Maskless Nadler says the violence from Antifa in Portland is a myth.

I ran into Jerry Nadler in DC and asked him to disavow the Antifa violence/rioting in Portland.

His response?

“THATS A MYTH” pic.twitter.com/veImyE2rju

— Essential Fleccas 🇺🇸 (@fleccas) July 27, 2020

I can't tell what he's calling a myth — maybe only the role of Antifa — but he sure scurried out of there. Did not want to discuss any details.

He calls it "a myth spread that's being spread only in Washington D.C." That's plainly untrue.

IN THE COMMENTS: Earnest Prole said:

A month ago you were saying it was “horrible” to hold Antifa responsible for the violence and disorder accompanying the protests, and now you’re mocking Jerry Nadler?

I appreciate that he provided a link to my June 22nd post, but let's take a close look at exactly what I said, because there is absolutely no contradiction. It begins with a quote from the WaPo "Fact Checker":

"There has not yet been a single confirmed case in which someone who self-identifies as antifa led violent acts at any of the protests across the country. The president and his administration have placed an outsize burden of blame on antifa, without waiting for arrest data and completed investigations. This is not the first time Trump has pointed to antifa as a shadowy nemesis. But the misinformation created by his continued insistence of antifa’s involvement has led to more chaos and violence in an already turbulent moment. As always, the burden of proof rests with the speaker — and the administration has provided no evidence, only assertions that it has evidence. Trump earns Four Pinocchios."

Write Meg Kelly and Elyse Samuels at the Washington Post "Fact Checker," addressing the many statements by Trump that the Black Lives Matter protests involve antifa.

I go on to connect that to the recent problem at the NYT and quote an earlier post of mine:

This, by the way, was also the problem the NYT had with the Tom Cotton op-ed. As I said when the NYT first expressed regret for publishing the piece:

A particular problem with Cotton's piece was that it said "left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes," but the NYT has not yet reported that the violent element was antifa. Its news story on June 1 had said "conservative commentators are asserting with little evidence that antifa, the far-left anti-fascism activist movement coordinates the riots and looting."

Whether Cotton was right or wrong about the facts, there is a problem with factual assertions in op-eds. I've written op-eds for the NYT, and it was with a very short deadline and I was trusted to get the facts in order. I don't know how much the Times intends to change its process, but I assume it wants and needs to have some distance between itself and the writers it brings in from the outside to give a hot take on a breaking controversial story.

I added: "Why isn't there more reporting in the NYT about who's responsible for the violence and disorder accompanying the protests?"

I'm mildly glad to see the WaPo Fact Checker addressing this topic, but it's pathetic that this basic level of journalistic inquiry is coming so late. It is, however, horrible that Trump (and Cotton) have spread this meme. Maybe they are right and the Fact Checker is wrong, but it's not enough to luck out in the end and have said something that turns out to be the truth. We should care about the truth for the sake of truth and care about it all along. There's so little of that these days.

You see my use of the word "horrible." Earnest Prole wrongly paraphrased me as saying "it was 'horrible' to hold Antifa responsible." I clearly said that I didn't know one way or the other and I wanted the journalists and the politicians to focus on getting the facts. It's not horrible to hold Antifa responsible if Antifa is responsible.

In this post today, I said "I can't tell what [Nadler is] calling a myth — maybe only the role of Antifa...." I'm still showing you that I don't know who is doing the violence. The interview in the clip is cut off. I'd like to see the whole thing. Is Nadler denying that there is violence in Portland? It's very weird to say that, so I'm inclined to guess that he was only saying that it's a myth to say it's Antifa. Now, he's still plainly wrong — as I said above — to say that it's only in Washington that people are saying the violent element in the protests is Antifa.

So I'm completely consistent with my June 22nd statement. I want to know who is doing the violence! Is it Antifa? Where is the investigative journalism? Are there peaceful protesters who deserve recognition for their dedication to nonviolence, whose cause is undermined by a separate set of people? I still don't know. I would like Nadler to issue a clear statement telling us what he knows and what he believes is going on.

Is "Antifa" a useful word or concept? Is it a shibboleth of the right?

An endless loop of loopy Nadler.

This person has power over you. pic.twitter.com/I2smbAFtTq

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) June 9, 2020

"Jerry. Jerry. Jerry."

Nadler ripped final argument away from Schiff, thinks Shifty did a terrible job. They are fighting big time! https://t.co/L2qTV9pWiL

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 31, 2020

Live-TV tedious excitement over the naming of the House managers for the show trial in the Senate.

I'm overhearing Fox News (with, I'm assured, MSNBC getting recorded) and (as I'm trying to finish my post about Michael Moore's assertion that Elizabeth Warren stabbed Bernie Sanders in the back) I'm seeing the faux-drama in the New York Times...



Nancy Pelosi is about to do a big reveal. How much do you care and how much depends on who the hell the House managers are?

I find this a bit irritating, this political theater.

UPDATE: I watched the announcement, but all I remember is Nancy Pelosi going on about the Constitution and mentioning Abraham Lincoln, Paul Revere, and "These are the times that try men's souls." And somebody said that not only would Trump be on trial, but the Senate is on trial. And Nadler, looking disturbingly green, said Trump is on trial and also democracy is on trial. The frame of what's "on trial" is ever-expanding. What do you think is on trial? I'll just say it's trying my patience. And my patience pleads not guilty.

I'm adding some tags with this update, and I tried to add "Paul Revere," not that I wanted to create a new "Paul Revere" tag, but I'd add the tag if it already existed. Did it? Well... kind of...



AND: Is my use of the term "show trial" apt? It's not the normal show trial, where the predetermined outcome is that the accused will be found guilty and punished. From Wikipedia:

A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and they are also conducted for propagandistic purposes. The term was first recorded in 1928.

In the case of Trump's impeachment trial, the show is of hearing the accusations and the predetermined outcome is that the accused will be vindicated and nothing will happen to him. But there is a propagandistic purpose to it, and it's some kind of effort to warn other would-be transgressors. And yet, it's not very scary, is it? Indeed, in the future, the threat of impeachment may lose its power. It's just political nonsense.

"Inviting the administration now to participate in an after-the-fact constitutional law seminar with yet-to-be-named witnesses only demonstrates further the countless procedural deficiencies..."

"... that have infected this inquiry from its inception and shows the lack of seriousness with which you are undertaking these proceedings. An academic discussion cannot retroactively fix an irretrievably broken process."

Wrote White House Counsel Pat Cipollone in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chair Nadler. The hearing in question, is scheduled for December 4th, and — as Cipollone understands "from rumors and press reports" and not from any official notice — "will consist of an academic discussion by law professors."

ADDED: I must say that as a longtime law professor, I'm finding the disrespect for law professors inadequate. You heard me right. I do not for one minute believe that the 3 lawprofs the Judiciary Committee will put on display will be speaking as if they are conducting something that deserves to be called an "academic seminar." But I understand Cipollone's refraining from getting into the problem of the politicalization of the academic field of constitutional law.

AND: "Seminar" is an interesting word. It's only been in the English language since the late 19th century, according to OED. It was originally something done in German universities, "a select group of advanced students associated for special study and original research under the guidance of a professor" and it came to mean "a class that meets for systematic study under the direction of a teacher." The oldest appearance in English is:

1889 A. S. Hill Our English v. 209 In New York and Washington, if I am not misinformed, ‘seminars’ are periodically held, at which a clever woman coaches other clever women in the political, literary, and ethical topics of the day.

Clever women. You can really feel the insult in "clever." In Samuel Johnson's dictionary (1755), the entry for "clever" is: "This is a low word, scarcely ever used but in burlesque or conversation; and applied to any thing a man likes, without a settled meaning."

Why is Adam Schiff — as chair of the Intelligence Committee — running the impeachment inquiry?

The Washington Examiner examines:

While the Judiciary Committee has traditionally handled the impeachment process and has held those hearings in public, [its chair Jerry] Nadler had run afoul of Pelosi over his handling of the investigation and his decision to hold a series of highly partisan public hearings that were criticized by both parties.

Republicans believe Democratic leaders were looking for a way to transfer control to Schiff, who is more closely aligned with Pelosi and runs a committee that traditionally holds hearings behind closed doors....

The whistleblower complaint prompted Pelosi to give Schiff total control over impeachment proceedings that he has so far conducted mostly out of the public’s view.

And didn't the whistleblower consult with Schiff before filing the complaint? Yes. Here is the Washington Post (from October 2):

"Mr. Nadler has said repeatedly that his committee is engaged in an impeachment investigation — or, if you prefer, an impeachment inquiry."

"He insists the 'nomenclature' does not matter. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and her leadership team clearly disagree. They assiduously avoid the 'I' word, painting the committee’s work as garden-variety oversight. As a result, even Democratic lawmakers don’t seem to know whether they are engaged in an impeachment inquiry. Representative Pramila Jayapal has said 'yes.' Representative Jim Himes has said 'no.' Last week, Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, said 'no' — then backtracked, claimed he’d misheard the question and offered a non-answer instead...."

From "When Is Impeachment Not Impeachment?/When the speaker of the House thinks it is politically foolhardy" by the NYT The Editorial Board

Democrats are too busy "impeaching" President Trump to worry about "impeaching" Brett Kavanaugh.

"'Get real': Senior Democrats shut down Kavanaugh impeachment push/Democratic leaders are panning new demands by the left to oust the Supreme Court justice" (Politico).

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler similarly dismissed the idea of an impeachment inquiry, arguing in a radio interview Monday that the committee is “concentrating our resources on determining whether to impeach the president.” The New York Democrat said it’s one thing for progressives to call for impeachment but for him “it’s a consequential action, which we have to be able to justify.”...

Nadler told The New York Times just before Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote in October that he planned to thoroughly investigate the allegations, including subpoenaing White House and FBI records and interviewing the accusers.... But since regaining control of the House in January, Democrats have done little to revisit the issue...

"This is to advise you that the president has asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials."

Said a Justice Department official, referring to the Mueller report and the underlying evidence, the NYT reports just now.

Mr. Barr released a redacted version of the special counsel’s 448-page report voluntarily last month. But Democrats say that is not good enough, and they have accused the attorney general of stonewalling a legitimate request for material they need to carry out an investigation into possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power by Mr. Trump....

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, released a blistering statement: "The American people see through Chairman Nadler’s desperate ploy to distract from the President’s historically successful agenda and our booming economy. Neither the White House nor Attorney General Barr will comply with Chairman Nadler’s unlawful and reckless demands... Faced with Chairman Nadler’s blatant abuse of power, and at the Attorney General’s request, the President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege.”

Only time will tell!

President Trump, tweeting this morning (here and here):

Congressman Jerry Nadler fought me for years on a very large development I built on the West Side of Manhattan. He wanted a Rail Yard built underneath the development or even better, to stop the job. He didn’t get either & the development became VERY successful. Nevertheless,....

....I got along very well with Jerry during the zoning and building process. Then I changed course (slightly), became President, and now I am dealing with Congressman Nadler again. Some things never end, but hopefully it will all go well for everyone. Only time will tell!

Then I changed course (slightly).... very funny.

Focus!

There is no amount of testimony or document production that can satisfy Jerry Nadler or Shifty Adam Schiff. It is now time to focus exclusively on properly running our great Country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 2, 2019

The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political.

I'm listening to today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, which is the 3rd part in a series about what to expect from the Mueller report. It's an interview with Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating President Trump and where an effort to impeach Trump would begin.

The NYT interviewer is the host of the "Daily" podcast, Michael Barbaro, and, at about 8 minutes into the conversation, he traps Nadler with this stunning question: "You said that you believed the President obstructed justice, and I wonder why you would... say that publicly before the release of the Mueller report? What's the value in doing that? Does it not kind of inherently portray whatever investigation..."

Those 2 ellipses are places where Nadler interrupts. On the second interruption, I believe Barbaro was about to say that the Judiciary Committee is going to look political and biased.

Nadler, seems to anticipate that accusation, and he says says, "Well, I believe in answering questions honestly. I was asked a question." There follows a snorty little laugh. The laugh might mean: Hey, it's your fault, Barbaro, for asking me. Or it might mean: Oh, I get how you boxed me in, Barbaro, you rascal.

Barbaro observes that when Nadler was asked if he thought Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice, he could have just said "Let's wait until the Mueller report comes out." That wouldn't have been dishonest. Nadler responds, "Well, maybe I should have." Which I interpret to mean: Yeah, I wish I'd thought of that.

Listen for yourself, and check my interpretation. Don't miss the snorty little laugh after he asserts "I believe in answering questions honestly." To my ear,  it's creepy and villainous.