"We’ve known about this problem for a long time. Plenty of people pointed it out in 2021 when Dems controlled WH+Congress. But nobody wants to give up power when their team has it."
Sarah Isgur explains the Insurrection Act in 4 quick points — I'm quoting #4 — after somebody on X calls attention to the time she trounced George Stephanopoulos on the topic:
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the hair and makeup team at ABC as well as my hats, sunscreen, and dermatologist. https://t.co/ws0xo8TBOB
— Sarah Isgur (@whignewtons) October 14, 2025
ADDED: Here's the full clip from "This Week," which aired last Sunday:
Sorry, I had the wrong clip before. Isgur was on "This Week" in mid-August — also with Chris Christie.
Here's the transcript, showing that the clip that went up at X really did contain everything Isgur got the opportunity to say (with Christie also addressing the topic):
STEPHANOPOULOS: Chris, I want to ask you about the National Guard deployments. And you were a U.S. attorney, you were also governor of New Jersey. Let me ask you the question I asked J.B. Pritzker. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, there's not much a governor can do, is there?
CHRISTIE: No, there's not. And J.B. wouldn't answer the question, but I will. There isn't. And look, Sarah and I were looking at the Insurrection Act, when you were bringing it up, because we haven't looked at it probably since law school. The fact is that if the president makes a determination that violence has gotten to a point in the country where he has to federalize those troops and send them in, there's really not much you can do about that. That's a presidential --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether it's true or not?
CHRISTIE: Correct. That's a presidential determination. Now, Pritzker could always bring a court action and then the courts could decide whether the facts are there to support his invocation of the Insurrection Act. But at the first glance at this, George, when you're sitting there as the governor and the phone rings and it's the president saying, I'm sending in the troops because I'm invoking the Insurrection Act, you can't stop him if you're the governor. You are the Commander in Chief of the National Guard in New Jersey when I was governor. But not if the president says he's taken those troops.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Sarah, we only have 30 seconds left. Do you think it's going to get that far? Is the president going to invoke the Insurrection Act?
ISGUR: Nearly half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act during their terms, some more than once. Donald Trump said he would do it during his first time.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Not over the objections of governors, usually. Usually.
ISGUR: Absolutely. Think about Eisenhower and Little Rock. It was absolutely over the objection of the governor to desegregate the schools. The Insurrection Act, for years, lawyers have been saying this was far too broad. They warned about it at the beginning of the Biden administration, this is the time to change the Insurrection Act. We missed the opportunity then, and here we are.
CHRISTIE: Yep.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Thank you all.AND: Let me comment on that line "George Stephanopoulos looks like a fool after a young lady fact-checks his statement about the Insurrection Act." It's absurd to refer to Isgur as "a young lady" as if she's a random person and that makes Stephanopoulos look like more of a fool. A young lady took him down!
And aside from that, Stephanopoulos does NOT look like a fool. He's hosting guests whom he invites to explain the Insurrection Act and giving them time to explain the act. He doesn't purport to know what it means. He does a prompt — "Not over the objections of governors, usually" — that helps Isgur speed through her pithy explanation.
I'm sick of social media things like that — Young lady makes Stephanopoulos look like a fool. I'm sorry I featured that X post rather than going straight to the "This Week" clip on YouTube.
Posts
145 comments:
Wait until they learn Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Inconceivable!
All the preconditions for invoking the Act exist now. It is only Trump's forbearance that is stopping the just response to Pritsker and Johnson actively inciting riots against ICE. They are not the only ones, just the most prominent right now. This, like the earlier story, is playing out in full view of a public not limited to DNC-only reporting. More people see Steffy get owned on X than ever watch his actual show. The public knows ICE is rounding up criminals and rapists and murderers and can see exactly who is trying to "protect" the Tren De Aragua felons who rammed the ICE vehicle yesterday. The people generally despise disorder and we know who the agents of chaos are.
I think Isgur cracked wise about hair and makeup because the X post calls her a "young lady," while she's in her 40s.
Isgur: "...We missed this opportunity, and here we are." I don't think we need to ask who "we" refers to.
yah, bothsides. What I don’t care for is when Hawaiian judges get involved….and lawyers everywhere are complacent. Do better. I know they won’t…
You didn't watch the show live this week, hm?
All these Brewers games but they're at night... can you read the show's transcript and think for yourself?
Good grief, I haven’t seen New Jersey’s version of Jabba Pritzker in years. That would be Chris Christie. I didn’t know he was still alive. And Bobo Brazille also makes a guest appearance. Some panel you have there George.
To respond to Christie’s point. Yes it’s retribution and I like it. Need more of it. Maybe the Commies will learn. Doubtful though.
Tom said...
I think Isgur cracked wise about hair and makeup because the X post calls her a "young lady," while she's in her 40s.
------
She thinks she's pretty if you go in for that look...
She's a hottie! My new favorite liberal.
Georgie Porgie pudding and pie
asked the girl she made him cry
When teh Prez came out to play
Georgie Porgie paid and paid
Eisenhower and Little Rock is an amazing example.
"We need to change the Insurrection Act" might not play very well when you consider that a lot of people think the Republicans were right to de-segregate the schools over the Democrat governor's objections.
I actually think, with all the guns in America today, if might be a fairer fight at this point if the battle is taken out of the courtrooms and the fighting is all on the street... Some of you are not as strong as you think. Worshipping the gun over rule of law will not be kind to the older intellectual class no matter how much your wealth or ability to by "protection". Listen to what they're saying behind closed doors? They don't respect life, and the women and children are always hardest hit.
As for me and mine, I'll stand by America's imperfect rule of law. And I've always known to worship God only, not guns, not professors, not presidents. The old men and women losing their minds today are not going to be around to see what they have wrought. SOme of their grandchildren will though. Even the mothers of gay sons are encouraging them to marry straight women or find female "surrogates" these days, it seems... Good luck to everyone. I hope we all get what we deserve, but God is the final judge of us.
Krispie pimped Chris Wray and the fatboy can feck right off.
"We need to change the Insurrection Act" might not play very well when you consider that a lot of people think the Republicans were right to de-segregate the schools over the Democrat governor's objections.
-------
Not the "young" Republicans who lived though the affirmative-action days, apparently. You know Charlie Kirk had objections "in retrospect" to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, right?
Do you old Republicans even talk to the ones coming up in your tracks? So many of these angry young men were raised without fathers in the home, it makes me wonder. It's like wolves feeding themselves on rotting carrion.
Saint Croix said...
She's a hottie! My new favorite liberal.
--------
Married w/children... go hunt elsewhere.
Don't sell Mrs Stephanopoulos' little boy Georgie short - he doesn't just "look" like a fool, he plays one on TV.
I think Isgur cracked wise about hair and makeup because the X post calls her a "young lady," while she's in her 40s.
wow!
I would have guessed under 30.
George had Little Rock in his mind when he said "usually" twice. He was silently begging his panelist to not bring up Little Rock. And she steamrolls him.
He's like, "Thank you all"
and also
"Never invite her on my show again!"
Saint Croix said...
I think Isgur cracked wise about hair and makeup because the X post calls her a "young lady," while she's in her 40s.
------------
You can join her ONlyFans page for $10/month, Saint Croix.
Pay for your porn and stop slobbering up ann's playroom? It's kind of offensive to the old gal hosting you. Hit her tip jar too and let her feel the love. Don't turn on ann just because her looks are aging and sarah is more a turn on.
wow!
I would have guessed under 30.
Presidents have been very good about not using the Insurrection Act to stop free speakers from marching and demonstrating.
We had a race riot in Charlotte several years ago. People were running out in the streets and blocking traffic.
And the Democrat mayor and the Republican governor and whoever was president, sent in the National Guard and that riot ended very, very quickly.
Democrats are shameful for wanting these attacks on ICE. They ought to be on board with keeping the peace. Demonstrations are fine. But shooting and looting and burning and other criminal acts are not fine.
The Walk of Life was an irritant in D.C. for decades. I think both parties hated it. But it was a peaceful protest. So armed troops were never needed to keep the peace. First Amendment protects the right to freely assemble. But violence is not speech. And speech is not violence. Some people understand this distinction.
More interesting was Pritzker's threat that once Trump is out of office, the ICE agents and Guardsmen could be prosecuted.
Interesting for several reasons: (1) it means retributive lawfare is still on like Donkey Kong; (2) implied is "When I'm president," so personal retributive lawfare is part of the package; (3) he didn't elaborate a legal theory.
I think there's a halfway decent legal theory to do Pritzker and similar state/local officials for conspiracy to impede, resist and assault federal officials. Trump should learn from the mistakes of the Dem lawfare and start locking them up now, well in advance of the 2028 election cycle. Get the legal issues worked out with plenty of time to create a new environment. And like so many other issues Trump faces, it's win-win: if it turns out you can't lock up governors for this stuff, then R governors will have a lot freer hand under a D president. CC, JSM
It doesn’t take much to make Stephanopoulos look like a fool. When he strays outside his cadre of head shakers he’s at risk. He ran into JD Vance recently and had to cut his mic.
Humperdink said...
It doesn’t take much to make Stephanopoulos look like a fool. When he strays outside his cadre of head shakers he’s at risk. He ran into JD Vance recently and had to cut his mic.
-----
Watch the whole show. Don't wait for MamaBird to drop it in your mouth mid week and tell you what to think with AI help?
I can certainly understand the concerns about use of the military to do law enforcement, but the Trump opposition in both parties has done so much lying and fearing mongering about Trump for so long now that I tend to dismiss anything they say as more of the same. It's a 'boy who cried wolf' situation if there ever was one.
This is a great post for perspective on the subject. Thanks, Professor.
@JSM. I think Pritzker jumped the shark when he threatened jail time for ICE agents when he and the Commies return to power. I am certain Trump and the DOJ have taken note.
The whole point of the ICE protests to provoke a response from President Trump and further destabilize the US.
Protestors and sympathetic state and local governments are attempting to keep the federal government from doing an essential function. That is insurrection.
Unlike Jan 6, this Democrat insurrection has lasted more than 4 hours. The prescription label says call the National Guard.
CHRISTIE: Correct. That's a presidential determination.
So it might be a small insurrection the president determines to be a large insurrection.
Is that an insurrection in your state, or are you just unhappy to see me? CC, JSM
"I'm sick of social media things like that — Young lady makes Stephanopoulos look like a fool. I'm sorry I featured that X post rather than going straight to the "This Week" clip on YouTube."
Cruel neutrality.
the Problem with Althouse's slant on this is:
i've WATCHED the sceen.. George panics and cuts her off..
If you you don't see that Althouse, you're BLIND
This is a higher level of quality in the talking head discourse on the mainstream media.
I'm sick of social media things like that — Young lady makes Stephanopoulos look like a fool. I'm sorry I featured that
-----------
Don't apologize.
Ask yourself before you post something: If I were a woman or black person or sexual minority, would I want to be called a cunt or a n*gger or trannie? If you wouldn't like you or yours to be treated like that, stop laughing and making fun of Others and hosting them here?
Trump should learn from the mistakes of the Dem lawfare and start locking them up now
That's a horrible idea. Seriously. Do you not remember how the American people feel about a political party trying to criminalize opposition? Do you not remember what happened to Joe Biden?
The last thing Donald Trump should do is follow the Democrats down their partisan rathole. Joe Biden is not the template for how to perform in office.
(I'm not so sure you don't approve of social nudges like that tho. Remember when you told young ladies they needed to learn how to wear makeup and dress suggestively if they wanted to make it in the professional legal world? That was you, here, advocating that, right? I think you father taught you early to show some leg, bare the titties... men like that and it helps you professionally. Be honest!
The big mistake of the Biden administration was not timing as you suggest, but doing it in the first place
And I love the vast majority of your posts, JSM! Sorry to pick on you two days in a row
Any words for you fans slobbering over her? Like... knock it off and go buy yourself a girlie magazine, old dog? (they don't sell them anymore, but porn hub is free...)
"i've WATCHED the sceen.. George panics and cuts her off..
If you you don't see that Althouse, you're BLIND"
Oh, bullshit. He begins by telling her they've only got 30 seconds left and he gives her the entire 30 seconds. There's no panic. I'm really sick of this sensational nonsense. Get a grip on yourself.
You don't even calm down long enough to capitalize "I," spell "scene" right, and not repeat the word "you." Then you insult me.
gilbar said...
the Problem with Althouse's slant on this is:
i've WATCHED the sceen.. George panics and cuts her off..
---------
The show ended you fool.
Watch the whole thing? It's less than an hour when you cut the commercials. Ann is lazy, but you can read beyond what the prof assigns and educate yourself beyond her guidance. Try it?
if it turns out you can't lock up governors for this stuff, then R governors will have a lot freer hand under a D president.
And a D president we will have, if we lock him up now. Are you trying to get Pritzker in the White House? Respect the election of 2024!
(apologize and then pile on, oops)
ask grok how many times althouse has said in her life, I am sorry, nevermind I was wrong. Less than a handful? I doubt it's sincere. Blogger has a way you can edit your posts. If she really thought her original link was offensive, she wouldn't leave it up... MeanGrrrl strikes again.
Bob Boyd said...
“…but the Trump opposition in both parties has done so much lying and fearing mongering about Trump for so long now that I tend to dismiss anything they say as more of the same. It's a 'boy who cried wolf' situation if there ever was one.”
The Boy Who Cried Hitler
OccupyABC and its national affiliates.
I agree with AA, the clickbait headlines are annoying me, too. You click and then what you watch does not match what you were promised.
She does contradict him, and makes him look wrong. She makes it seem like he had no idea that Eisenhower sent in the National Guard in Arkansas. I believe that George knew that perfectly well. He just didn't want to mention it.
George was perhaps foolish to think that his deceit would be allowed to go without comment. And she smacked him with truth. I don't think George is dumb; he's deceitful.
Leverage. All's fair in lust and abortion. Maybe, baby, not.
It's absurd to refer to Isgur as "a young lady" …
@Althouse, it depends on one’s perspective. At 42 she’s barely older than one of my daughters-in-law, which makes her seem pretty young to me. Between makeup, looking after herself, and (I presume) good genes she could pass for early thirties.
And aside from that Stephanopoulos does NOT look like a fool.
Perspective again. Stephanopoulos has always looked like a fool.
And, no Professor, no one intelligent thinks that one gets on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” by being “a random person.” She’s been politically active for years and as a supporter of Carly Fiorina back in the day, I know who she is. But Sarah Isgur is scarcely a household name.
The really shocking thing here is that so many people still continue to treat not only the Democrats' open flouting of federal immigration laws as no big deal but also their defiant protection of criminals and violent criminal behavior in their communities. What the hell has happened to "classic liberals" and "your father's Democrat Party"?
Oh, OK, I get it. They're not in charge of their party anymore but still have to side with their team even though it's gone nuts so shaddup already and stay vewy, vewy still.
"I agree with AA, the clickbait headlines are annoying me, too. You click and then what you watch does not match what you were promised."
Yeah, I rarely click anymore. "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."
The problem for Stephanopoulos is that everyone knows he is a democrat and they know he is actively arguing for them.
Whether he looked stupid in this specific segment is irrelevant because he is just a stand in for the democrat party and if the democrat party looks stupid everyone assumes stephanapolous is the the democrat on the panel and he looks stupid too.
If you consider Stephanopoulos anything other than a democrat agent then you are a retard. He has never been a reporter or an anchor and has been caught coordinating with the democrat party to shape news coverage repeatedly.
Litmus test. Which one of these guys is an "insurrectionist"?
This Guy
Or
This Guy?
(Trick question: the both are!)
"I can certainly understand the concerns about use of the military to do law enforcement,..."
The idea ISN'T to use the military to do law enforcement, it's to use the military to protect federal LEOs and facilities so that THEY can do law enforcement. It's not really such a radical concept.
Saint Croix said...
I agree with AA, the clickbait headlines are annoying me, too. You click and then what you watch does not match what you were promised.
The democrat’s argument looks stupid.
Stephanopoulos is a democrat and repeatedly shills for the party.
If A is true mean B is true and if B is true means C is true then if A is true that also means C is true.
Oh, bullshit. He begins by telling her they've only got 30 seconds left and he gives her the entire 30 seconds. There's no panic. I'm really sick of this sensational nonsense. Get a grip on yourself.
I agree with this. I detest the "got owned" hyperbole. I've seen a lot of these and don't think they rise to that level, but it is what gets people to look, so it is just click bait. It gets the one side to click to reaffirm their "look how dumb the guy/gal on ____" is mentality. It undermines constructive debate. (Is Political's article just another case of clock-bait? "Look how vile those kids are, Oh did I mention they Identify as Republicans? That means Republicans all think like that.")
Instead, we should look at the fact that George gave her the last word and she nailed the moment. Now, let's debate the MERITS if the points brought up.
Trump could concentrate on cities and states that are cooperative, but that's not usually where the problem is.
What is a President to do if the citizens he's responsible to are asking for help that their own local government refuses to provide? I agree that's not always appropriate, but we are talking about help from assault, rape, and murder that's mostly preventable?
People need to ask themselves why they are voting for people who don;' care to protect them and actively resist any help in protecting them.
Only Congress has the power to gainsay what determination the President makes in regards to this particular law. The Constitution and the act itself gives zero power to any judge. The only legal tactic that has any ground to stand on would be to attack the act itself with the argument that Congress can't delegate that particular power to the Executive in the first place but I don't see that argument holding much water either.
Ugh. I didn't calm down enough to spell "of" right. AI should do better at proofing my screeds.
Those dishonest headlines on posts work on us. That's why they do it. People post things to get engagement, not to provide honest journalism. It took a while, but I've lost the need to click them. I assume they are all lies when they have a certain style.
My opinion about the first clip, Althouse. The lady’s come back is excellent. Her response doesn’t agree with the supposition that she made anyone look like a fool, but it does reject the premise, with humor, that she is young. I don’t know if that is why you clipped it, but I found it enjoyable as a response.
I’m also annoyed with the social media gamemanship of “watch this person get destroyed by this person” or “person is humiliated by this one comment”. Click bait nonsense. Charlie Kirk was destroyed by a gunman. That happened. It likely was encouraged, if not intentionally, by suggestions that he “destroyed” other people’s argument by making a statement that maybe 30% of people would understand and of that 60% might even agree. Just have a conversation, and rather than scoring debate points, do like Charlie Kirk claimed to do, and actually try to reach out and change minds. It doesn’t count to get admiration from people that already agreed with you.
Well... he did look foolish insofar as he was clearly wrong based on at least one obvious example. He wanted his talking point to carry the day and was shot down, not based on some esoteric minutiae, but plain reality. He's a shill and always has been.
As for what social media does, I don't always care for it either, but things like this would have never seen the light of day outside conservative circles but for Elon Musk buying Twitter.
How about we not complain about light being shined on issues that were previously discarded to the junk pile of alleged "misinformation" by the legacy media.
The last thing Trump should be doing would be the first things that others did to him, which ended up getting him elected. Although his actions are being painted by the opposition as unhinged, or extreme, I think in truth his policy decisions have been pretty deliberate.
His best strategy for the 4 year term is going to be reminding people what normal Federal government activity looks like, instead of trotting out male officials dressing as women, with some of them stealing luggage for fashion ideas.
The Insurrection Act, for years, lawyers have been saying this was far too broad. They warned about it at the beginning of the Biden administration, this is the time to change the Insurrection Act. We missed the opportunity...
People are portraying this as an endorsement of Trump's action, but it seems she's opposed to his stance.
Trump supporters on X seem to be missing that.
Two posts at mid morning...
If you really were sorry about putting up that social media post ragging the young lady on her looks, why would you leave it up in the top position all morning and encourage your boys to keep commenting on it? You usually have 10 up by now, bumping that one off the prominent positioning... Actions speak louder than words, mean grrrl. You're still the fairest of the fair. Have your husband post more pictures to boost your ego? You're prettier than her, professor, really. She wears glasses, you are more a giggler...
Trump should concentrate where the greatest potential success exists. Part of the problem is that National Guard troops are not law enforcement. Perhaps active duty MPs would be a better choice. Pick one city and break the backs of the gangs, fund and recruit more civilian cops coordinate with the FBI to sustain the gains. I'd do Memphis first.
Look around the table: Stephanopoulos, Chris Christie, Donna Brazille, and somebody else few viewers have heard of -- so of course she's a "random young lady" to some of them.
Remember all the indignation about Bari Weiss taking over at CBS: "She's not a journalist!" "She's an opinionator!" She actually was a journalist at the NY Times. George Stephanopoulos was a political operator and ABC made him their anchor. There's still a lot of indignation about that on the right, as well as the assumption that most of the time he does look like a fool.
"She does contradict him, and makes him look wrong. She makes it seem like he had no idea that Eisenhower sent in the National Guard in Arkansas. I believe that George knew that perfectly well. He just didn't want to mention it."
George says "usually":
ISGUR: Nearly half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act during their terms, some more than once. Donald Trump said he would do it during his first time.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Not over the objections of governors, usually. Usually.
"lawyers have been saying this was far too broad. "
The problem with the way it is written, what makes it too broad, is that it could conceivably be applied to Democrats, not just Republicans.
The head of the ICC said that he was told by a European leader that the ICC was not supposed to go after Western leaders, only the "thugs" and "dictators" on the other side, meanwhile, Macron, who probably said it, won't resign, even as all of France demands it, and the National Assembly will not approve any of his appointments to run the government and won't approve his budget. In the olden days, you know, five years ago, that was a sure hint that you ought to step down. Now it's "protecting democracy" to avoid the election that an entire nation is screaming for.
Pick one city and break the backs of the gangs,
-------
Lol. The old white men want to see a SHOW!
The deaths of innocents in Palestine had brought out the blood lust. It's not going to be pretty pitting active duty MPs against street gangs armed with much the same arsenal today. Lots of deaths, many of whom will be innocents. Be careful what you wish for, old man.
Rule of law and non-violence really are best even it the law professors are turning against knowledge and taking up the gun.
The democrat social media and politicians on this and so many other issues have picked up the Hamas propaganda booklet so much that there isn’t anything they post that i completely discount. They have to bring receipts and I want to hear what “actually” happened first.
Ann Althouse said...
"She does contradict him, and makes him look wrong. She makes it seem like he had no idea that Eisenhower sent in the National Guard in Arkansas. I believe that George knew that perfectly well. He just didn't want to mention it."
George says "usually":
ISGUR: Nearly half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act during their terms, some more than once. Donald Trump said he would do it during his first time.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Not over the objections of governors, usually. Usually.
Why are you trying so hard to make it seem like Stephanopoulos is anything other than a stand in for whatever democrat talking point is being debated?
When democrats look stupid Stephanopoulos looks stupid. He is a democrat. That is how it works.
They're not in charge of their party anymore but still have to side with their team
I went on a little Substack odyssey yesterday, some of which was a revisiting of The Coddling of the American Mind, some of which was a piece in The Liberal Patriot, I think written by John Halperin. Halperin was again trying to catalog what went wrong for Democrats last year and through the present, and he gets closer than many - he doesn't insist that it's just the messaging, but acknowledges that the policies and the attitudes are at the heart of Democrats' present losses in the culture war. Where he, and Ruy Texeira, both fall down is in their apparent belief that all that has to happen is for Democrat leaders to decide to return to the paths of righteousness from their sojourn in the land of ridiculousness.
And this is where The Coddling of the American Mind comes in. One of the points brought up therein is that professors, even progressive ones, were terrified of their students and self-censored on that account. This piece was written as a 10-year lookback at the original article and book by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff (I think it was he who was the co-author - but if I navigate away from this page to Google, a lot of times it deletes my comment, and I'm just not up for safeguarding against that), so that professor-terror was prevalent enough 10 years ago to be featured in the book, meaning that it had already been happening for some time.
In other words: Democrat leaders can't "decide" anything unless it's to go all-in with their most extreme wing.
The reason Ice is in Chicago is because Chicago has the largest hispanic population outside LA. With the associated crime and graft.
Stephanopoulos does not look like a fool... he is far left.. thus he is a fool by definition.
This is why Democrats avoid long form interactions. It's way too easy to get tripped up, when they know that their real agenda is very unpopular will everybody but the billionaires, who are kind of nation destroying Bolsheviks. Even a lot of Russians hated the Soviets for not only trying to destroy the Estonians, Latvians, etc, but they also tried to destroy the Russian nationality. That's why they had no problem lopping off part of Russia and putting it in Ukraine. "What is a nation, after all?" Now that the billionaires have the money safely in their own hands, you know, where they are certain it will be used only for good, they revert to their bolshevism.
So they are using the same nation destroying techniques that the Soviets used.
Note: I use "nation" here to mean a linguistically and culturally distinct group that feels an affinity. Like, you know, the Ukrainians, or Americans or Canadians back in the olden days, before the Democrats project to destroy our national cohesiveness got really underway.
Yes, the "owned" or "pwned" thing is dumb and annoying, but it gets people to notice and comment. It's an outgrowth of making the talking heads around the table political consultants whose whole business was scoring points, catching the other side and making them look ridiculous -- or journalists who've come to play the same partisan role. The networks have learned that a dispassionate discussion of the pros and cons of both sides doesn't attract viewers or attention on social media. Tweeters picked up on that and framed everything as a contest or competition where their side crushed the other.
About France: in the old days, the President was a figurehead with little power. The prime minister held the reins and governments came and went with every election or vote of no confidence. Today, in the Fifth Republic, Presidents have the power and they stick around to the end of their term even if the legislature and the country hate them. Kind of like the US.
The problem with the Democratic Party is that it has abandoned most of the Democratic voters in favor of an extreme minority of the ultra woke and the ultra rich. Another major mistake is still believing in the power of money and mainstream media in campaigns rather than the power of freeballing social media and page views. Finally, the coup de gras is the hemorrhaging youths.
Dems not willing to keep their people see 2014 ferguson 2015 baltimore
When democrats look stupid Stephanopoulos looks stupid. He is a democrat. That is how it works.
Under Critical Diversity Theory, yes.
They will try to abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon, and have her too. People aren't so green, and political congruence is a progressive principle with similar returns.
They have been hoisted on their own petard.
We have Democrats firing rifles into ICE vans, wanting to kill ICE agents. (They actually killed illegal immigrants, oops.)
This does sort of line up with Eisenhower and the 101st into Arkansas. Feds try to enforce the law and angry leftists try to intimidate this action.
Yes, clickbait "headlines" are annoying, but it is what it is. I think all the "You won't believe what happened next..." and "Remember her from TV? Well, you won't believe what she looks like today" crap started as an attempt to trick old people into a phishing scam.
All that aside, Stephanopoulos deserves all the flak he receives. Nothing wrong with being a partisan, but a partisan pretending to be an objective journalist is the worst.
By my count the Insurrection Act has been invoked by 15 presidents. Last time was by George I.
I long for the days of two 80 year olds at an election debate arguing about who was a better golfer.
The idea ISN'T to use the military to do law enforcement, it's to use the military to protect federal LEOs and facilities so that THEY can do law enforcement.
That is law enforcement.
How is protecting buildings from vandalism and arson not law enforcement? How is protecting fellow officers from assault not law enforcement? How is crowd control and riot control not law enforcement?
Why are you being snarky? Isn't concern about the uses of federal power right in the conservative wheelhouse? Perhaps you read into my comment that I oppose Trump on this. Actually, I deliberately didn't say either way.
Instapundit wrote a piece about the Insurrection Act. If I read it correctly, he points out that the broad discretion given to the President likely precludes judicial review. Given the political corruption of the federal district judges, it seems likely that Trump will invoke the Act at some point.
"George Stephanopoulus DESTROYED by young lady!" Yes, the baity-bait stuff has been intolerably predictable, misleading, and juvenile for years now. But, like Nigerian $$$ scams, they must get enough low-involvement, high-dudgeon folk clicking to make it worthwhile.
Georgie steppininit - yah got 30 seconds young lady, did orange man go too far? And hurry it up, I gotta get my final say in.
I also loved the bit about not usually of the Governors objections. I agree with Althouse, I'm sure georgie porgie did this for the benefit of his libtard audience. But I mean really. Don't they teach about the civil rights movement in HS? I thought that was there No. 1 history topic.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Little Rock desegregation), John F. Kennedy (Ole Miss and Alabama school integrations), Lyndon B. Johnson (Selma marches, Detroit riot, post-MLK assassination unrest).
Interestingly, Reagan did during the atlanta prison riots and Bush did during the LA riots. Why Trump didn't do it during the BLM/Antifa riots if beyond me.
Sarah Isgur may be familiar from The Dispatch which features cartoons of their contributors on their web page. I think of her cartoon as "crazy ex-girlfriend." Jonah Goldberg's as "sweaty guy beset by flies." Kevin Williamson's as "snobby British butler." Nick "Allahpundit" Catoggio's cartoon picture is a donkey, like Eeyore.
Trump did call out the national guard in 2020 to deal with disturbances in DC. That was called unprecedented. Was it? I doubt it. Federal law enforcement units were sent to other cities experiencing riots. That didn't make much of an impression. It was an election year and maybe sending in the national guard would have provided fodder for Democrat claims that Trump was "building an autocracy."
Omigod, someone was dissing!
Click bate social media is the news landscape today. One can complain about it but it’s not changing.
Stephanopoulus did the old trick he is used to doing to control the conversation and steer the panelists to his desired talking point. He didn’t want a history lesson, he wanted to isolate the Insurrection Act as a new and scary new thing. A straight down the middle host would ask “ how has the insurrection act been used in the past?”
I got sucked into similar sensationalist nonsense about this same program. The clickbait was "ABC host cuts off JD Vance, after Vance schools him over Leftwing rabbit holes". Now, I loved what JD did. But Georgie Porgie didn't "Cut him off". They'd come to the end of their fairly long segment. He was curt. But that exchange came at the end of the segment.
BTW, notice how mediocre and biased the panel is. Georgie Porgie, Brazzile, Igur, and NJ Fats. 3 trump haters and 1 possible trump hater. Before they'd discussed the shutdown and all blamed Trump for Chuck Schumer shutting down the Government. NJ Fats is there to attack Trump, while still pretending to be some sort of Republican. His political career is over, and he's happy to an attack dog for the Left MSM. Anything for a buck.
Trump offered leftists the benefit of the doubt. But when they doubled-down, and refused to separate their religion (i.e. Pro-Choice) from state, and supported American civil liberties unburdened, then he had only one Choice... sequester the thought. He had only one choice. Fool me once....
Now that I think of it, it was Bill Barr that prevented Trump from using the insurrection act. Preview of coming attractions.
To be insulted by someone is bad enough, but when its a poor speller- now thats intolerable.
Actually spelling ability has little to do with it. Its usually just failing to take the time to correct typos and proofread. I know when I type (i learned late in life), God knows what'll come out. Omitted words, wrong word (there, their), similar words (off for Often).
When writing by hand all I need to do is check the spelling. But with typing...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Not over the objections of governors, usually. Usually.
How many times has the President desired to federalize the national guard but refrained due to a governor's objections?
I asked Grok:
Dwight D. Eisenhower Orval Faubus Arkansas1957 Federalized Arkansas National Guard to enforce integration of Little Rock Central High School after Faubus used the Guard to block Black students, defying Brown v. Board of Education. Eisenhower deployed 1,000 Army paratroopers alongside.
John F. Kennedy Ross Barnett Mississippi1962 Federalized Mississippi National Guard to protect James Meredith's integration of the University of Mississippi amid riots. Barnett resisted federal court orders, leading to 2 deaths and federal troops' intervention.
John F. Kennedy George Wallace Alabama1963 Federalized Alabama National Guard to enforce integration of the University of Alabama after Wallace's "stand in the schoolhouse door" protest. Troops ensured two Black students enrolled.
Lyndon B. Johnson George Wallace Alabama1965 Federalized Alabama National Guard to protect Selma-to-Montgomery civil rights marchers after Wallace refused to deploy state troops for safety. Johnson sent 1,900 Guardsmen and 2,000 Army troops.
Donald Trump Gavin Newsom California 2025 Federalized ~2,000 California National Guard troops to protect federal immigration agents amid protests in Los Angeles. Newsom opposed it as "inflammatory," filing a lawsuit (initially blocked but upheld on appeal), marking the first such instance in 60 years.
According to Grok there have been about 32 instances, mostly with cooperation, but many of those instances are for natural disasters which the Governor really does want Federal help. And then there are the cases that the Governors did it all on their own without waiting for the President. And since the Governors in this case don't wat to quell the riots, they will oppose the President's actions., and if they did want to they wouldn't need to Feds to nationlize. So by inference, if the Governor supports the insurrection, s/he would oppose the President's action.
So the Usually seems disingenuous. Usually governors cooperate, but that is not what is at issue. What if the Governors are supportive of the insurrection (albeit, not overtly)? If the insurrection act is in play, the President does not need the "mother may I" approval of the Governor, but USUALLY the Governor is not on the side of the insurrectionists.
https://x.com/nypost/status/1978453004350115857
Wa St Blogger lays it effectively. If the governors want federal assistance or want issue on the ground dealt with the Insurrection Act is not needed.
Stephanopolis knows this but is being an obtuse partisan.
Stuffitoooopsolis.
The nitpicking by our esteemed hostess to defend George S for this is its own form of civility bullshit.
You watch enough of these shows over the years and watch partisan “journalists” like Stephanopolis enough you observe that every Dem talking point is nodded along to and only challenged to emphasize it positively while every GOP official is grilled on every detail and given zero benefit of the doubt
It’s as predictable as the sunrise.
So when little George steps on a rake and takes one to the face, it’s civility bullshit to give him the benefit of the doubt.
How is protecting buildings from vandalism and arson not law enforcement? How is protecting fellow officers from assault not law enforcement? How is crowd control and riot control not law enforcement?
Why are you being snarky? Isn't concern about the uses of federal power right in the conservative wheelhouse? Perhaps you read into my comment that I oppose Trump on this. Actually, I deliberately didn't say either way.
Soldiers do not have the power of arrest, nor do they have the training to make arrests that will stand up in court. They do, however, have the power to shoot to kill. I hope they do not need to use it. If it happens that they do need to use that power, I hope they will not hesitate.
Does George S. say "usually" as a qualification? I have watched the clip several times, and he is muttering incomprehensibly. That transcript looks like a cleanup in Aisle 4.
Then you insult me.
@Althouse, if you are going to engage with contentious political issues, and take sides, then you need a thicker skin. And, yes, I get that you don't believe that you are in fact taking sides. But you are.
It's funny and amazing when we see an honest take from a liberal in the media.
It freaks us all out.
George wins if he gets an argument to go viral. That is his job. It has nothing to do with informing the public.
Argument good. Facts irrelevant. That is the reward system.
I'm sick of social media things like that — Young lady makes Stephanopoulos look like a fool.
Yah. The ones with ‘calls out’ are the worst for me. I’ve learned to assume the content won’t match the headline…
…and yah, as This Week leftie propaganda goes this one looks pretty tame…though why does George try to suggest with the ‘usually’ bit? It does make him look ignorant of history…
"Bill Barr that prevented Trump from using the insurrection act.
Bill Barr's father was an associate of Epstein, and also wrote a sci fi novel with a lot of explicit "man-young girl" sex scenes. Which is why it is no surprise that he was tasked with looking into Epstein's murder.
Rehajm. George S is trying to steer the conversation to make it seem like using the IA act is new and unique and Trump and, therefore, a crisis. His line of questioning and response is not sincere.
"Presidents have the power and they stick around to the end of their term even if the legislature and the country hate them. Kind of like the US."
Except that in the US, the government will still function when Congress repudiates the President's policies utterly.
’Orval Faubus’
Such an exceptional name! Also the dude who caused the members of Augusta National to push, and financially support, Ike for president.
@ Big Mike
They also have the power to detain people who can then be prosecuted by civilian authorities for breaking the law.
Law enforcement is insuring obedience to laws, prevention of crimes, apprehension of criminals.
The Insurrection Act provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act and allows the president to use the military to enforce civil and criminal law.
Seems like we're arguing over semantics. If it's not law enforcement, what is the correct term?
I did some fact checking, after a recent screw up that came from trusting a source in the media, and Bill Barr's father hired Epstein to teach at Dalton Academy despite the fact that he had no degree, which was kind of a no no for a school that was supposed to uphold rigorous academic standards, and he did write sci fi novels, which I am not going to read to find out if they really contain such sex scenes. Wouldn't have them in the house.
Trump didn't send the soldiers to shoot people and if that was their only function it wouldn't be less of a cause for concern.
Seems like we're arguing over semantics. If it's not law enforcement, what is the correct term?
We are arguing over semantics. The soldiers are defending, which requires no new terminology.
"It's funny and amazing when we see an honest take from a liberal in the media."
A "liberal." She was Trump official during his first Administration. 🤣😂🤣
Uh oh! I just saw Bad Bunny eating at the Cracker Barrel! Derp, derp.
Bush called in the troops during the LA riots. But Trump couldnt in 2020 when BLM/Antifa were burning and looting. Not to mention attacking the Federal Building in Portland on a nightly basis.
Why? Because Bill Barr (traitor) Espry (traitor) and General Milly Vanilli (traitor) all opposed it. And leaked their opposition to the press. Man Trump sure could pick 'em!
When you look back, almost every significant Trump cabinet/high level appointee was a backstabbing shit. Trump seems to have believed either (1) that loyalty didn't matter or (2) he trusted people who were recommending these traitors.
He went with Wray for FBI because his "Good friend" Chris Christie recommended him. Supposedly Bush 43 told him that Barr was "one hell of a guy" so Trump gave him the AG job. And Espry was CEO of Boeing - and Trump 45 loved Corporate execs "So smart. So tough".
As General Millie Vanilli - God knows knows why Trump chose. Probably because he went to Princeton and Trump 45 LOVED ivy leaguers - "So smart". LOL.
Looks like Trump 47 is much smarter. CF: Franklin "Experience is a dear school..."
As far as I can tell, and I may be wrong, the "Insurrection Act" was a Radical Republican measure that was passed so the North could use troops to oppress the South during Reconstruction. It was also used to Cleveland to quell anti-Chinese riots on the west coast and stop protests for the Pullman strike. It was also used by FDR to stop the 1943 race riot. So, its really curious why Liberal/leftists wouldn't know the history.
BTW, you can sure tell Grok is leftwing. It lists an "Illegal use" of the insurrection act in 1932 to clear out the bonus army. And then list Douglas MacArthur as "The President". LOL!
Insane. MacArthur just carried out Hoover's orders. No insurrection act was invoked because it was DC. Talk garbage in - garbage out.
George wins if he gets an argument to go viral. That is his job. It has nothing to do with informing the public.
This. And to make it happen, you have to be on the side in charge of editing, which he is.
On a related note, Cenk from The Young Turks was talking today? yesterday? about "IDF soldiers executing Gazans in the streets." It does not even matter whether he knows that it was Hamas doing the executing; he is a "news source" and therefore some number of people will believe him. And his job - to make Israel look indefensibly bad, which is what he always considers his job to be with regard to Israel - is done.
I wasn't being snarky, Boyd -- just making a distinction between the military being called in to protect ICE officers (and facilities) and the military being called in to perform the law enforcement functions of ICE (e.g., identifying and apprehending illegal immigrants). I think the former would be more precisely described as "providing security," "maintaining order," or "crowd control." Moreover, while this IS largely about semantics, you referred to a concern about the military doing law enforcement. However, if the mission given to the military here is as I have described (i.e., protecting federal LEOs and property), then I don't think it's all that worrisome or controversial for the vast majority of Americans. It's a given here that the affected cities and states are REFUSING to provide police protection to ICE, and this is why security needs to be provided by some kind of armed personnel that under federal control. If it's not going to be federalized national guard troops or regular army troops, who is it going to be? The U.S. Marshall Service? The FBI? There aren't infinite choices of whom to send in. On the face of it, the military seems like the most obvious choice.
We are arguing over semantics. The soldiers are defending, which requires no new terminology.
They are defending...by doing the law enforcement Dem-Americans won't do.
I think what we're actually arguing about is that I said I understood the concerns some people have about use of the military to do law enforcement. I think some may have interpreted that as sympathy for George Stephanopolis. If so, that's my fault for not being clear.
I wasn't thinking of George Stephanopolis or anyone of that ilk when I wrote that preface to my first comment. GS isn't concerned. He's a pure political hack doing propaganda.
I was actually thinking of concerns expressed by a friend of mine I had a conversation with yesterday on this topic. He's not a lib or a lefty in any way. He's actually very anti authority in any context. Almost unreasonably so. His position in summation was that he doesn't like the idea of the feds coming in and usurping local authority. It's a slippery slope, a power grab, etc. I argued with him in favor of what Trump has done so far. I understand my friend's position, which is not in defense of antifa or the Dems at all, but was purely a small government argument.
That's why I liked this Althouse post, because it clarified the things Trump is doing are far from unprecedented.
I forwarded a link to it to my friend.
Anyway, if you think I was speaking in sympathy with GS, no f'ing way. It was in sympathy with a small government approach to things a President can do.
The idea ISN'T to use the military to do law enforcement, it's to use the military to protect federal LEOs and facilities so that THEY can do law enforcement.
This cannot be repeated often enough.
"I'm sick of social media things like that — Young lady makes Stephanopoulos look like a fool. "
Beloved young lady broke her silence, clapped back and schooled far left Clinton supporter .Stephanopoulos
yeah the terror of the waterbuffalo guy, oh noes, vs the actual destruction that visited in portland for 90 days in 2020,, and in dc in 2017 and 2020
https://twitchy.com/grateful-calvin/2025/10/15/lol-kamala-harris-was-the-most-qualified-person-to-run-for-president-says-kamala-harris-n2420382
George Stephanopoulos is a Tiny Tool.
the size of a large tool
https://therightscoop.com/breaking-report-trump-secretly-authorizes-lethal-operations-in-venezuela-by-cia/ these practices are why they don't want to sign on, to the statement,
Young Turks? Cenk is a middle-aged turkey 🦃.
it refers to the genocidal armenian clique, but yeah he's long in the tooth,
"Wait until they learn Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Inconceivable!"
Wait until they learn that the Supreme Court ruled Lincoln (and so Trump) has that power.
Wait until they learn that Lincoln appointed military leaders as governors of rogue states such as Illinois, California, New York, Massachusetts today - replacing their elected governors with military Generals.
Wait until they learn that Lincoln ordered the US military to fire on US citizens who insisted on keeping black people down.
Wait until they learn that Lincoln used the military to kill over a quarter million people in the United States.
Wait until they learn that Lincoln has one of the most impressive monuments on our national mall and his bust on Mt. Rushmore and Donald Trump does not.
There's a reason Lincoln is on Mt. Rushmore and Trump isn't.
Lincoln didn't put up with the Democrat Party. He shot at it.
Is Stephanopoulos stupid? Not likely. But he's either trying to mislead with the "objection" comment, or even knowing he's in charge of the panel, he and his staff failed to do minimal research.
Re: Lincoln
Involuntary exploitation and Diversity were progressive choices and combined with Democratic insurrections were intolerable. Republicans addressed the original compromise and aborted the bitter clingers to a class-disordered ideology (e.g. racism). Today, thosincorporation are, again, led by leftist special and peculiar interests, including: Occupy, BLM, Antifa, and other mainstream incorporations.
“The Insurrection Act, for years, lawyers have been saying this was far too broad. They warned about it at the beginning of the Biden administration, this is the time to change the Insurrection Act. We missed the opportunity...”
If the Dems wanted the Insurrection Act weakened, they went about it the wrong way. They shouldn’t be keeping Trump from bringing in the NG in OR and IL with their pet judges finding that even though he has discretion to do so, he doesn’t have that much discretion. If the Insurrection Act is the only way to get the NG to protect federal employees doing their jobs, as well as federal property, then that is what he will do. While showing the videos ignored by those rogue judges showing attacks on federal employees and properties while announcing his actions. And if the commander of the ORNG wants to ignore the lawful orders of CinC POTUS, he can await trial in Leavenworth, KS.
Meanwhile Dem militant groups like AntiFA, as well as drug cartels, have put bounties on the heads of ICE agents, their families, their supervisors, and Republicans politicians. I really don’t think that is going to work out well for the Dems, and especially those trying to weaken the Insurrection Act.
https://nypost.com/2025/10/14/media/nbc-news-to-cut-150-jobs-7-of-workforce-as-staffers-dreading-whats-to-come-at-30-rock/
George tried to get that "usually" slider past Isgur. She squared up and hit it about 430.
Wa St Blogger said...
“Ugh. I didn't calm down enough to spell "of" right. AI should do better at proofing my screeds.”
No too be too critical, but you should of been more careful.
That’s one of those “oh noes… anyway” moments, narciso.
Smallest violin iman
STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether it's true or not?
=================
why interpose this ? has any President invoke falsely?
Because stef speaks like lillian hellman 'every word is a lie including the & and'
Since January, Democrats have called Trump an "Authoritarian", without evidence, precisely for any situation requiring Executive action. You'd think Democrats would choke out from all the lies they spread
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/the-insurrection-act
ederal authority
§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
“So first, it’s discretionary to employ: “Whenever the President considers.” This language leaves no room for judicial review, by design; it’s up to the President to determine when the predicates for invoking the Act apply. Second, this phrase, “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” seems to fit perfectly with what’s going on in places like Portland or Chicago.”
“Third, discretionary language again: “as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.””
“It’s entirely up to the President under the statute. You may think it’s a bad idea -- I’m not so sure it is, because I don’t think it’s a good idea for state and local governments to have a veto on federal law enforcement actions -- but it’s entirely lawful. And, properly understood, not subject to judicial review. (The Insurrection Act, once triggered, also overrides the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition on using the military for law enforcement purposes.)”
> genocidal armenian clique,
That phrase makes Armenians sound like the perpetrators when they were of course the victims.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.