consider the second part.
You can't remove him from office. So you can't do the punishment. Therefore you can't try the person.
The English used and, to the minds of the founders, severely abused the power of impeachment. Which is why the Constitution imposes such limits on it.
No, you can not ignore the limits.
Even if you could, elective offices are not "Office[s] of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States". So even if you impeached him legitimately, you couldn't stop him from running for President again
@Ken B. Projection is thy trademark. You never miss an opportunity to define yourself. Thx for sharing.
First it was fake news, then it was a fake election, then a fake impeachment, now the Democrats want a fake trial. When is enough enough?
Now that references to the fraudulent election are routinely censored by Big Tech, how soon can we expect to be censored if we call this impeachment illegitimate?
Nice pecs. I think the real Leahy's are dragging on the floor by now.
Would you rather have the Shaman or this giggling idiot chairing the Senate.
Humperdinck and Greg are so stupid they cannot even tell I am criticizing the Democrats!
Never change guys, you are too funny.
Wait a minute. Let's see how he does after some peyote. Any shaman worth his shit gets ripped on peyote before summoning up the spirits.
What impeachment trial doesn't require the Chief Justice to preside. An illegitimate one.
Our first female 'Speaker of the House' has done more damage to this former Republic, than any foreign enemy could have done.
I recall Leahy and Ted Kennedy, immediately after Biden gavelled the close of the Thomas hearings, not realizing their microphones were still live, laughing together about what they'd just done to Thomas, and wondering if anyone had even watched the hearings. Leahy has been a vile bastard his entire career. After he dies pissing on his grave would be too great an honor to his memory.
Blogger Lucien said...
"...Will Leahy display his bias by allowing it?..." 1/26/21, 5:27 AM
Will the Earth continue to rotate on its Axis? Of course it will. So will Leahy exercise his "bias". Now current news says "Leahy" has been taken to the hospital on his first day presiding on the shame impeachment process. Wonder if they'll have to appoint another Democrat if Leahy doesn't make it out.
Post a Comment