Moving that Overton Window: Cornell law professor says those who defy Congress should be jailed
Josh Chavetz is a law professor at Cornell, and he has written an opinion piece in the NY Times entitled “The House Can Play Hardball, Too. It Can Arrest Giuliani: Two ways that Democrats in the House can match the White House’s aggressive tactics.”
Let’s just pause for a moment and reflect on the irony of the title, which ignores how incredibly aggressive the House and the Democrats in general have been, and the fact that much of the “aggression” the White House has mounted has been in understandable self-defense.
Self-defense is, of course, not allowed to Republicans, and one of the things about Trump that so enrages them is that he fights back in no uncertain terms. And sometimes, yes, he’s not even fighting back, but is on the offensive. Apparently that’s only permitted to the Democrats.
Here’s Chavetz:
Refusal to comply with a duly authorized subpoena from Congress constitutes contempt of Congress. Contempt of Congress is a crime, and there is a mechanism for referring such cases to federal prosecutors. The problem, of course, is that federal prosecutors answer to the attorney general and, through him, to the White House, and they refuse to prosecute contempts committed by executive officials. In recent decades, congressional houses have sought a court order requiring executive officials to comply with their subpoenas, but that has all the problems described above.
The House should instead put back on the table the option of using its sergeant-at-arms to arrest contemnors — as the person in violation of the order is called — especially when an individual, like Rudy Giuliani, is not an executive branch official. Neither house of Congress has arrested anyone since 1935, but it was not uncommon before that point (and was blessed by the Supreme Court in 1927). Indeed, on at least two occasions, the second in 1916, a house of Congress had its sergeant arrest an executive branch official. (In that case, the Supreme Court eventually ruled against the House, not because it did not have the power to arrest for contempt, but rather because the offense — writing a nasty public letter to a House subcommittee — could not properly be understood as contempt of Congress.)
Facilities in the Capitol or one of the House office buildings can be made into a makeshift holding cell if necessary. Of course, arrestees will ask the courts to set them free, but the case should be relatively open-and-shut against them: They will have committed a contempt in refusing to turn over subpoenaed materials, and the House has the power to hold contemnors.
And so on and so forth.
It seems the left doesn’t mind going backwards in time close to 100 years in order to get the results they want, despite the fact that this tool has not been used in all that time for a good reason having to do with escalation and overkill.
And despite the fact that, even back when it was used, it was never used in an open-ended impeachment “inquiry” in which the president and his aides were barred from presenting any defense, and his party prevented from having any say in the matter or asking any questions.
I am not 100% conversant with every case in which this imprisonment power was used, but my guess is that it was never used that way, and that if the GOP had ever tried such a gambit that the likes of Josh Chavetz would be among the first to write an op-ed protesting it in the Times, as well as appealing it to SCOTUS [please see my subsequent discussion and partial correction of this, based on some earlier writings of Chavetz as well as the differences between those cases and this one].
Note that this op-ed follows hard on the heels of Rashida Tlaib’s statement last week:
Freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib said Democratic lawmakers were trying to figure out how to arrest White House officials who ignore congressional subpoenas.
Tlaib told constituents at her “Congress, Coffee, and Conversation” event in Detroit on Tuesday that lawmakers were focused on how best to take members of President Trump’s cabinet into custody.
“This is the first time we’ve ever had a situation like this. So they’re trying to figure out, no joke, is it the DC police that goes and gets them? We don’t know. Where do we hold them?” she said, according to the pro-Trump America Rising PAC.
Tlaib was caught on video speculating what might happen to Trump administration officials held in contempt of Congress.
Tlaib — a member of “The Squad” along with fellow freshman Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley — said she and her fellow Dems were “trying to tread carefully” in this “uncharted territory.”
She then joked that anyone taken into custody could be held in Detroit.
“I will tell them they can hold all those people right here in Detroit. We’ll take care of them and make sure they show up to the committee hearings,” she said.
As I’ve stated before, there is no reluctance anymore to say things that even ten years ago would be shocking and the vast majority of the public would understand that it’s a dangerous thing to do. As it is, only a few commenters to that op-ed at the Times indicated opposition to what Chavetz wrote, but purely on the practical grounds that it could cause a backlash. The idea is that it might end up helping Trump because the public isn’t quite ready for it yet.
[ADDENDUM: Also please see this article about whether these are subpoenas. I don’t know whether the information contained there is correct, however.]
I am unconvinced that it is Contempt of Congress, when Congress is behaving in a contemptible manner.
I hate Cornell Nazi’s.
The name Lois Lerner keeps coming to mind. I seem to remember that there were quite a few Obama admin officials who defied congressional subpoenas. Talk about hiding evidence, not only were Lerner’s emails deleted, so were Clinton’s. It’s really funny to me that Trump has done the same thing that regularly occurred during Obama’s administration, which were great back then, but now not so much.
Here are some examples.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/9-times-the-obama-administration-fought-subpoenas-or-blocked-officials-from-testifying-before-congress/
“Self-defense is, of course, not allowed to Republicans…”
Of course it ‘s not.
Palestinian rules.
Re Lois Lerner, from 2014 — “Republican Congressman Files For Lois Lerner’s Arrest”:
A NY Post piece supporting her arrest:
Ann:
No doubt there are such examples, but not as part of the sort of one-sided “inquiry” I described in my post, the one that’s going on now. And that Seth Lipsky article from the Post is by a journalist, not a law professor.
The fact situation for Lerner’s contempt citation was unusual as well, first answering questions and then claiming privilege after waiving it by answering the initial questions. Nor was she an aide to a president. And of course no arrest ever happened or even seemed to be seriously contemplated. Her case was treated like all the others and essentially nothing happened to her.
Meet Josh Chafetz: Yalie Idiot.
https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio_josh_chafetz.cfm
Plenty of credentials…and not a lick of common sense.
I see that “edit” has returned again, at least on my cell phone.
Eric Holder first!
Ah, 1916. Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, when a gallant progressive Democrat President could shut down newspapers and jail opponents at will…
Nice try, Ann. There was an actual investigation into criminal activity and abuse of power at the IRS, and IRS officials were playing hide-the-ball with their own inspector-general. Of course, Eric Holder buried the investigation.
Josh Chafetz, in 2012 — “If the House holds Holder in contempt, what then?”:
Josh Chafetz, in 2015, again arguing that Congress should act on contempt rather than turning to the courts:
Years ago a friend of mine was brought back into court when his ex-wife filed to have her alimony payments increased. She was a supreme narcissist. Which is why he divorced her.There were no children involved. This was 2 years after the original divorce decree was granted. He unwisely decided to defend himself, mainly because he was out of work at the time.
The judge was antagonistic towards him. My friend became upset and behaved inappropriately. The judge told him to calm down or he would beheld in contempt of court. He challenged the judge and said the court was contemptible long before he set foot in it. He spent 3 months in county jail. I finally convinced him to take a $2,500 gift to hire an attorney.
The attorney was a sharp fellow and got a settlement where the alimony was increased by $50 per month. All ended well. He met and married a wonderful woman and now he has 3 granchildren, his ex-wife went through a string of husbands before driving drunk and dying in a single car accident.
Unusually gabby of me, but the message is plain: courts can be contemptible and narcissists can be dangerous.
Works for me!
We’ll start by arresting and throwing in jail every single Obama Admin member who stood up a Congressional GOP investigation
There aren’t enough jails on the planet for Americans who have the so richly deserved contempt for Congress.
Contempt of Congress you say? Well yes, that describes me to a T! So bring on the handcuffs — I am as contemptuous as it is humanly possible to be of our House of Representatives. And then, and then — do I, like Alfred Dreyfus, get to stand up and say publicly “j’accuse”? J’accuse, messieurs les répresentants, and now let me count the ways, you miserable scum!
Yes, if you are seeking someone to accuse of contempt, here am I! I can do no other.
Ann:
I read all the articles by Chavetz that you linked. They’re actually quite interesting in a “compare and contrast” sort of way.
Chavetz certainly does think that arrest is one of the methods that Congress can use to enforce its investigative powers in the case of a contempt citation. But with his previous articles, the one on Holder and the one on Lerner, he is quite noncommittal and removed about that course of action as a remedy, listing and describing it as a possibility among many other options that might be better.
For example, regarding Holder Chavetz writes:
And in his article regarding Lerner, Chavetz is even more perfunctory and noncommittal about it. The content of the article is almost entirely a criticism of going to court as a remedy for the House to enforce its subpoena powers. Chavetz writes that “going to court almost certainly would not result in the House getting what it wanted, at least once you took timing into consideration.” He adds only this one very brief mention of the arrest power, and you can see that it is quite lukewarm and considered “unlikely” and not described further:
Contrast all of that to Chavetz’s recent article in the Times regarding Giuliani. It is very very different in tone, and constitutes close to a recommendation of the approach either in actuality or as a threat.
However, the Congressional proceedings in the House and the subpoenas that have been issued are pursuant to an “impeachment inquiry” of a president, which is very different from Chavetz’s previous examples as well as all previous presidential impeachment efforts by the House. This inquiry has never been voted on and all input from the GOP members of the committee have been silenced, another complete and total break with precedent. It does not resemble the previous situations at all (which arose during specific investigations done in the usual matter, with input from the opposing party, and where the contempt had been voted on afterwards by the full House).
In the case of Giuliani (who is the main subject matter of Chavetz’s op-ed), the subpoena (or was it a letter? – more about that in a moment) was signed only by the Democratic chairs, after a process with no input whatsoever from the Republican members of the committee. Andrew C. McCarthy described it this way:
Has the House actually issued a subpoena to Giuliani since then? After all, that’s the premise of Chavetz’s piece – that Guiliani could be jailed for defying the subpoena if he’s found in contempt. It’s an interesting question, because McCarthy’s article indicates that whatever letters they sent to Pompeo are not subpoenas, although he doesn’t mention Giuliani. The House apparently sent a letter to Guiliani on Sept. 30, prior to that McCarthy article, and the letter was referred to as a “subpoena” in several articles in the MSM, but was it? I cannot find a definitive answer, and it is not clear whether they are using the word in its technical legal sense.
In contrast, it’s clear that actual subpoenas were issued to these two guys who had an association with Giuliani:
What’s more – and this is something that Chavetz fails to deal with – Giuliani has been the president’s lawyer, which puts an entirely different slant on the idea of arresting him if he doesn’t cooperate with a Congressional attempt to investigate the president with the supposed goal of impeaching him. Chavetz ignores this issue, but it exists and it is another reason why arresting Giuliani would be highly irregular and as far as I can tell unprecedented and completely unlike all the other examples, and the question would have to go to the courts for resolution.
The partisan nature of the current proceedings is nakedly apparent, which any impeachment of a president was never meant to be. And any subpoenas – and in particular actually using the mechanism of arrests by the sergeant-at-arms to enforce them after contempt votes, something that has not been done in nearly a century and has never been done in a situation even remotely resembling this one – would reveal that naked partisanship further and justify the word “coup” to describe the proceedings.
If you want to hear an interesting discussion featuring Andrew McCarthy on related issues, go here. The portion I’m referring to is from around 5:30 to around 16:43. It may send a chill down your spine.
I will add a link to this comment of mine in the body of the post.
That’s right David. When is Eric Holder getting out of jail?
Thanks very much for that in-depth analysis, Neo.
Check here to see how the not really subpoena subpoenas are written.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/10/another-day-another-phony-subpoena-impeachment-narrative-rick-perry-edition/
A letter conveying a subpoena is not a subpoena.
Chavetz, a leftist jew (as so many of them are) graduated from law school 12 years ago and is a full professor of law. In the medical realm after 8 years of post-MD residency in cardiovascular surgery one might be an assistant professor. But not this dude. Nope, he shoots right to the top. Not an ounce of humility has been instilled into him.
No subpoena, no contempt, no actual impeachment.
Just headlines and PR.
Maybe they’re trying to get the public sick of seeing this junk, so when real indictments against some Deep State actors happen, voters will already be sick of it? Well, most Reps I know are …
waiting …
for …
indictments.
Still.
I even keep hoping for Hillary to be indicted, but guess that boat has sailed.
Why stop at arresting them? Why not torture them until they sign a confession and implicate other conspirators.
Neo’s post is on PowerLines Headline Picks.
Way to go!
The in-depth analysis of Chavetz’s perambulating positions was very edifying.
Cicero:
“A leftist Jew, as so any of them are”? So many of what are? Lawyers? Law professors? Leftist law professors?
A few statistics (and of course, many are not Jews in any sense but the secular, but we’ll leave that be for the purposes of this comment). There are an unknown number of Jews in the US but it is usually estimated at about 2% of the population. What percentage of lawyers are Jewish, and what percentage of law professors are Jewish? See this:
That means that about 6.6 of lawyers are Jewish and somewhere around a quarter of law professors are Jewish. That means that the vast majority of both lawyers and law professors are not Jewish, although Jews are overrepresented in those professions (as they are in all the professions on that list).
How many law professors are leftist? See this for a recent study on that question, but the gist of it is “the majority”:
So most law professors are on the left but most law professors are definitely not Jewish.
So why is the Jewish angle so important to you?
What happens when President Trump has Rudy take up residence on a military base and tells Congress to “Try and get him?”
Mike
if the GOP had ever tried such a gambit that the likes of Josh Chavetz would be among the first to write an op-ed protesting it in the Times, as well as appealing it to SCOTUS
What, you mean if the PotUS refused to admit some pompous ass of a WH reporter who physically manhandled a WH employee?
That kind of thing?
You really think they’d call on the courts to resolve this, rather than just firing the reporter?
/sarc off
😉
This is probably a moot point by now.
The two Giuliani grifters who were just arrested were also defying congressional subpoenas.
These two clowns were tasked with
pushing Russian propagandainvestigating CrowdStrike andmanufacturing dirt on the Bidensrooting out Biden corruption, as part of the Trump Admin’splot to use the machinery of the state for personal and Russian gainanti-corruption campaign.But now it looks like the House will hold back as DOJ investigates. I’m guessing they’ll let Justice play out with Rudy too.
Putin says Trump not to blame for lack of improvement in Russia-U.S. ties
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-says-trump-not-blame-113302488.html
Moscow is not blaming U.S. President Donald Trump for failing to improve U.S.-Russian relations, a pledge he had made during his election campaign
[snip]
“We know that, including during his previous election campaign, he spoke in favour of a normalisation (of U.S.-Russia relations), but unfortunately it has not happened yet,” Putin told Al Arabiya, Sky News Arabia and RT Arabic.
“But we have no claims because we see what’s going on in U.S. domestic politics,” he said, according to a transcript published on the Kremlin’s website on Sunday.
Putin said the “internal political agenda” was not allowing Trump to take steps aimed at a drastic improvement of bilateral relations, adding Moscow would in any case work with any U.S. administration to the extent that Washington itself wants.
And i guess just for fun, the Beijing protestors after matching the baltics singing war with their hands across the country… has now done the same thing that the Tianeman square students did before they opened up with bullets fatter than your fingers…
they created lady liberty..
and its on the top of the peak…
given no one cares about the 100 million or tianeman, the protesters are not in a good place believing otherwise.. at best, there will be a fake pause for reflection, and labeling that one some level the world appeared to care…
it will NOT wake up the people wanting that form of government and not realizing post achievement, such moves prevent the counter-revolution… which is why they dont really fail, do they?
Chavetz, a leftist jew (as so many of them are) graduated from law school 12 years ago and is a full professor of law. In the medical realm after 8 years of post-MD residency in cardiovascular surgery one might be an assistant professor. But not this dude. Nope, he shoots right to the top. Not an ounce of humility has been instilled into him.
Robert Bork was hired by Yale Law School in 1961 after 8 years in private practice. If I understand the standards and practices of law schools today, they refuse to hire working lawyers for faculty positions other than clinical instructor. ( I don’t think that stricture applies, though, if you were GC of a rancid little nonprofit). Here’s a suggestion of how to reform legal education: close all extant law schools and build new ones. A lawyer of my acquaintance offers this observation about law schools: they are set up to train appellate judges, who are a tiny minority of all lawyers; young people acquiring JD degrees, however, arrive at work knowing next-to-nothing about workaday law practice. His solution is to cut the credit-hours toward a law degree by at least a third, and place law school graduates in two-year apprenticeships ‘ere they take the bar exam. (NB, the higher education racket now insists on a BA degree as a screen for law school; you might just replace it with a couple of certificates which can be completed in 18 months or so).
The important point of Neo’s post is that the Overton Window is being moved. I believe that it is being done purposely as part of a planned strategy by the Democrats.
Why are all of the Dems’ candidates for POTUS so far left & so nuts this year? They know they cannot beat Prez Trump, so the party is putting all their efforts into moving the OW as far leftward as possible –– that is a major victory for them if they achieve it. And then it’s 2024…
Maybe we can get the all powerful, all knowing ladies to help?
this is funny… british (aussie)?
you tube channel
Ava Brighton – Are almost all women MENTALLY INSANE?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=5_5quJu_QcE
dont worry, she blames men for letting it happen..
at least its interesting filler on the way
Artfl,
Men!
As the saying goes, “Can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em.” –Er, oops, that’s the jokey thing the men used to say about the women.
Or, one could see and hear Kathryn Grayson telling us how much she hates men:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAk_QbaB5Ts
I believe that the War of the Sexes has been going on at least since the time of Shakespeare.
Let’s see. I was already hypersensitive about the anti-male thing in 1962 or thereabouts, when among Normal Women, “Men!” was a jokey thing that women would say about their husbands when frustrated by the odd ways of the male. (See the clearly conservative comedienne Jeanne Robertson’s routines on UT, where she often pokes fun at men and, in particular, her husband, “Left-Brain.” –It’s quite clear that her routines are distinctly in the vein of the old jokes. For instance, “Don’t Send Your Husband to the Grocery Store”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YFRUSTiFUs )
.
Now, all that aside, I do think that at this time there is a lot of downright hate being hawked against males . And I’ve been against this stuff since I was in college (as indicated above).
It disgusts me that so many unladylike women screechingly illustrate “guilty until proven innocent, and I dare you to try to prove you’re innocent!” And that so many men in High Places (can you say Schmidt, or at least Google?) seem not just to go along with it but to help spread the slander and unjust treatment.
Personally, I’m very glad the Great Frog sent us men. I do hope that most men understand that what I think is still a majority of women are glad you guys are here, and don’t in their heart of hearts feel all that discriminated against, nor bear males in general any ill will.
I do think it is “meet, right, and just” that women have the vote. And that men get or lose custody according to the best judgment an impartial judge* can make as to which parent is likely to do a better job. And that men and women have to meet the same standards, with no thumbs on scale, when it comes to jobs and promotions.
*”Impartial judge” — insofar as every person has his or her own idea of what is a good parent in Situation X, impartiality isn’t possible; and likely a given judge is inclined to think that mostly, one sex tends be better at parenting. Theoretically, laws are written so as to minimize this factor — but now, to quote a Brit pal, “Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.”
By the way. I quite like it when a gentleman, whether a stranger or not, holds the door for me. Feel free, gents!
Do I have to add that it’s obvious that nobody should be using lawfare to extort promotions and hiring quotas in businesses, in education, in professions and careers in general. This is disgusting and, because it’s horribly unjust, it’s anti-American. That’s what was wrong with the Jim Crow South, for heaven’s sake!
Mistakes and misjudgments will never disappear, but they ought not to be the order of the day.
Refusal to comply with a duly authorized subpoena from Congress constitutes contempt of Congress. Contempt of Congress is a crime, and there is a mechanism for referring such cases to federal prosecutors.
You mean, we endured eight years of the Obama administration blowing off Congressional subpoenas as a regular business item, and you’re having a cow because the Trump admin isn’t even up to year three?
Julie – I blow diversity, so now out after 15 years…
lets see if my marriage survives…
its only important to me though
Probably not a lot of Matt Taibbi fans here. He tends to write purple-prose political pieces for “Rolling Stone.” Needless to say, he’s not a Republican or a Trump fan.
I know him from his writing on “The eXile,” a free paper he and friends wrote as ex-pats in Moscow during and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Wild Hunter S. Thompson stuff without Thompson’s tics.
Anyway. Taibbi has been covering RussiaGate with horror, but not the horror one might imagine. He has been a voice in the leftie wilderness warning against the ongoing Democratic coup. The lead paragraphs from Taibbi’s latest, titled and subbed: “We’re in a permanent coup: Americans might soon wish they just waited to vote their way out of the Trump era.”
___________________________________________________
I’ve lived through a few coups. They’re insane, random, and terrifying, like watching sports, except your political future depends on the score.
The kickoff begins when a key official decides to buck the executive. From that moment, government becomes a high-speed head-counting exercise. Who’s got the power plant, the airport, the police in the capital? How many department chiefs are answering their phones? Who’s writing tonight’s newscast?
When the KGB in 1991 tried to reassume control of the crumbling Soviet Union by placing Mikhail Gorbachev under arrest and attempting to seize Moscow, logistics ruled. Boris Yeltsin’s crew drove to the Russian White House in ordinary cars, beating KGB coup plotters who were trying to reach the seat of Russian government in armored vehicles. A key moment came when one of Yeltsin’s men, Alexander Rutskoi – who two years later would himself lead a coup against Yeltsin – prevailed upon a Major in a tank unit to defy KGB orders and turn on the “criminals.”
We have long been spared this madness in America. Our head-counting ceremony was Election Day. We did it once every four years.
That’s all over, in the Trump era.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup
__________________________________________________
Worth checking out. Also a tonic for those like parker who believe they know exactly what anyone to his left *really* thinks.
Artfl,
I really do hope that you and Mrs. Dodger have a long and satisfying marriage. *smile*
And that both of you, and any younger Dodgers who may be around, are well and thriving.
Julie
P.S. Now that I’ve submitted my comment, I’m afraid I take the meaning of the first part of what you said. If I’ve gotten it right, then that sucks and I’m very sorry. By all accounts there’s way too much of that sort of stuff going on. I hope it isn’t spoiling things for the two of you.
Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald are like Bill Mahar, liberals who haven’t lost their damn minds over Trump. They’re not going to just forget or abandon what they believe to go along with the latest two-minutes hate. I’m not sure why a small segment of the Left has been able to resist but it has.
Mike
Add Stephen Cohen the emeritus Russian professor (writer at The Nation, husband to its editor/owner) to Taibbi and Greenwald for three of a kind. Maher is an outlier as against the first three, who all had in common being put off by actual knowledge of dealing with Russia, coupled with utter disdain for the US “intelligence community” ab initio: none believed the Spygate story from the jump. After experiencing a hoax of that kind most any follow on story is bound to be suspect to such people.
I wonder how long before it gets to , “Ymar, you will be in jail for talking conspiracies and for talking trash about the President”.
Worth checking out. Also a tonic for those like parker who believe they know exactly what anyone to his left *really* thinks.
Haha, parker also seems to know what I “really think”. Which is something else, entirely, I would tell you. Especially as I am not to his left. If I am to his right, it is so far to the “right”, it might as well be on top of his head turned sideways rubix cube, tesseract style.
I really do hope that you and Mrs. Dodger have a long and satisfying marriage. *smile*
And that both of you, and any younger Dodgers who may be around, are well and thriving.
thanks
we are too old for children, my last job punked us with promises they didnt keep and so, no cash… she also spent too much and didnt want to prepare for ‘that life’ and so, i didnt want to be infinitely alone again…
my son from prior relationship, doesnt bother much with me..
thanks to his gone girl mom… and others… but he is a navy officer
when i am gone
thats when the happy party starts
cause no one is happy with me around..
sadly
I hope it isn’t spoiling things for the two of you.
it destroyed us making what should be a great life… sour
now losing friends… its what its supposed to do…
but when the ladies wake up and realize they are the target
because first you had to get rid of their protectors..
boy are they going to be surprised when they realize that THEY are the factories that put out the evil pale men, and when they go, the evil men go…
we are finding out why there are never any matriarchies
they die out, have no kids, are defenseless, and not fit for living in the real world
so… they are prey to all the others that DONT do that..
not my circus not my monkeys
and cant wait till i am gone
as i have no reason, and so far, have not been allowed to have any
nothing is for me… ever
its a rule
When is Epstein going to testify from his jail cell or something?
When you go into jail, are you coming out of it alive? Really? Ok.
I’m sorry, Artfl.
That’s rough. *squeeze in sympathy*
“cause no one is happy with me around.” – Artfldgr
I am truly sorry you feel that way, but I think you have a lot of friends here.
We might get frustrated with super long comments, but that is balanced by our appreciation for all the information and history (and humor!) you pack into so many of them.
Add my shoulder squeeze to Julie’s.
huxley on October 13, 2019 at 11:48 pm said:
Probably not a lot of Matt Taibbi fans here. He tends to write purple-prose political pieces for “Rolling Stone.” Needless to say, he’s not a Republican or a Trump fan.
I know him from his writing on “The eXile,” a free paper he and friends wrote as ex-pats in Moscow during and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Wild Hunter S. Thompson stuff without Thompson’s tics.
Anyway. Taibbi has been covering RussiaGate with horror, but not the horror one might imagine. He has been a voice in the leftie wilderness warning against the ongoing Democratic coup.
* * *
Interesting info about Taibbi.
Believe It Or Not, I used to read Rolling Stone at least weekly, because they had interesting stories on music and culture, sometimes on politics, but eventually they got so bawdy that I couldn’t just skip over it, plus going off the deep end like other leftists. I don’t remember Taibbi especially (it’s been going on 20 years in the past), but I think it’s good that he is still writing and (possibly) influential.
A voice crying in the wilderness, perhaps, but at least he is trying to put the brakes on Dem dementia, at least in their own interest.
I think it is good for all of the country to get some more brakemen on their run-away train.
Here’s another article of his I ran across recently:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/maria-butina-russia-spy-fbi-860256/
I’ve read some of Byrne’s story before, and linked a biographical article about him, but the fact that he is being studiously ignored by both the Right and the Left Press may signify that his story should, indeed, be investigated.
Julie near Chicago on October 13, 2019 at 7:25 pm said:
..
Mistakes and misjudgments will never disappear, but they ought not to be the order of the day.
* * *
Can we get that on a bumper sticker?
Magnus on October 13, 2019 at 2:54 pm said:
The important point of Neo’s post is that the Overton Window is being moved. I believe that it is being done purposely as part of a planned strategy by the Democrats.
Why are all of the Dems’ candidates for POTUS so far left & so nuts this year? They know they cannot beat Prez Trump, so the party is putting all their efforts into moving the OW as far leftward as possible –– that is a major victory for them if they achieve it. And then it’s 2024…
* * *
They have a win-win set-up that I’ve seen commented on in the past:
(1) if enough of the country moves Left with them, and changes the composition of the elected branches in 2020, that is a major-major win.
(2) if the public won’t go as far as today’s candidates are pushing, then any less-insane ones after 2020 will look, well, less insane, and might be enough to peel off anti-Trumpers or former Democrats that couldn’t stomach the full-on Leftist putsch.
Major win either way, in their view.
Possible downside:
(3) the public that isn’t hard-core leftist or thoroughly (and purposefully) frightened of the Republicans will repudiate all (or most) of the Democrats because of association with the Rabid Left, and (rightful) fear of the slippery slope of continuing to elect them.
Granted, #3 hasn’t had much traction in the last century, but hope springs eternal.
The ability of most people (but especially the liberal-left and liberal-right) to continue to believe they can pick up one end of a stick without also getting the other end appears to be boundless.
Art Deco on October 13, 2019 at 1:39 pm said:
…If I understand the standards and practices of law schools today, they refuse to hire working lawyers for faculty positions other than clinical instructor. … Here’s a suggestion of how to reform legal education: close all extant law schools and build new ones.
* * *
I can’t argue much with your friend’s suggestions, but would also extend them to Schools of Education and of Journalism, and possibly a few other departments.
Certainly would like to make Political Science grad students intern in real campaigns or public service before getting that degree.
Actually, I can’t think of many professions that would not benefit from an apprentice-journeyman requirement in addition to the book l’arnin’ part.
That’s how they make Doctors who (usually) don’t kill people the first week on their own.
If it means anything Josh Chavetz, for the most part, has never held a job outside of academia. He went straight from one elite academic institution to another (Yale undergrad, Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, back to Yale for his JD) then did some work outside of academia for about two years before seeking a living amongst the intelligentsia. I am not too surprised by his thoughts.
Good comments as usual, Aesop.
Personally I’ve steered clear of Mother J. and the Stones, so it’s nice to know a sensible person who has some actual experience reading them. I think you ought to get an oak-leaf cluster or something. :>))
Awe shucks..
Notice how Art completely negates the good wishes and vibrations of Julie and Aesop over here.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/10/14/do-you-think-this-will-ever-happen/#comment-2459447
Whenever you attack your fellow brother or sister in this Illusion of Maya, Art, you are only ever attacking yourself. I know Leftists, Alinsky, Satan, and feminists never told you this. I know, they are cannonfodder, that’s why they don’t know.
may i ask the moron how does a president prosecute?
seems that stupid never changes…
but ignorance has a cure, it learns…
You have stated, to a Son of God, that they are a moron, stupid, and ignorant.
You do that two more times and not only will you negate whatever blessings people have heaped on you here but your suffering will only increase, if your Higher Self has any sane build in spirit.
Once victimhood has trapped you, you can never get out. You will never be free of the Leftist alliance, not when you have integrated their SJWrong poison inside of you.
For instance, “Don’t Send Your Husband to the Grocery Store”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YFRUSTiFUs )
* * *
Jeanne Robertson cracks me up, especially the “passed” nod.
When she said “for the first time in my life I numbered things” – the audience immediately knew what was coming next!
We have a family-favorite essay, in a book which I can’t find now in the library shelves.
It was written in the late 19th century, and the title is something like, “Why is it, that when you send a man to find something….”
and you can probably fill in the rest.
All the boys loved it.
Dad was unable to debunk it.
Mom admitted to having the same problem trying to find something in the Workshop (which is why she has her own toolbox).
Aesop,
You are truly a member of the sister- (and brother-, going by what I see on the faces of the men in the audience)hood. She cracks me up too, including the bow or nod.
“Left-brain” always seems to be having a good time whenever we see him. LOL