January 31, 2021

"Let’s get one thing straight: there’s nothing 'respectable' about representing Donald Trump in his impeachment trial. Trump doesn’t have any legal right..."

"... to be represented by a lawyer in this context: it’s not a criminal trial, and if no real lawyer is willing to represent him, well that’s just too bad.  The notion that someone like Trump has a 'right' to have lawyers help him out in this context is a particularly perverse abuse of the concept of the right to counsel. If you represent Trump in this context it’s either because you think what Trump did on January 6th was affirmatively good, or you like money — or more realistically the promise of money — enough to overcome your distaste for murderous sedition."

Writes lawprof Paul Campos, (at Lawyer, Guns & Money). He finds it "funny" that Trump's "entire legal team quits. He's laughing at Trump's loss of legal representation and condemning any lawyer who would step up to provide representation. He says it's perverse and abusive even to think that there is a right to counsel at this thing called a trial that is to take place in the Senate. Everyone already knows in advance that Trump is guilty of "murderous sedition." 

It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense.

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
320Busdriver said...

And this surprises you?

Jamie said...

Bored yet? Because every day in my world is growing more and more terrifyingly interesting.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The Soviet left is the modern democrat party.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The modern democrat party IS the Soviet left.

Crimso said...

Trump broke a lot of people's brains.

rhhardin said...

They're doing feelings, the opposite of structure.

Feelings break structure, structure channels feelings. It's one or the other.

In a home one is better, in a country the other is better.

Social media put everything in the home, and there we are. Women are running things.

rhhardin said...

The argument for good representation is that you want to convict a perp only against the best possible defense, otherwise it's not a conviction at all.

Conviction requires the best possible defense.

That doesn't apply in the home.

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Begley said...

Who the fuck is Paul Campos? He calls himself a lawyer? Fuck him!

Lucid-Ideas said...

@rhhardin

Ftw. What is and what has been happening is 10x better described using and understanding the language of emotion.

The love wins movement is consumed with hate.

Amadeus 48 said...

Very creepy indeed.

But, forget it, Althouse, it’s Campos.

rhhardin said...

Trump was elected and immediately there were marches for tampon justice.

Structuralists see humor, feelingists see injustice.

David Begley said...

Better idea: You, me, Meade, Big Mike, Bay Area Guy and Mid-Life Lawyer represent Trump. You write the brief.

Mingus Jerry said...

John Adams represented British soldiers accused during the Boston Massacre trials? I guess we need to cancel him now too (if he wasn't already cancelled for some reason).

Gahrie said...

So Campos thinks he's Cardinal Wolsey?

Michael K said...

Campos has a history of radicalism.

Yeah. "The Obesity Myth"
Campos is perhaps best known for his 2004 book The Obesity Myth (later published as The Diet Myth) which reviews medical research on the association between higher body mass and health.[3] Campos's contentions that obesity is healthy were praised by some sociologists and critical theorists, and overwhelmingly criticized by medical, epidemiological and statistical researchers with professional training in empirical research."


Crazy in other areas, too.

mezzrow said...

I note that Althouse indicates that her creep detector is activated, but does not indicate surprise that this reaction has taken place. I agree on both counts, if that's what she's trying to say.

When leftists start to talk about the demise of Trump, they positively vibrate with pleasure.

I'm skeptical that this will end well. It's good that those who don't share this thrill for Trumperdammerung aren't watching the people who are vibrating their eager anticipation through all the approved media outlets. It would ramp up things that don't need ramping up.

Watch the market. This Gamestop thing has some implications that are titanic in impact.

Lots of canaries, lots of coal mines.

gilbar said...

it's surprising that he (they) isn't (aren't) calling for President Trump summarial execution..
Yet

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Michael K said...

Campos has a history of radicalism.
.
.
.
Crazy in other areas, too.


Yeah, that's a bit of a stretch for someone who got his BA and MA in English* before he went to law school.

*NTTAWWT, it's just weird that he thinks he's qualified to criticize scientific research.

Jamie said...

I apologise for my snarky "Bored yet?" above. Even if our host and those who, like her, were tired of the constant refrains of "Listen to what the racist said today!" and "Can you believe what the Nazi is trying to do now?," these slurs always asserted without any evidence beyond the media's beloved dog whistles, had voted for Trump, they couldn't have outvoted the machine. And when I say "machine," I'm referring to the concerted efforts by the media, major donors who saw Trump as a threat to their previously unchallenged dominance of American society's consumer choices, and Democrat leadership (including Democrat bosses, electoral officials, and judges, not just Congress members), both well before the election, on election night, and ever since, to delegitimize and deplatform Trump and anyone who might speak for him or resist their calls for conformity ("unity"! Right?).

And again I say: if they (and you know who you are, "they") were more confident in the rightness and ultimate success of their ideas, they wouldn't have to silence all opposing or even questioning voices. Hey, sure, it's faster this way - but does the terrible cost mean nothing to you, "they"?

Andrew said...

Another profession's hypocrisy and corruption, exposed by Trump. How does he do it?

I'll be honest. I've soured on Trump since November. I think he cost Republicans the Senate. His legal team was a joke. His pardons were sins of omission and commission. And he bears responsibility for the attack on the Capitol. Even if his January 6 speech and rally were entirely Gandhi-esque, he should have stopped it immediately once he saw what was happening. He put his own VP's life in danger. People supporting him killed a police officer, and injured many more. Inexcusable, and disqualifying.

But as always, his enemies overplay their hand, and cause me to take the SOB's side yet again. I hope Trump does defend himself, and turn this sham impeachment into a circus. I didn't like the way he behaved at the first debate, but I wouldn't mind him using the same strategy in front of Congress. Keep interrupting these fools. Keep exposing their superficiality. Speak truth (or whatever) to power. It's like walking across the border to North Korea - show what real courage and fearlessness looks like. Speak to the lions in their den, "You have no authority over me. Now, I'd like to add some unclassified documents into the record." If he even just shows up, I think he wins.

wild chicken said...

So where is Dersh in a this? Someone should be able to make the case against incitement.

Or is Trump just a fucking awful client?

P.S. Aren't they all?

Another old lawyer said...

Like we need another reason not to trust our institutions.

David Begley said...

I’m adding Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro to our team.

Gahrie said...

it's surprising that he (they) isn't (aren't) calling for President Trump summarial execution..
Yet


The MSM are still bidding on the rights to the livestream.

Charlie Currie said...

Everyone's afraid of the left. They don't want to be doxxed, have their and their family's life threatened, their business ruined - socially and physically, there whole lives canceled, memory holed. We've seen what happens when ANTIFA/BLM are let off the leash. This is life under democratic rule. Don't get comfortable, it's going to get worse.

John Borell said...

But I was reliably informed it was the GOP that wants to destroy all norms and all institutions.

Yet somehow, the destruction keeps coming from the left.

Hint: the left respects no institutions. Not a single one. They will burn it all down for the sake of some mythical utopia. They will never, not once, pause to reflect on what was given to them, why it should be preserved and protected, or what will happen if they get what they want.

Assholes.

Owen said...

The open enthusiasm of creatures like Campos to see Trump destroyed is, yes, creepy. But less and less so as we normalize the blind hatred, the glee, of destroying with Trump the entire system of justice that we take for granted. Campos is no different than the BLM/Antifa rioters tossing Molotov cocktails into police stations. He, like they, are fully committed ideologically and emotionally. As rhhardin says, the emotion has consumed the structure: that’s what ideologies do when they turn pathological.

And boy, has this one turned pathological. Big trouble here, bigger trouble coming.

Sam L. said...

Mr. Campos is an OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE of why we hate some lawyers.

donald said...

It never fails. Lawyer/leftist advocates for government thuggery and evil. I go straight to a photo of said shitheel. That chin! That effeminate aura!

Renee said...

The CNN article cited is just gossip. The reporter only has " sources close to the situation". If no letter if intent to represent was signed or retainer,maybe Trump was just interviewing lawyers and discussing ideas and topics.

Anyways what about confidentiality?!?!

Michael P said...

Strangely, Paul Campos does not identify any right for an accused person to have any defense in an impeachment trial. Maybe he should be clear that's because he is specially pleading Donald Trump's case, and would feel very differently about the murderous criminal conspiracies of the Clinton Crime Syndicate. (See how easy it is to dub something murderous once there is some homicide that is even remotely attached?)

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The Constitution states that the Chief Justice must preside.
Where is the Chief Justice? Without him, there can be no legitimate trial.
It's illegitimate anyway because Trump is a private citizen.

Why should Trump play their game?

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Charlie Currie said...

Everyone's afraid of the left.

This is why they view it as imperative that Trump be destroyed. Trump fights back and he has the ability to inspire that in his supporters. I think the Left is very unsure of themselves at this moment and they're afraid of what Trump might do if he's still a political force.

Matt Sablan said...

Well, I guess everyone is just accepting this is a farce. Hillary Clinton laughed about getting, was it a rapist?, off, and we were told then "everyone deserves legal counsel."

Just put Trump against the wall and get this over with.

dwshelf said...

These people are consumed by hatred.

donald said...

Mr Campos is an OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE of why we should KILL all lawyers.

Fixed it for you.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

So says a barbarian, destroying civilization one person at a time. The best thing that could happen to the numbnut is a tar and feathers party, with him as the guest of honor.

Fernandinande said...

Lawyer, Guns & Money

Zevon's estate should sue them for (ab)using his famous phrase on their creepy website.

Tommy Duncan said...

Trump's defense arguments are unlikely to move a single Senate vote one way or the other.

This impeachment is about setting the stage for Democrat fascism by portraying their opponents as seditious and dangerous. This is stagecraft intended to mask the Democrat power grab. Trump doesn't need lawyers to expose the authoritarian Democrat's, he needs a good speech writer.

Jamie said...

And furthermore. I would like to hear from the lawyers on this thread about whether the right to counsel is, in your opinion, intended to be construed in the way that Campos is construing it: as a legal technicality that only applies to very specifically defined criminal proceedings. Or, is it intended to be construed as emanating from a foundational principle of this nation, an acknowledgement that the power of the state will overwhelm any individual who finds himself at odds with the state for any reason, unless the state is hemmed in somehow?

Ann Althouse said...

The assumption that I write about something because I'm *surprised* by it is incorrect. I don't appreciate questions that assume a fact not in evidence. Be more respectful. You may not intend to sound like a jerk when you question me like that, but that's how it sounds to me. Now you know.

Jamie said...

This impeachment is about setting the stage for Democrat fascism by portraying their opponentS!!! as seditious and dangerous.

Emphasis added. Anyone who thinks this isn't about American voters who stepped out of line isn't paying attention.

Francisco D said...

It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense.

The New Soviet Man will not need lawyers for defense. He will know in his heart if he has damaged the State. He will submit to just punishment because he knows that the State loves him and has his best interests in heart.

I cannot understand why this bothers you Althouse.

Laslo Spatula said...

If Trump were to represent himself, expect Leahy's gavel to sound every time Trump speaks more than a sentence.

In the fifteen minutes they will allot him.

I am Laslo.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Wild chicken

Where's Dersh?

Here he is. 30 minutes.

Dersh also mentions that PBS Frontline dishonestly chopped up Trump's actual quotes to create a false narrative. Shameful.

Frontline should be sued by Trump.

Splanky said...

The aliens the politicians welcome to this country may not be the ones from central america but may be the ones they've alienated.

Shouting Thomas said...

You gotta enjoy the fact that the Democrats have instantly flipped to condemn the tactics they used for the last four years:

1. Refusing to accept the 2016 election because Russia collusion.
2. Organizing and inciting riots, arson, looting and attacks on cops in our major cities.

We’re watching a massive retconning campaign. The Democrats are erasing their “insurrection” (which they once openly praised) and their “murderous sedition.”

The Democrats are going to stage a show trial to convict Trump of what they, not so long ago, openly advocated.

David Begley said...

Impeachment is a civil and political proceeding. There is no constitutional right to a lawyer. That being said, Trump is rich and he can certainly afford lawyers. He and SOME of his lawyers disagree on how the defense should proceed.

Trump has certainly exposed how insane, lawless and hateful the Left is.

Campos should be ridiculed endlessly. I can’t believe how crazy and leftwing some law profs are today; staring with my alma mater.

Matt Sablan said...

The "right to counsel," like the First Amendment, is effectively two things. The super technical reading of being allowed/required to be competently represented in court -- much like the people who pretend the First Amendment is a narrow reading of the government is only unable to restrict neutral or speech that is not "bad" in some way, but can restrict "hate speech" or "incitement" and that there is nothing wrong with the heckler's veto, mob violence to silence to people, or the use of public shaming to silence opinions.

Then, there's *what that ideal means to society,* which is that every individual has a right to defend themselves against accusations. Remember when people were saying Kavanaugh couldn't do X or Y or say Z during his hearings because it "wasn't a court case," while they could accuse him of rape gangs? It's because a lot of political people, notably on the left, think they are very smart by saying, "actually, since impeachment isn't a criminal trial, we don't have to grant certain rights," or "these hearings in Congress are just a job interview, so why would Kavanaugh be allowed to present evidence in his defense or demand PROOF of accusations?"

They're, essentially, using technicalities of the law and our American system of rights, to undermine the actual intent of those rights.

In any hearing or board, or whatever, where an accused person isn't allowed to properly defend themselves from accusations, the only proper action of the accused person is to say, "Screw you," and walk away, rejecting the authority of that body.

Ann Althouse said...

"Who the fuck is Paul Campos?"

Click on the "Paul Campos" tag to see what's been written about him here over the years.

I know him personally from 30 years ago, when we were on the same faculty for a semester. I was a visiting professor at Boston University. We were both much younger then! I remember talking with him about the NYT column, "Madonna -- Finally, a Real Feminist" — Dec. 14, 1990 — written by Camille Paglia, who was a complete unknown at the time.

wild chicken said...

"It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense."

People in Facebook comments would string him up like Mussolini if they could. And Melania too.

David Begley said...

Charlie Currie is correct. The Left has intimidating everyone with their violence, boycotts and cancelling.

I’m convinced that SCOTUS didn’t grant cert in any of the election case because they were afraid of BLM and Antifa. Think about that.

NoMook said...

Why is the trial scene in Animal House in my head right now?

Jamie said...

People in Facebook comments would string him up like Mussolini if they could. And Melania too.

I believe they would prefer to make Melania walk a gauntlet naked through the streets of DC first, a la Cersei Lannister. What else would feed their lust for brutal dominance?

Matt Sablan said...

"I’m convinced that SCOTUS didn’t grant cert in any of the election case because they were afraid of BLM and Antifa."

-- I don't know if it was that so much as: "Ok, you're right. Out of all the ballots that were cast, X are bad. Now, since no one kept track of which ballots were X, what do you want us to DO about it?"

The problem with the voter fraud cases, as they always are, is that first you have to prove it, then you have to prove that what you want done about it is a good idea. And, it is pretty impossible to do the second if you don't have a way to uniquely identify every ballot from cradle to grave, especially if the opposite side is working as hard as possible to get all the ballots into the giant "approved and counted" pile.

David Begley said...

I know Ann Althouse. Paul Campos is no Ann Althouse.

robother said...

Campos statement is pretty close to inciting threats (or actual) violence against any lawyer who would represent Trump. Which, as others here have suggested, could be the reason for withdrawal of Trump's legal team.

gspencer said...

"It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense."

But it was the height of honor and integrity when William Kunstler did it for those who did their criminal acts for the Cause. Because it was a leftist cause.

Heartless Aztec said...

Warren Zevon said it best...

I went home with the waitress
The way I always do
How was I to know
She was with the Russians too
I was gambling in Havana
I took a little risk
Send lawyers guns and money
Dad get me out of this (ha)
I'm the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck
Between a rock and a hard place
And I'm down on my luck
Yes I'm down on my luck
Well I'm down on my luck
And I'm hiding in Honduras
I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers guns and money
The shit has hit the fan
Send lawyers guns and money (ugh)
Send lawyers guns and money (hit it)
Send lawyers guns and money (ooh... hey uh) (hey uh... yeah)

glenn said...

A fake trial in a kangaroo court with partisan hacks scared to death that they could lose their place at the trough it took so long to construct. And a pretend media eager to help them. Toss in a political establishment that isn’t even trying to hide their corruption and it’s going to be a very “interesting” couple of weeks.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, now that we’ve established that Democrats have the right to insurrection and the use of paramilitary forces, but that it’s “murderous sedition” if Republicans do the same...

Where do we go from here?

Matt Sablan said...

"Speaking of which, this story is no doubt having Viagra-like effects on the Dersh and Jonathan Turley, since if you can’t get a real lawyer you can always turn to legal academia."

-- Is that the most oddly constructed self-burn ever?

gspencer said...

There's a down-loadable law review article called,

Defending the Despised: William Moses Kunstler
by Randall Coyne

Ann Althouse said...

"If Trump were to represent himself, expect Leahy's gavel to sound every time Trump speaks more than a sentence."

He should go all Julius Hoffman on him. That might work out well for Trump.

David Begley said...

AA on Paul Campos in 2011. I see that Campos was ahead of his time in censorship. What a douche.

“Paul is one of the bloggers at that blog I stopped linking to after they deleted all Meade's comments (Lawyers, Guns & Money). Here's what I wrote about the Anonymous Law Professor blog. I thought it was a student .....”

Laslo Spatula said...

More Democratic variations on "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?".

When what they really want is the end of 'The Wicker Man' with Trump yelling "Not the bees! Not the bees!"

I am Laslo.

chuck said...

One of the main attractions of the left is that it justifies repression and murder.

Curious George said...

How can there be a trial? No Chief Justice, no trial.

Michael K said...

People supporting him killed a police officer, and injured many more. Inexcusable, and disqualifying.

Another assertion without evidence. Why all the secrecy ? There is zero evidence that the capitol policeman was injured by rioters, some of whom were agents provocateur.

Ken B said...

I always thought the right to a lawyer was to protect rights, not just the accused.

dwshelf said...

I don't appreciate questions that assume a fact not in evidence.

35 years of internet forum discussions, observing thousands of diversions into dysfunctional discourse, I now see a concise description for one major vector into the weeds.

Thank you.

stlcdr said...

Why does he [Trump] need a defense when he is clearly guilty? We have heard the evidence, lets just on with the hanging, already.

stlcdr said...

Oh, and I truly wish I could add /sarc to the end of the above comment of mine.

MD Greene said...

The Keep Hate Alive thing is now officially out of hand.

dwshelf said...

He should go all Julius Hoffman on him. That might work out well for Trump.

Trump's audience for this occasion would be the people of the world, with special interest for Americans.

What a platform.

chuck said...

I know him [Campos] personally from 30 years ago

Did you also know Robert Barnes? It looks like his time at the University of Wisconsin overlapped your own.

Ken B said...

If the trial is unconstitutional, and without Roberts I think it is, what rights does Trump have at all? Can senators just throw rocks or attack him with bull whips? If not, *why not*? What are the boundaries on what the Democrats will allow themselves?

Jd_sc said...

One of Trump’s super powers is exposing the true colors of individuals and all their douchebaggery

Ken B said...

So I searched Julius Hoffman. What I got was Frank Langella. Therein lies much of the problem. Search an unfamiliar historical figure, get fiction.

Bilwick said...

"Creepy" is pretty much a vital component of today's "liberalism." Look who their standard bearer was in November.

donald said...


“Campos should be ridiculed endlessly. I can’t believe how crazy and leftwing some law profs are today; staring with my alma mater”.
A good curb stomping would be better.

Mr Wibble said...

It's a game of chicken, but the problem that the left doesn't seem to understand is that they're giving Trump every reason not to veer away.

Ken B said...

Remember when Hillary was attacked for a client she defended? And all the law profs sided with Hillary?

That was back when you had a constitution instead of terms of service.

dwshelf said...

What are the boundaries on what the Democrats will allow themselves?

Imagine a world wide live audience in the billions.

The Democrats are expressing hatred toward Trump.

And Trump is standing alone, doing what he does best.

How long would the Democrats be able to take it?

There's your limit.

Yancey Ward said...

"Trumperdammerung"

Ok, I am stealing this shamelessly, Mezzrow!

Mr Wibble said...

BTW, the glee at the notion that Trump is deprived of a defense isn't surprising. It's how the left wants the world to be. The social justice movement is all about replacing presumed innocence with inherited guilt, replacing actual offenses with vague "microaggressions", and replacing atonement and forgiveness with never-ending reparations, struggle sessions, and guilt.

Ken B said...

I truly believe the Democrat leadership is trying to provoke violence. I cannot see anything that explains both the way they ride roughshod on any issue of legality AND taunt at the same time. That “you'll take it and like it” approach feels intentionally provocative.

Ken B said...

Dwshelf
That's a good answer.

Leland said...

So we now have law profs arguing that some people are so beneath contempt they don't deserve representation against such arguments? I wonder what this prof thinks about representing rapist and murderers? Maybe we should just have show trials for them as well? And it is a show trial when the going in premise is determined thus no need for opposing counsel.

Breezy said...

If there were 200,000 people at the rally and 200 charged with breaching the capital, could the remaining 199,800 stream through the Senate chamber and simply say: "My presence at the rally was instigated by the illegal elections that took place in 5 states. Those illegal elections disenfranchised me, and caused me to peacefully protest the outcome. This body needs to make universal mail-in balloting illegal". Or "This body needs to require strict auditing procedures that can be done and reviewed before election results are certified." Or "This body needs to make any ballot counting machine that enables vote manipulation illegal". Etc.

Temujin said...

The notion that a 'law' professor has the right to determine which citizens have the right to counsel and which do not meet his standards is an abomination. As I keep insisting, and they keep showing- the poison in our country begins in the schools, at virtually every level.

His closing quote: "“it’s not an impeachable offense to foment a seditious coup at the Capitol that got some people killed if I just keep claiming with zero evidence to back me that the election was stolen” defense."

This man is not the brain his credentials would have one think he is. This is often the case. I am sure he stood and applauded all summer as our cities burned, businesses destroyed or looted, and multiple people murdered. With actual encouragement from those he just voted into office.

Very selective outrage used to....wait for it...garner approval from those around him in academia, and the publisher of his next book.

CWJ said...

"It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense."

This only rates "creepy?" You used to say "ugly," which this certainly is. Or is ugly reserved for another group?

Douglas B. Levene said...

The prominent NY firm of Debevoise & Plimpton is working for the House impeachment team. Aren’t they brave? Whatever happened to the lawyer ideal of the heroic lawyer who represents the most unpopular, hated defendant? And don’t give that nonsense about how that ideal only applies to criminal prosecutions. We know, to a moral certainty, that if Trump is ever charged with a crime, Prof. Campos will be cheering for th e bar to not represent him.

Rusty said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"The assumption that I write about something because I'm *surprised* by it is incorrect."
I just thought, and I think most of us do, that you post things that interest you. Us commenters are just the fools in your on line morality play.

tim maguire said...

I used to be annoyed at Lawyers, Guns, and Money for perverting a great Hunter Thompson screed, but I’ve since grown an appreciation for their choice. After all, “send lawyers, guns, and money, the shit is about to hit the fan” isn’t about seeking truth or justice, it’s about sleazy characters trying to create a fog of bullshit that they can slip through to escape justice.

Which is totally fitting for Paul Campos and his gang of idiots.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

"murderous sedition" must be fun to say. Better than counting sheep for comforting yourself at night.

Rusty said...

Suppose he just doesn't show up at all. Since it really isn't an impeachment, what is the worst they can do?
I'll tell you what I'd do. I'd find the dirtiest, drunken, fowl smelling, ragged homeless bum and have him represent me.
Picture it.
"Who are you?"
"Gimme a dollar."

Yancey Ward said...

For those who don't know, Julius Hoffmann was the judge at the trial of the Chicago Seven. He had Bobby Seale physically gagged, and I think chained too, when Seale tried to represent himself in court.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

re: my post 9:04

Fast forward to the 10:18 mark and you can watch Dersh, who is a fan of PBS's show Frontline, explain how Frontline deceptively chopped Trump's "very fine people" quote and removed the Trump's clear condemnation of white supremacists and neo-nazis.

Shame on PBS and Frontline. & Dersh is pissed.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The trial will be about taking Trump out of context.
He never incited violence on Jan 6th.

Skeptical Voter said...

Campos's rant echoes "Juden Raus" in Hitler's Germany. But it's all of a par with the current Biden Zeitgeist. I'm told he's issued more Executive Orders in his first ten days then the total number of Executive Orders issued by all previous Presidents.

Look at it America; it's coming and we're going to get it good and hard. And Twice on Sundays!

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Breezy 9:52

I like that idea.

Wince said...

Even Animal Skin Guy has a lawyer, and now he's saying Trump made him do it.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Yancey 10:04
Yes - Julius was a judge.
for Ann I ask - how on earth would Trump be able to act like a judge? That makes no sense.

Francisco D said...

Ann Althouse said... He should go all Julius Hoffman on him. That might work out well for Trump.

My first reaction was to think that Trump has a bit of Abbie Hoffman's sense of humor in him. He will make it a good show.

Yancey Ward said...

BidenFamilyCrackPipe,

She was suggesting Leahy go all Julius Hoffmann, not Trump. She was also saying this would work out for Trump.

narciso said...

but I'm sure he was fine with khalid sheikh mohammed, the architect of the murder of 3,000 Americans to have effective counsel, of course there was lynn stewart, the one who was sheikh rahman's bruce cutler, in law and order, they made her an atty for a eric rudolph type,

Rick said...

Everyone already knows in advance that Trump is guilty of "murderous sedition."

If we're going to conclude Trump's comments advocating a protest are sedition we also have to conclude anyone saying Jacob Blake was unarmed was inciting violence right? The link between statement and result is much closer in this case, and since the statement wasn't actually true we have to conclude the overstatement was made specifically for the political effect.

And yet none of the people fainting about "sedition" have any concern over this incitement to violence. Sometimes it seems left wingers assert any standard to judge an outsider guilty but when applied to themselves they assert whatever standard is necessary to exonerate them.

Jupiter said...

"It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense."

It's what they teach in Law Schools these days. Have you been to one lately?

bbkingfish said...

"...deprived.."?

Gunner said...

Charlie Currie: Why would law firms in solid red states be afraid of doxxing from losers in DC and New York?

Oso Negro said...

I suppose that they could skip the whole "bind and gag him like Bobby Seale" phase and do something more medieval. Put him in stocks outside the Capitol fence before drawing and quartering.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Yancey -oh
Gotcha. thanks.

Sebastian said...

"It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense."

Deprived of a defense? Trump should consider himself lucky progs allow him to live.

Progs have had this aggressive enthusiasm since 1789. When you are on the side of history, when you know you are right, the other side forfeits its rights. I suppose you can call the essential brutality of the left "creepy." Other labels come to mind.

So, Althouse, still OK with abstaining?

Ann Althouse said...

"I just thought, and I think most of us do, that you post things that interest you."

Then your mistake occurs at the point where you assume that if something is interesting, it is surprising.

Sometimes it's interesting to see another example of a trend you have been watching, to document iterations of a phenomenon that you have noticed, and to keep up the pressure of criticism of something that you've seen time and again. For my purposes, it would be a big mistake to say I'm not blogging about that because it's the sort of thing I expect.

Really, some of my readers disappoint me by mocking me for not adding a sledgehammer-y tag line like "Here they go again" or "Typical!" I don't write like that and I don't want to write like that. Avoiding the sledgehammer shows respect for YOU, and you should appreciate it by not snarking shit like "Why are you surprised?"

Seriously, it's irritating and discouraging.

Ann Althouse said...

"My first reaction was to think that Trump has a bit of Abbie Hoffman's sense of humor in him. He will make it a good show."

Exactly.

Julius Hoffman did not understand how his power-wielding inside the courtroom looked to the people beyond the courtroom. The other Hoffman, Abbie, know how to play beyond the room and loved to do it.

Bob Boyd said...

The Disciples: "Jesus, why are you surprised that Judas sold you out?"

Jesus: "Oh for Christ's sake..."

Eleanor said...

I read that as Ann would like Leahy to be Hoffman so Trump could play off of him?

narciso said...

campos wants to be the ayatollah khalkali or commisar molotov, hanging judges all, you see the run around that general flynn had to go through for nearly four years, even with the facts on his side, then again it wasn't as bad as edwin wilson, they sentenced him, despite the knowledge that the top company operatives, all authorized his 'outreach' to qaddafi, it was discovered 20 years later,

NCMoss said...

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
Ben Franklin

Metaphorically of course...

Anne-I-Am said...

This is completely in line with Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism--whatever you choose to name the progressive Id. And really, Leftists are nothing but Id, which I think is a better description than referring to "feelings." Feelings are a necessary balance to reason. The Id unconstrained by Ego and Superego, is psychopathic. (And yes, I know that Freud is passé; but I think this concept is useful here.)

What we are seeing is the Gramscian damage--the Long March Through the Institutions. This was, in fact, an effort seeded by the Soviets, with cunning placement of dezinformatsiya.

The culmination of Campos' psychopathic fantasies would of course be the defense lawyer bowing in awe to the prosecutor's superior understanding of the defendant's crimes. Solzenhitsyn:

The harmony of the trial was not at all disturbed by the defense, which agreed with all the prosecutor's proposals...for "a Soviet defense lawyer is first of all a Soviet citizen" and "like all workers, he, too, is outraged at the crimes of the defendants.

traditionalguy said...

Lenin and Stalin refused to waste time. Their procedure started with “ take him outside and shoot him.” The Revolution First.

Curious George said...

"Ken B said...
Remember when Hillary was attacked for a client she defended? And all the law profs sided with Hillary?"

The rape case? She was attacked for laughing about it after the the fact. Not for defending him in court.

narciso said...

hey anne I am, how have you been?

I remember the pyatov trial, (well reading about it) he was more fulsome than even the persecutors wanted him to be) I think he was the basis for aaronson in 1984

pacwest said...

I truly believe the Democrat leadership is trying to provoke violence.

There's a plan in place. Pelosi kept those guardsmen there for a reason. They need a tipping point to 1: Discredit Trumpism as a movement 2: Create a crisis that will allow them emergency powers. 3: America we hardly knew you.

The Crack Emcee said...

"It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense."

You sound like Christopher Hitchens mentioning the Clinton's "eerie" ability to keep journalist's mouths shut tight. There's gotta be a way, how, and why they're all acting in unison - sometimes even across party lines. Some way y'all aren't giving the weight you do others (If Mike Pence's church was doing all this you'd focus).

Anyway, I'll accept that it's "creepy", for now.

Anne-I-Am said...

Hey back, narciso! I have been about a 7 out of 10, which, given the circumstances, ain't too shabby.

I don't know why I picked up TGA to read--well, yes, I do. I had listened to David Horowitz' autobiography (Radical Son and wanted to get closer to the Soviet source material.

I really had not given Leftism much thought until the events of the past couple of years. Then my mind, which craves pattern recognition and synthesis, went to work. Now I am well and truly frightened.

Traditional Guy, you are mostly wrong. While many were summarily executed--especially when the river of victims grew too swollen for the machine to process--many, many more were subjected to either show trials or extra-judicial reprisals following non-judicial tribunals.

These trials/tribunals were a necessary part of the Soviet pathology--the masses both must be convinced of the victims' guilt and suitably terrorized by seeing what innocent activities could land them in the gulag.

And while executions increased exponentially (Solzenhitsyn has an excellent comparison between capital punishment under the tsars and under the Soviets), the vast swollen river deposited most of its detritus in the camps.

David53 said...

@Althouse

You once blogged, “Finance is my least favorite subject, but I can't completely ignore something that feels expressive of my reasons for not engaging.”

I learned a lot from the comments that day, it stimulated my critical thinking skills which appear to be declining as disease and age often fog my brain.

Your blog is my first read every day. I know it’s selfish of me but I don’t want you to get too discouraged and stop blogging.

iowan2 said...

This is not surprising.

Right there in the Constitution, in the penumbra, and emanations, resides the "but Trump" exemptions.

And while the morally superior law prof can find no legal basis, Does he believe in the concept. Or is he only forced into moral behaviour by a piece of parchment? I find theives and murderers more honest than this piece of human garbage. But, wild idealoges are fueled by baseless fears. This guy, and all the left are terrified of President Trump. If more and more people become informed of the wide corruption in DC...and start marching for honest government, this will quickly spiral out of control.

daskol said...

“Campos should be ridiculed endlessly. I can’t believe how crazy and leftwing some law profs are today; staring with my alma mater”.
A good curb stomping would be better.


I don't advocate violence. Yet. Campos is a pampered university-based activist now, feeling secure in his position and safety. The world he is hastening upon all of us is already starting to suck, and soon will suck for him as well. This is well beyond inflaming the passions of faction, and the real target is transparent: Trump supporters, those who would try to resurrect the man or his movement. Campos wants Trump so isolated he can't even hire a competent defense is because he wants to use this momentum to transform deplorable into indefensible, literally. I'm starting to take this personally.

daskol said...

There's a lot of excitable boys around is an appropriate warning to the lawfare crowd, to put it in Warren Zevon terms.

MadTownGuy said...


Charlie Currie said...

"Everyone's afraid of the left. They don't want to be doxxed, have their and their family's life threatened, their business ruined - socially and physically, there whole lives canceled, memory holed. We've seen what happens when ANTIFA/BLM are let off the leash. This is life under democratic rule. Don't get comfortable, it's going to get worse."


Gunner said...

"Charlie Currie: Why would law firms in solid red states be afraid of doxxing from losers in DC and New York?"

1. Interstate commerce.
2. Social media, now owned by the 'losers.'
3. Mail-in voting, in perpetuity, thus flipping red states to blue.

Anne-I-Am said...

daskol: You should take it personally, because it is personal.

Iron Law of Leftism: The personal is political. There is no sphere of life into which the totalitarian does not reach.

daskol said...

This Sunday morning is a little groovier, funkier than Zevon, so I've got some groceries and peanut butter, enough to last a couple of days.

dwshelf said...

If there were ever to be a chance for Trump to launch a successful third party, it would start with his defense against impeachment.

Most conservatives believe a Trump third party would be a disaster.

They haven't contemplated what it would be like as a success.

Mark said...

Campos needs to be fired and disbarred and permanently banned from coming close to the legal profession.

David53 said...

Lawyers, Guns and Money

A great song, a crummy blog.

Mike Sylwester said...

Thanks to "President" Biden, normalcy and civility is being restored to our country's politics.

Lurker21 said...

Wikipedia:

Campos's writing appears on the blog Lawyers, Guns and Money. In August 2011, Campos began a second blog, Inside the Law School Scam. Initially posting anonymously, he criticizing other law school professors for not knowing enough doctrinal law or having much practical experience in legal practice. Knowing that his identity was soon to be outed, he claimed responsibility for the blog on August 20.

The blog has attracted criticism from legal scholars, including Brian Leiter of the University of Chicago Law School. According to Leiter, Campos's blog contained misleading, inaccurate, and inflammatory statements. Leiter also criticized Campos more broadly for allegedly shirking his job responsibilities through poor scholarship and poor teaching.


Holy Schnike! Internet lawfare gets intense.

Still, I can't see cancelling him, hounding him out of his job. Let him stand as a monument to stupidity and fraudulence for all to see.

Lurker21 said...

A third party won't work and would only guarantee the Democrats' control of Congress and the presidency. Plus, the kind of characters it brought forward wouldn't necessarily be any better than those we have in politics today. Different, sure, but that's not always better.

JZ said...

I haven't read every comment, so maybe someone has already asked: what do we think about the idea of Trump not showing up and sending no one to represent him? Afterall, Chief Justice Roberts has decided to skip it.

hombre said...

“It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense.”
posted by Ann Althouse at 8:18 AM on Jan 31, 2021

We’ve had our Reichstag fire, Professor. It just gets creepier from here and we will frequently find your unprincipled former colleagues like this asshole waving their pom poms in support.

Bob said...

Paul Campos is an interesting fellow. From a Wikipedia page,

"Campos is perhaps best known for his 2004 book The Obesity Myth (later published as The Diet Myth) which reviews medical research on the association between higher body mass and health".

Based on this you'd think he might like to represent Trump himself.

Francisco D said...

Ann Althouse said...Julius Hoffman did not understand how his power-wielding inside the courtroom looked to the people beyond the courtroom. The other Hoffman, Abbie, know how to play beyond the room and loved to do it.

I was in Lincoln Park during the 1968 Democrat Convention. You could smell the tear gas at night. However, it was not scary at all. It was meant to provoke and tweak "The Man" with Abbie as chief comedian.

It was brilliant theater that got people thinking about political corruption and authoritarianism. That theater was repeated at the trial. I really don't think the media or the elected politicians really understood what was happening.

Trump has an opportunity to repeat that theater. He does not need lawyers on his team. He needs to consult with script writers.

alanc709 said...

Anyone attorney that Trump has no right to representation should be disbarred.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, I apologize for my use of the word “surprised,” and I have deleted my comment upthread. I’m sure you are anything but surprised, as you spent a career working with disgusting creatures like him. Rephrasing my comment, now that you’ve retired, Althouse, I doubt there are any professors whatsoever left in Wisconsin Law that feel differently from Prof. Campos. Your legal profession knows how to sound noble and honorable for publicity purposes, but it’s all window dressing. And it’s not new — I’m sure Shakespeare had a reason for the lines he wrote.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Seems to me to fit right in with late term abortion.
daskol... correctamundo! the odds are quite favorable.

Bob Boyd said...

what do we think about the idea of Trump not showing up and sending no one to represent him? Afterall, Chief Justice Roberts has decided to skip it.

And what if all the Republican skipped it too?

CR said...

It is creepy. It was also creepy to see the presumption of innocence disappear when the accused was Brett Kavanaugh.

Ann Althouse said...

"Yancey 10:04
Yes - Julius was a judge.
for Ann I ask - how on earth would Trump be able to act like a judge? That makes no sense."

I was responding to: "If Trump were to represent himself, expect Leahy's gavel to sound every time Trump speaks more than a sentence.""

I said: "He should go all Julius Hoffman on him. That might work out well for Trump."

I see how you misread me, but the "He" there was Leahy.

Night Owl said...

There's a reason why some of us wrote off the Democratic Party decades ago, and have been warning against them since George Bush jr. We could see what they had become and where they would lead us.

The radical left that now controls the party are the authoritarians they accuse Trump of being. They are the violent, intolerant haters they accuse Trump voters of being. They see nazis and racists everywhere because they identify with nazis and racists. They're more than creepy, they're extremely dangerous.

And now they have almost complete control. The only thing keeping them in check is our 2nd amendment. Because of it they have fear. Teach your children well about why we have a second amendment.

The uninformed and misinformed sleep well now that the bogeyman Trump is gone. The rest of us are sick to our stomachs. We wonder how hard the psychos on the left are going to push.

Mark said...

As a one-time criminal defense attorney, it was pounded into us just by the nature of the profession that representation by counsel for even the worst of the worst, whether you personally agreed with them or not, was a fundamental principle of justice, and not just some arbitrary command of the written law.

In fact, MOST of a practicing attorney's cases involve clients that they do NOT personally agree with. In fact, their agreement or disagreement with a client is IRRELEVANT to the role of attorney. In fact, if one would otherwise be without representation, then you have a DUTY to step up and represent them. That's how fundamental the principle it is in the administration of justice.

Thankfully, there are enough people -- a veritable army of people -- ready and willing and eager to defend the greatest of true evil monsters in our society, so I want nothing to do with them. But if there were not these willing collaborators, ethical duty and professional conscience would demand that I set aside my personal feelings and represent them.

Mark said...

Meanwhile, it is telling when one heatedly criticizes commenters while tepidly merely calling "creepy" someone else's actions in contributing to the destruction of this justice.

daskol said...

In the genre of militarily paranoic tunes, proto-punk bad Wire put out my favorite one. It goes a little beyond playful paranoia. I hope this is not a dispatch from our new future...

Our own correspondent is sorry to tell
Of an uneasy time that all is not well

On the borders there's movement
In the hills there is trouble
Food is short, crime is double

Prices have risen since the government fell
Casualties increase as the enemy shell
The climate's unhealthy, flies and rats thrive
And sooner or later the end will arrive

This is your correspondent, running out of tape
Gunfire's increasing, looting, burning, rape...

Jamie said...

A side question, for future reference: if the "surprised" comment had been, "Are you surprised?" rather than, "Why are you surprised?," would it have been less objectionable?

I got myself banned from Powerline by using the word "asshole" in a constructed line of imaginary dialog (that is, not aimed at any commenter or any real person in the world). More fool I, I didn't see the statement way down there about "extreme profanity or obscenity" or whatever it is until after I'd asked why I was banned. I appealed to them for a second chance without success (fair enough, stated in their policy), and I'm too stubborn to create a new account. I absolutely don't want anything like that to befall me here - this has to be the most interesting commentariat on the internet.

mikee said...

These people now attempting what is essentially a bill of attainder against Trump via impeachment sure are gonna be surprised when someone matching their fever dream descriptions of him appears on the public stage, and does to them in reality what they fearlessly claim he wants to do. My fear is that their actions hasten the day of that person's ascendance to power.

A right wing authoritarian in the US, like Allende in Chile, would surprise the hell out of the Left. All they could do would be to bleat about the unfairness of it all, as they took their helicopter rides out of DC. I pray the Left stops their destructive authoritarianism before that kind of response arises.

Mikey NTH said...

The Left reminds me of a bunch of drunks playing around with gasoline and bonfires.

daskol said...

Campos is asking for it. Hope his real-life kung fu is as strong as verbal SAT scores.

Ray said...

A third party where its goal is to take over the Republican Party by supporting candidates who are conservative/populist (MAGA), and defeating entrenched Republicans to destroy the current power structure. They should:
1. Support Republicans who MAGA.
2. Vet and run candidates to oppose entrenched Republicans, who support the current power structure, in the primaries. They should support only one candidates, to prevent the dilution of MAGA by running multiple candidates. This is how Lindsey Graham avoided being primaried in 2012.
3. If they lose in they primary, particularly if they've been cheated, urn a third party opposition, to ensure the defeat of incumbent. There will never be a take over if those at the top are removed. They killed the Tea Party, they will kill this movement. They have to be willing to lose to win long term. The reason the two Senate candidates in Georgia, refused to fight the cheating that they faced, was they (powers that be) didn't want to give Trump any victories in his battle against election cheating. They were willing to lose to maintain power.
The Conservative Party in New York uses this strategy.

daskol said...

But really, Campos: shame on a ni**a

Big Mike said...

Better idea: You, me, Meade, Big Mike, Bay Area Guy and Mid-Life Lawyer represent Trump.

@David Begley, Big Mike is a mathematician and retired designer of computer systems, but emphatically not a lawyer. Big Mike did some interesting work for the DOJ early in his career, and he had a green badge at FBI HQ late in his career, so he picked up some of the jargon.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Fascists gotta fascist!

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I AM surprised at the swift move to open, angry evil overreach. Not that it happened but by how extensive it is now.

Night Owl said...

The Democrats are going to stage a show trial to convict Trump of what they, not so long ago, openly advocated.

Precisely. They know their base will never question this circus because those people never question anything they're told by the media. As for the rest of us who can see what is going on, they're giving us the finger.

rcocean said...

Its "Creepy" not its stalinist. And it shows he has ZERO legal ethics and should be disbarred. But look, this is what happens when you let Lawyers and Judges run the country without any brake on their power.

the Center-right is ALWAYS so dumb. They never seem to have understood that the left has take over the Legal profession and is now silencing and attacking any lawyers who don't toe the party line. So, this is what you get.

The only solution is the rein in the power of the Judiciary and the lawyers. But Good luck with that! The Conservatives are still talking about the Judges being the "Bulwark against Democracy". what morons!

Leland said...

I read that as Ann would like Leahy to be Hoffman so Trump could play off of him?

Close I think. I think the true point is for Trump to continue to let Democrats overplay their bad hand, such that he, Trump, receives more sympathy. Hell, even Merkel thinks Democrats are going too far. If Trump play is too offensive back, then it would negate the strategy.

The “overplay hand” analogy suggests a flaw to me. Overplayed bad hand is a bluff. A bluff is successful only if it is fully played out to the end. However, the Democrats aren’t weak with this hand. If Trump plays defense for the sake of sympathy, I think he loses until sometime way down the road, SCOTUS gives him standing ad rules the Impeachment punishment unconstitutional.

If you can’t be too offensive less you lose sympathy and you can’t be too defensive, then the best bet is to extend the clock.

rcocean said...

what could be better than having Trump defend himself! Trump speaking. Trump objecting. Trump questioning. hahaha. this whole thing is a farce, and should be shown as one.

rcocean said...

Yes, Leahy constantly interrupting Trump - like Chris wallace - would again show the whole thing up as a farce. And a partisan hit job. we could end up with trump being gagged and tied to a chair.

rcocean said...

I could imagine NPR's coverage of the trial if Trump defended himself. We'd get constant cuts away from Trump speaking so the "Legal Ex-burts" could tell us that Trump is "Lying" and "Completely wrong".

rcocean said...

"Avoiding the sledgehammer shows respect for YOU, and you should appreciate it by not snarking shit like "Why are you surprised?""

While that's appreciated, things are getting so insane, I wonder if a higher level of outrage is needed. Its getting to the point that the D's are destroying the very norms and standards of American Democracy. This sort of legal Thuggery, is beyond the pale.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Pelosi knew what was coming and deliberately undermined the security of the capitol just so she could have a show trial.

daskol said...

Pelosi knew what was coming and deliberately undermined the security of the capitol just so she could have a show trial.

I don't know if Pelosi did this, but it is increasingly difficult to avoid this dastardly conclusion about the intentions of those in charge as video after video emerges, evidence emerges, that the protesters were not prevented from entering, were encouraged even, and in real time were identifying and calling out agents provocateurs in their midst. And yet, there has been nothing like a public airing of these bits of evidence or any progress in any official investigation.

The Trump impeachment trial may be the least of the ongoing calamities to the rule of law, as it is taking place in our Congress, an explicitly political body. It's what's happening in courts and the DOJ and other law enforcement orgs that is most corrosive.

daskol said...

They shut down Parler and deplatformed tons of people to protect their Reichstag Fire-like January 6th operation. Convince me otherwise.

320Busdriver said...

Soy boy Kunzinger on MTP...

“People need to be able to vote in who they want. “(Taylor Greene.)

Two minutes later:

“We need to show that people like Trump can never hold this office again.”

Soy boy out!

Mark said...

Judges being the "Bulwark against Democracy". what morons!

It is laughingly contemptuous when they pout and cry, "We're going to tell the judge on you."

Yes, morons. Even if the judiciary would -- which it really never has -- why would you put your lives and liberties in the hands of someone else to protect and defend?

How many times must the courts be on the wrong side of justice and basic human decency before people get it?

n.n said...

Cancel culture: witch hunts, warlock trials, braying, steering, em-pathetic appeals, and wicked solutions.

Oso Negro said...

Trump could bring Kayleigh McEnany to read all the affadavits of cheating and show the videos.

n.n said...

Just put Trump against the wall and get this over with.

Our first Orange-American President.

Peace in the Middle East. Ending policies of wars without borders, extrajudicial social justice, and standing up to transnational terrorism. Abort the bastard.
Emigration reform to mitigate progress of immigration reform and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout. Abort the bastard.
Medical and pharmaceutical market reform? Abort the bastard.
Skeptical of the prophecy of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate cooling... warming... change, undeniable, unfalsifiable, and Green... nay, green solution? Abort the bastard.
Standing up to diversity and exclusion? Abort the bastard.
American dream: Pro-Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Abort the bastard.
Anti-fascist? You're deplorable if you do, deplorable if you don't. Abort the bastard.
Heartburn, indigestion, Monday, a "burden"? Abort the bastard, recycle his profitable parts, and sequester his carbon remains.

Skippy Tisdale said...

- this has to be the most interesting commentariat on the internet.

Almost. Here is the most. Seriously:

https://glibertarians.com/

Clyde said...

"It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense."

Fascism with a fascist face.

hombre said...

Andrew: “People supporting him killed a police officer, and injured many more. Inexcusable, and disqualifying.”

Isn’t this the kind of comment that causes people with normal critical thinking skills to cringe? Really. Somebody killed a police officer and it was a Trump supporter. How does he know this? Because there were no agent provocateurs in the group? Because so many police officers have been attacked by Trump supporters at other gatherings? Because the killer has been identified as a Trump supporter? Because none of the Democrat surrogate groups like BLM and Antifa who might have been there as provocateurs attack cops?

None of the above, but hating Trump offers an excuse for leaving one’s brain behind - for half the country.

And WTF does “[i]nexcusable and disqualified” mean?

Tom said...

I can’t believe they haven’t set his trial for March 15th... with knives out.

Tom said...

I can’t believe they haven’t set his trial for March 15th... with knives out.

dwshelf said...

I got myself banned from Powerline by using the word "asshole"

@jamie

Pretty much the same story for me, but now, a year or so later, I find I've been rehabilitated.

dwshelf said...

we could end up with trump being gagged and tied to a chair.

If the intention was to create a messiah out of Trump, this would be perfect.

Night Owl said...

There's a plan in place. Pelosi kept those guardsmen there for a reason. They need a tipping point to 1: Discredit Trumpism as a movement 2: Create a crisis that will allow them emergency powers. 3: America we hardly knew you.

That's my concern. It's possible the left hope to incite an actual violent uprising, as a reason to suspend the second amendment. The left control the media and the justice system. Perhaps in their hubris they think they have enough control to easily put down a real insurrection. Maybe they can; but if we ever get to a point where they are going after our guns, the left better be prepared for the likelihood that our cold civil war turns hot.

dwshelf said...

If you can’t be too offensive less you lose sympathy

Everyone cheers low life being disrespected.

One way to establish one's party as low life is to proceed with a formal trial offering nothing but contempt as evidence.

dwshelf said...

what do we think about the idea of Trump not showing up

Trump has an opportunity to profoundly affect the history of the world. He's not the kind of guy who will shrink from the challenge.

If Trump confronts Democratic senators in person, it will be the most watched live show of all time. By a factor of two.

Unknown said...

murderous sedition

lynch mob fuckwit

Jim at said...

I used to work with Paul Campos. Too bad he's turned into such a shithead. He wasn't always like this.

Freder Frederson said...

The left control the media and the justice system.

Even if the left control the media (and that is a dubious proposition), they most certainly do not control the justice system. The justice system is mostly controlled by the right (how on earth did Joe Arpaio last 24 years as the sheriff of Maricopa County if the justice system is controlled by the left?). The judiciary is much more conservative than it was thirty years ago, especially with the juggernaut of appointments (including 3 supreme court justices) over the last four years.

Iman said...

Accidentally Like a Moron

Paul Compost

Mark said...

Forever Fools actually believe these things they say.

The problem is that other people, good and decent, get taken in by it.

dreams said...

"Everyone already knows in advance that Trump is guilty of "murderous sedition."
It's very creepy, this aggressive enthusiasm for seeing one's enemy deprived of a defense."

Don't worry about it, It's just Trump and the Republicans.

Earnest Prole said...

Some law professor hates Trump. In other news . . .

Mark said...

Some law professor hates Trump. In other news . . .

. . . some law professor hates law.

Gospace said...

Anyone else remember someone who argued no right to representation during impeachment?

Why, the smartest woman in the world, Hillary Clinton. Politifact and snopes say it’s not true she was fired from the Watergate commission. But then, who believes either of them any? About anything?

Ann Althouse said...

Thanks, David53. That really is encouraging to me and I am happy to help everyone with their brain.

Ann Althouse said...

“ A side question, for future reference: if the "surprised" comment had been, "Are you surprised?" rather than, "Why are you surprised?," would it have been less objectionable?”

Yes, but it would be better for you to say something interesting than to call on me to answer a boring question. Just say that you regard it as unsurprising and leave me out of it. Assume I’m not surprised by unsurprising things and get on with productive discussion.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»