Today’s impeachment theater
Apparently Ann Althouse has a stronger stomach than I do, because she was able to watch today’s impeachment hearing:
I thought…the idea would be for the 3 law professors called by the Democrats to provide cover for the Democrats by performing the theater of making everything sound like law and not politics and by speaking in a tone that would feel academic and sadly, grimly inevitable.
But they came on so strong, righteously angry and in an exaggerated tone, making assertions that the things Trump did are impeachable. They did not work to establish our confidence that they were operating in a scholarly zone that was truly their expertise. They did not give us reason to believe we should listen to them as expert witnesses.
What an awful display! And I’m not even counting the motions for who knows what and the roll call votes (which seemed to be the GOP strategy for making the show as annoying as possible). The first 2 witnesses — Noah Feldman and Pam Karlan — scolded and yelled. Michael Gerhardt was a bit milder, but he mumbled and stumbled, and I couldn’t believe he brought up the musical “Hamilton.”
Althouse’s suggestion that the Democrats would want to establish a neutral, regretful, academic tone as cover for their partisan impeachment drive made a certain amount of sense. But Democrats seem to have lost their senses. For the most part they are incapable of a sober academic tone about a topic like Trump and much else that is political, even as a pretend, strategic, tactical tone.
Rage has unhinged them. And their base expects it.
Althouse doesn’t even get into some of their worst excesses today. But here’s a post at Legal Insurrection describing Pam Karlan’s entry into the low blow sweepstakes, which involved mocking Barron Trump’s name.
Law professors are often incredibly partisan and both vicious and sophistic in their arguments. This has only become more apparent in recent years. And most of them are liberal, in fact overwhelmingly so. No doubt someone such as Karlan is used to getting kudos for her anti-Trump bon mots, but they don’t play quite as well on a national stage.
[NOTE: And then there’s Jonathan Turley, called by the GOP to speak today. It’s interesting that he’s not a partisan Republican or any sort of Republican at all. Nor is he a Trump supporter. But he’s one of those Alan Dershowitz types who tends to be fair and objective. Please read the whole link.]
“Law professors are often incredibly partisan and both vicious and sophistic in their arguments.”
Never having attended a law school, I have no personal knowledge of such but given that in the American system… justice is supposed to be blind, that is prima facie evidence of unfitness to hold that position.
One professor who is manifestly qualified to be a professor of law is Jonathon Turley, who in his testimony today before ‘the committee’ quoted our host’s favorite passage from “A Man for all Seasons”. https://videos.whatfinger.com/2019/12/04/fake-impeachment-law-professor-rips-dems-by-quoting-a-man-for-all-seasons/
I’ve little doubt that among the dems, it fell on deaf ears.
Geoffrey Britain:
Back when I was in law school I would not have described law professors that way at all.
And even now, I doubt they’re that way in the classroom. I was speaking of twitter and that sort of thing, which encourages such polemics. And I was especially speaking of their reaction to the Trump era.
Jonathan Turley is someone whose legal opinions I always read when available. Like Dershowitz, he defends the American system and the law. Honest liberals, both of them.
Karlan has apologized, sort of, but not really.
This whole impeachment business makes sense if it is designed to slow down the confirmation of conservative judges in the senate. Conviction requires 2/3rd of the senators, but isn’t a simple majority enough to draw out the trial and soak up time that the senate would otherwise be using to confirm judges?
Law professors are often incredibly partisan and both vicious and sophistic in their arguments. This has only become more apparent in recent years.
neo: This blows such a big hole in my naive Enlightenment belief that critical thinking will set us free.
Kate:
I believe that Turley is more of a libertarian, which makes him somewhat like a liberal at times.
It is plain that the Democrats intend to do damage; have now already done damage.
What is less clear is whether their intended target will suffer. . . now somewhat doubtful if that target is solely the President. However, it may be that despite the appearance the Democrats cannot think their way through it (for who would assume what comes next as their aim?), their target set may actually include the polity as such.
In which case, mission accomplished, even at this early juncture. Prof. Turley warned against this possibility as to the future. I think that on the hypothetical the Democrats mean to injure the polity as such, they’ve got the better of the business. Damage done. The rest of the nation simply has to live with having lost.
sdferr:
But if they can succeed with such poor arguments, doesn’t it indicate that the damage was already done?
“I believe that Turley is more of a libertarian, which makes him somewhat like a liberal at times.”
I think this is less about political or ideological bent and more about who is and who isn’t butthurt over the 2016 election. On the Left, I think that divide is more partisan Dems vs. actual liberals. On the Right, it’s more actual ideologues vs. wingnut welfare grifters.
Mike
I’m kind of positing their success is built upon loss of trust in our institutions — furthered here– so yes, neo, I think I have to accept your thesis: the damage is already done. Or at the least well on it’s way to being done. These actions today can then count as coffin nails, say.
One of these clowns teaches at Harvard, one at Stanford, and one at Chapel Hill. The first and the third hold endowed chairs. We have every reason to believe that the legal academy as a whole is what Fr. Paul O’Shaughnessy, SJ calls, ‘sociologically corrupt’ and incapable of reforming itself with it’s internal procedures. Time to put them in receivership.
Melania is among the most opaque figures in our public life. One thing I’d bet the farm on, though, is that she’s a tigress for Barron. Prof. Karlan better give the First Lady (and her fingernails) a wide berth.
Professor Karlin was a star
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/115500/Woody-Allen-as-a-Girl–115843.jpg
Having recently graduated law school rather later than most (graduated 2018 at age 41), I can confirm that law professors have gotten more partisan and more brazen about their left-wing politics in the classroom.
Now, that being said, I was treated fairly by my professors (at least to my face, in my presence, and with respect to my grades). I didn’t ever hide my strong conservatism. But it was very, very clear where they stood and what they thought was politically acceptable or admirable.
Democrats are not worried about “cutting down all the laws” because they fully expect that once Trump is gone, America will quickly transition into a one-party socialist state.
Geoffrey Britain:
Basically I agree with you.
But one thing gives me pause: then why the big rush? Why risk alienating some voters? Why not take the high road, wait out the next year or at most the next five years, let the Gramscian march and all the other things (including the demographic changes) that will lead to the socialist inevitability take place? Much of what Trump has done can be reversed by executive order and a Democratic Congress.
The judiciary he’s appointing is all that stands in the way of the long-awaited leftist takeover of government. Do they fear the conservatives in the judiciary so very much? I find that hard to believe. First of all, there are plenty of liberal judges (and justices) still in office. But second of all, once the Democrats are firmly in power they can just pack SCOTUS (or other federal courts) with more leftists. I suppose, however, that SCOTUS could rule a SCOTUS-packing scheme unconstitutional – although there’s nothing in the Constitution that dictates the number of SCOTUS justices.
But one thing gives me pause: then why the big rush? Why risk alienating some voters?
neo: I wondered that during Obama’s presidency. It seemed to me if he had made some small bipartisan gestures early on and here and there, he could have boiled the frog much more effectively.
Instead, “I won.”
Of course, according to Democrats’ memory Obama was constantly giving in to Republicans, then being kicked in the teeth.
Then again, Obama wasn’t entirely wrong.
If Hillary had won, as she was supposed to, and came within a hair of doing so, Obama’s pace would have been fully justified.
I watched the whole thing. 🙁 I will say this, I thought the Republicans fought back rather effectively. A waste of time. I don’t believe one voter’s mind was changed by this sorry spectacle.
The Dems hate Trump, and they believe his very presence in the White House is an affront to their lives. It is a blind hatred. They can’t name any one thing that he has done that enrages them. It’s just his attitude. He doesn’t back down, he’s not afraid to call them out, and he gets things (conservative judges, building the wall, bucking up NATO, lowering taxes, etc.) doe that they don’t like. The level of visceral hatred shown by the three witnesses for the Dems is rather common among their ranks. What is different is that that hatred now extends to we “Deplorables.” They can no more understand the Deplorable mindset than they can understand the deepest mysteries of the universe. They are now openly hostile.
Will the Democrats be able to accept Trump not being convicted by the Senate? What will happen if Trump is re-elected? Will that be the beginning of open violence? I’m hoping not, but the future does not look rosy at this point.
I do know this. The totalitarian (one party) mindset must be resisted.
Here I sit 44 miles north of NYC in a community that reliably votes (D) much to my chagrin. You would think that my neighbors would be frothing at the mouth but not so. More and more people have jobs. Developers are confident. They build more shopping centers and affordable housing. This was not the case during the Obama years. Obama was a scold who wore people down. Trump lifts people up, reminding them that they are part of one great American family. In my opinion, from what I see on the ground, the Democrat leadership is panicking. They know they are in trouble on multiple fronts. What amazes me is that they are so beholden to their Twitter-mob base. Everyday, walking-around Democratic voters want what everyday, walking-around Republican voters want: a good job, a happy family, and a bright future. It’s the American way.
Which reminds me of a story. Twenty-five years ago I worked for a company that disseminated news feeds to its subscribers. One of those news sources was playing hardball over fees.
This happened around the winter holiday season. At the company’s holiday party the CEO got up and made a rousing speech. When he spoke of the negotiations he used the term “dirty diapers”. The crowd went wild but not everyone.
My boss was nervous and upset that such course language was used in public. “You just don’t say that,” he explained. Of course, he wasn’t upset about the language per se but about it getting back to our “partners”, the news sources whom we relied on for income.
The overwhelming majority of people in attendance responded enthusiastically to the CEO’s speech since most of us like a strong leader even one who uses colorful language. The few dissenters were the minority.
The analogy I want to make is that Trump is America’s CEO. He too uses colorful language to get things moving. Those of us in the majority cheer him on because we like a principled fighter. Those in the minority are the hand-wringers, the perpetually-offended careerists.
The difference between a privately run company and government is that dissenters are free to adapt or leave whereas bureaucrats see another option: overthrow the duly-elected CEO of America.
“But one thing gives me pause: then why the big rush? Why risk alienating some voters?”
Its something I have been thinking about quite a bit. The whole thing seems self defeating. But then I thought about a piece of news about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That she is once again fighting cancer.
I wish her well in her battle. At her age this cannot be an easy fight.
While pure speculation. I would guess that many in Washington have a good grasp of how bad this round is. And Trump being able to replace her has got to be utterly terrifying to them. All the lurching left would basically be undone for a generation or more. All this seems to me to be the ultimate Hail Mary to stop it. Or do their best to sabotage it. If he is in the process of being impeached. He cannot name another supreme court justice. Or some train of thought along those lines
I am not a lawyer. But I wanted to put this short one minute line of reasoning out there to discuss. Because of all the arguments I saw today. This particular one has the thin veneer of logical thought. Yet is completely specious.
His basic line of reasoning breaks down to this
Congress and President are co-equal parts of government
Congress wants to remove the president.
The president does not wish to be removed and refuses to cooperate.
The president can then be impeached for failing to allow himself to be impeached.
“…why the big rush…”
Simply because for the true revolutionary, for the true believer, why wait for tomorrow to “achieve” (aka destroy) that which you can “achieve” today (or yesterday—for that matter, given the religio-ideological need to airbrush anything, and anybody, that might not conform to revolutionary “reality”).
(And there’s a lot out there that needs destroyin’! Yesterday!!)
Shorter version: “Tomorrow belongs to us” (TM)…so why wait?
Good old Democrats: Ratcheting up disgusting to ever new heights.
(Truly wish I could say I was surprised….)
Alas, the process will continue.
“The president can then be impeached for failing to allow himself to be impeached.”
Generally correct (since we are deep, deep, deep down the rabbit hole of Democratic “prog-rev” “logic”. Let’s call it “post-logic”, “polo” for short.)
But a small quibble:
“The president can then be impeached for refusing to participate in the project of his impeachment” (where “project” can be further, if unnecessarily, fine-tuned to “perverse project” or “unlawful project” or “Stalinist project”).
It’s essentially the Democratic Party paraphrase of the Palestinian:
“Israel must be destroyed because she refuses to be destroyed”…which sentiment is becoming—globally—more and more attractive, getting more and more popular, gaining more and more adherents, as Palestinian “reality”, promoted by the general zeitgeist (and sedulous, untiring activists in the media and the universities) increasingly becomes official, unrefutable Truth.
Palestinian rules!
Needless to say, if (sorry, “when”) Trump refuses to participate in his own destruction, he will then be accused, resoundingly!, by his righteously indignant accusers, detractors, judges and hangpersons(?)—all of them the same “individuals” (what extraordinary resourcefulness! What incredible versatility!!)—of “Obstruction of Justice”.
All rather elegant, actually….
(To be sure, we’ve already been there….)
Whatever causes have brought the leftist fever to this extreme — envy foremost among them, but also including the ongoing FAILUREs of leftist government in multiple states — the fever will break. It is not succeeding — thank you Brian Morgan for the nice reminder. When one steps back and views the larger picture in the U.S.A., leftism is not succeeding anywhere but in the academy, just making very loud noises. And the academy is starting to feel a squeeze, financially, as well as facing the longer-term threat of new delivery models on the internet. So, while a serious menace IF it could prevail, leftism has few or no successes (since Obama, largely undone now) that we can identify. Please someone correct me if you think that’s wrong.
My view is that the fever relates directly to the financial extremes which are visible all around the globe — the highest long-term earnings multiples ever in American history for stocks; negative interest rates for years in Europe, the first time in recorded human history; a massive, massive Ponzi scheme called the PRC in Asia.
We know that financial cycles do not last forever and this one will end too. Without getting into the international cases, many of which follow our example in one form or another, when the Dow Jones thermometer drops 1,000 points, there is an exceedingly good chance that that means the fever is breaking. That may sound like a randomly chosen number, but it isn’t.
The extremes reached by asset prices could bubble on a little longer, but the condition of the markets is such that it is very unlikely that it will still be bubbling next November. As that fever subsides, so will toleration of the leftist program, I believe. There is a financial squeeze ahead in coming years due to our government’s overpromises, and that reality will show the free-everything proposals more clearly as the fantasies they are. Without Other People’s Money, leftism withers.
I’m inclined to agree with Mythx that urgent concern about Ginsburg’s health may be driving some of this. That, and the essential childishness of the Democrats. They have been, as a group, having a tantrum worthy of a two-year-old since the election.
The news said Pelosi is supposed to speak in an hour on “the impeachment inquiry.” Is that the sound of gas escaping the balloon? Or of dice hitting the table even harder? I suspect the former.
My view is that the fever relates directly to the financial extremes which are visible all around the globe — the highest long-term earnings multiples ever in American history for stocks; negative interest rates for years in Europe, the first time in recorded human history; a massive, massive Ponzi scheme called the PRC in Asia.
1. P/E ratios are measured prospectively and retrospectively with one-year’s worth of earnings data. The current ratios (23.6 to 1) are high but not unprecedented.
2. The term ‘Ponzi scheme’ does not mean what you fancy it means. To refer to a country with an enormous commercial, industrial, and agricultural infrastructure as a ‘Ponzi scheme’ is nonsensical.
3. A discussion of implications of negative real interest rates (as seen in the Euro Area the last four years) is to be found here:
https://oecdecoscope.blog/2019/10/22/do-negative-interest-rates-in-the-euro-area-hurt-bank-profitability/
Times have changed to say the least. I was fortunate to have Justice Scalia as one of my professors and needless to say he had opinions. However he never shared them with the class and only shared with us his great wit. None of my other professors said anything in class to suggest their political leanings beyond being fierce defenders of civil liberties.
I was wrong — option B, go right to drafting the articles of impeachment. Gets rid of the clown show that was costing her party.
Lawprofessors are often incredibly partisan and both vicious and sophistic in their arguments.FIFY
Yup, full speed ahead. It would be nice if vulnerable Dems in the House vote against it, but the caucus is tightly disciplined, so maybe they won’t, for fear of what Pelosi could do to them.
I was one of the few conservatives who was opposed to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I believed his “crime” was too trivial to rise to the level demanded of the Constitution and I foresaw it could become a partisan political tool.
I hate to say it, but I remember the same partisan zeal against Clinton by the Republicans that we are seeing against Trump by the Democrats. Who else remembers the “He’s a Serial Liar!” meme?
After the Senate did not confirm the impeachment, things settled down and everyone went back to business as usual. I expect that is what will happen here.
RE: “Rage has unhinged them. And their base expects it.”
In Dante’s Inferno, the wrathful punish each other in the swamp of the river Styx. Those consumed by hate are simply brought together, and they torture each other for eternity:
And I, who was intent on watching it,
could make out muddied people in that slime,
all naked and their faces furious.
These struck each other not with hands alone,
but with their heads and chests and with their feet,
and tore each other piecemeal with their teeth.
The kindly master told me: “Son, now see
the souls of those whom anger has defeated;
So did Trump’s tweet trigger twats?
rcat: The Divine Comedy is on my reading list. Can you recommend a particular translation over others? Thank you.
The Dems (Dims?) know they can’t win in 2020 if Pres, Trump is on the ticket…..the only way they can win in 2020 is if they can remove T. with impeachment before the next election.
I’m giving up my lonely crusade for Michelle to enter the race.
Next year is going to be one hot mess for the Democrats. No place for the Obamas, who were made for finer things.
In retrospect, the Clinton impeachment didn’t work out as planned. However, it was based on extensive findings of fact, to the effect that he committed federal felonies (and he plea bargained his way out of it the night before leaving office). The Senate found that felony misbehavior in a federal court was not a “high crime.” How the current unsubstantiated charge can be a “high crime” where a felony wasn’t is beyond my understanding.
“After the Senate did not confirm the impeachment, things settled down and everyone went back to business as usual. I expect that is what will happen here.”
Uh…Bill Clinton was followed by one of the most catastrophic Presidencies in modern American history. He was then followed by a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name. He was then followed by Donald Trump.
This is “business as usual?”
Mike
Pelosi’s move today is puzzling to many people. On the one hand it’s not as though an advancement to writing articles of impeachment were thought to be out of the question, while on the other hand, right now doesn’t appear to be the time of ripeness. One measely hearing in Judiciary, with an undeveloped record (albeit a record which won’t improve with more time, at least based on what is visible today)?
So, what’s the rush?
Andrew McCarthy tweets: “Didn’t see that coming: House to hold next impeachment hearing Monday…while IG report is being released.”
Ok, maybe that.
Still, the record won’t get better, but worse, much much worse from here on out.
With that worsening, perhaps the resolution (willingness to vote “aye” on impeachment) of her wavering members in caucus, members who are aware they may be ending their political careers with this vote? So she hopes to catch them asleep? Or what?
Just a “fuck it, let’s go” attitude, owing to the miserable place they’ve put themselves?
So much doesn’t make sense.
“…made for finer things…”
Damn straight…
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2019/11/14/wyc-grousbeck-s-island-mansion-eyed-by-obamas-is.html
(I imagine that by now Michelle is super-proud to be an American. Either that or super-ashamed….you know, America being such a materialistic society ‘n all….)
sdferr: My guess is that yesterday’s hearing looked so bad, or at least so unpersuasive, that Pelosi decided to go for it. Plus there was no reason to suppose the hearings were going to get better. I imagine there were some internal polls which reinforced that impression.
Apparently dropping back to a censure vote was not on the table for Democrats. Though I am curious how much of an effect Trump’s double-dog-dare-you tweet might have had:
The Do Nothing Democrats had a historically bad day yesterday in the House. They have no Impeachment case and are demeaning our Country. But nothing matters to them, they have gone crazy. Therefore I say, if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair….
…..trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business. We will have Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi and many more testify, and will reveal, for the first time, how corrupt our system really is. I was elected to “Clean the Swamp,” and that’s what I am doing!
https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-if-you-are-going-to-impeach-me-do-it-now-fast-invest-in-popcorn-now-people/
i am confused by how could Pelosi’s move today be puzzling to many people at all, “when you are down you double down” has always been the Dems’ motto and the way they operate since Trump took office. at the very least it is a great distraction move to direct the news circle away from yesterday’s disastrous hearing for the left. Do people still believing that somehow the impeachment will ever stop at the house, no, the conclusion has long been forgone that Trump will be impeached in the house no matter what. democrats do not believe voting for the impeachment is a political suicide for them, in contrary many believe not voting for an impeachment is political suicide.
Uh…Bill Clinton was followed by one of the most catastrophic Presidencies in modern American history.
You need to dial it back.
“You need to dial it back.”
You need to come to grips with reality. You can argue about WHERE George W. Bush should be ranked on list of “Most Catastrophic Presidencies in Modern American History” but there’s no argument against putting him on that list.
Mike
“…impeachment theater…”
Indeed, the show was pretty dreadful, but the evening had some memorable moments:
Intermission –
https://pluralist.com/psychiatrists-donald-trump-impeachment-warning/
Encore –
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7756347/Hunter-Biden-hand-FIVE-YEARS-financial-records-baby-mama-disclose-tips.html
Nightcap –
https://conservativemedia.com/news/piers-morgan-blasts-european-leaders-mocking-trump-sniggering-bing-like-spiteful-little-mean-girls/
Hangover –
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/12/05/watch-joe-biden-uses-footage-of-trudeau-laughing-at-trump-in-new-attack-ad/
Payback –
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7759497/France-paralysed-nationwide-strike.html
It is puzzling people on the political right Dave, precisely because they cannot see how impeachment on these terribly flimsy grounds can possibly be a winning cause for the Democrats. Turning a news cycle or two is in no way winning as far as the Democrats’ power aims go. Longer term, they stand to lose, hence the senselessness of the thing. But show how the long term gains to power for Democrats works and you may have something. As yet, this has not been done.
“…contrary …”
Actually, Dave, it’s becoming more and more obvious that the Democratic Party WANTS to commit political suicide…so either way, it’s a “win-win” for them.
Because that way, they can be the ultimate VICTIMS!—“See what Trump is making us do” is, for many people, a very resonating, poignant, meaningful message and something with which they can truly identify. It’s no doubt a brilliant move, strategically.
Come to think of it, Russian roulette is a far more imaginative, out-of-the-box campaign promise than most of what we’ve been hearing from them up until now.
Time will tell if it will work, of course. But given what they have going for them at the moment it’s certainly worth a try.
Dave has a point. Democrats/progressives imagine themselves as Gandhi:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
–Gandhi
Though in this case one could argue that doubling-down would mean Pelosi pursuing these kangaroo impeachment hearings to the bitter end. Or at least until after Christmas as she said a few days ago.
Fish or cut bait.
I just read Charles Martin’s take at PJM (link available at Instapundit). Most plausible account I’ve seen so far. Write articles of imp that never come to a vote. Stall, stall, stall, all while Spygate is being exposed.
Won’t work, I think, but it’s just possible it’s their best play.
From sdferr,
I still think that’s part of it, even though the rumor mill seems to suggest that Horowitz is unlikely to make any referrals for indictment, and may just issue thousands of pages of details with little or any connecting of dots. He may decide to avoid all the death threats and family harassment and let Barr and Durham get their hands dirty. This, of course, would play into the Dem’s plans. See … Horowitz is honest, but that Barr guy is the hatchet man.
Another part is that I suspect that the “history” of the Trump presidency is being written as we discuss. “Oh, he’s one of three presidents to be impeached! He can’t be a great president,” the history books will say.
“Turning a news cycle or two is in no way winning as far as the Democrats’ power aims go. Longer term, they stand to lose, hence the senselessness of the thing.” — sdferr
sdferr is very sharp but I think I disagree with that one. First, the Dems turn a lot of news cycles and often just at the crucial time. Second, the FISA corruption and campaign spying effort has, or should have, the potential to be bigger than Watergate.
Almost all of modern politics boils down to dozens of media and debate skirmishes, except for something like Watergate which was a political cataclysm. If the Dems succeed in watering down the FISA/Spy-gate thing into a tit-for-tat skirmish it will be a huge achievement for them.
And to restate the semi-obvious, all the media hysteria over Russia-gate and early Trump hatred got the Dems in control of the House. By that measure, their efforts are not pointless.
At the risk of sounding like a madman, Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and MANY others in Congress and the media ( the propaganda arm of the democrat party) should be subjected to the same fate that was dished out to John Wilkes Booth’s co-conspirators.
Though this time around the gallows would have to be large enough to accommodate about 50 people.
Then again, street- light posts would work just fine.
Let’s be clear; we are witnessing an insurrection, a coup d’etat.
Even the Confederate States of American did not want to overthrow an elected President (despite their contempt for him); they just wanted “out” of the Republic.
Today’s insurrectionists, the plotters, literally, are metaphorically dispossessing the rights of all those who voted for Trump.
Trump is just the big target, but they hate everybody and anybody that does not agree with their worldview.
They are Stalinists in every sense of the word , and don’t forget, when it came to exterminating people, Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur.
Yikes! Joe Biden lost it. See for yourselves: ***Joe Biden EXPLODED in anger at a retired farmer who asked about his son’s payouts from a Ukrainian gas company.
“You’re a damn liar,” Biden said before challenging him to “an IQ test.”
Biden also called the man “jack” and “fat” and “too old.”
Biden never answered the question.***
https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1202654055090270209
I read Charles Martin’s “Why I Still Don’t Think Trump Will Be Impeached” at PJM. Interesting points, including the downside of lots of subpoenas to appear in the Senate.
Possibly, the fishing expedition part of Impeachment was/is a big motivator. Here is a piece on Schiff requesting and getting phone records on Devin Nunes and R. Giuliani. Nunes was on Fox last night, and journalist John Solomon had his phone records collected too, someone claimed.
You need to come to grips with reality. You can argue about WHERE George W. Bush should be ranked on list of “Most Catastrophic Presidencies in Modern American History” but there’s no argument against putting him on that list.
Yes, there is an argument, but you’d have to know your history to appreciate it. I can think of three or four off the top of my head who were responsible for worse disasters among the 15 who’ve sat in that chair since 1929. That aside, it’s witlessly imprudent to make categorical statements like that absent the passage of a considerable bloc of time.
MZ Hemingway: Impeachment Is Slowly Destroying Democrats’ 2020 Political Hopes
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/05/impeachment-is-slowly-destroying-democrats-2020-political-hopes/#.XelMT0R9GTc.twitter
I haven’t read this yet, but presume to paste title and link.
MBunge:
Nope, President George W. Bush wasn’t one of the “Most Catastrophic Presidents in Modern American history,” and using all caps doesn’t make you more persuasive. You hate GWB? Who cares? GWB worse than Jimmy Carter, or LBJ?
What have you been smoking, I don’t want any of it.
Kate on December 5, 2019 at 12:21 pm said:
In retrospect, the Clinton impeachment didn’t work out as planned. However, it was based on extensive findings of fact, to the effect that he committed federal felonies (and he plea bargained his way out of it the night before leaving office). The Senate found that felony misbehavior in a federal court was not a “high crime.” How the current unsubstantiated charge can be a “high crime” where a felony wasn’t is beyond my understanding.
* * *
It’s very easy to understand.
Felonies committed by Democrats are not crimes.
Anything done by Republicans is a crime.
FWIW, Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, selected as VP by Lincoln as a Unity ticket. He was not convicted, even though he clearly violated a Law (which was later declared unconstitutional, however).
https://www.nps.gov/articles/why-was-andrew-johnson-impeached.htm
“Yes, there is an argument…”
“Nope, President George W. Bush wasn’t one of the “Most Catastrophic Presidents in Modern American history,” and using all caps doesn’t make you more persuasive.”
Let’s review, though why this continues to be necessary is more bizarre than ANYTHING the Democrats are doing on impeachment.
George W. Bush failed to protect this country from the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.
He launched a war against a country that had nothing to do with that attack. That war got thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. The primary justification for that war turned out to be incorrect. We are STILL dealing with the aftermath of that war nearly 20 years later.
While he was President, the U.S. military tortured prisoners and the U.S. government spied on Americans without getting warrants.
He led this nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Just to speak to partisan GOP concerns, George W. Bush’s leadership resulted in Republicans LOSING the Senate, LOSING the House, and LOSING the White House.
And I’m not even going to get into a whole bunch of other stuff, like how he handled one of the worst natural disasters to ever hit a major American city.
As I wrote, you can certainly debate WHERE George W. Bush belongs on the list of “Most Catastrophic Presidencies in Modern American History” but there’s no argument about belonging on that list. He was so bad that Americans rejected his Republican successor in favor of a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. That’s pretty terrible.
Mike
In the PJMedia link from huxley: “They’ve got what they wanted: a hollow insult that will ultimately mean nothing but will bolster the low-information Trump haters’ delusions that there’s a criminal in office.” – Megan Fox
The Senate will decline to convict Trump, but will never move the opinions of most readers of the leftist media.
I read an article at Slate yesterday that confirms this observation, one of the many examples of how a writer can push a particular viewpoint with selective omission of information and careful choice of words.
A few examples of how Slate carefully shapes its audience’s perceptions:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/judiciary-committee-trump-impeachment.html
The Biden corruption is immaterial. That none of the witnesses unequivocably heard Trump say himself that there was a quid pro quo is immaterial.
“We don’t need no more steenkin’ evidence.”
And media reports are just as good as sworn testimony in a court of law.
“This is too important for us to consider principle or precedent or due process.”
Or law or justice, for that matter.
Where have we heard that line before?
Well — there you are. He must be guilty because his defenders (united GOP???) are “reportedly” (can’t they check the membership lists??) part of an alt-right gang of extremist Tea Partiers.*
No mention that Schiff closed the hearings to 2 other committees, including the one on which Jordan has his official seat, and his transfer was a counter-move by the GOP.
poor Jerry, always getting bullied by the Republicans.
Not like that great parliamentarian and Statesman Schiff!
“Shut up,” he said — the Democrats’ perferred MO.
Sentence first, trial after.
Finally, something we can all agree on!
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus
**Gaetz is indeed aggressive, but it is the Democrats who began running the circus show.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/rep-matt-gaetz-just-brought-a-blow-torch-to-the-impeachment-hearings-and-set-a-glorious-bonfire/
“…failed to protect…”
Some might opine that the reason for 9/11 was WJC’s (and his collection of savants’) brilliant idea that the FBI exchanging information with the CIA somehow posed a grave danger to American security—in all cases!!
And so a firewall was erected to protect the US of A from…such grave dangers…
…resulting in, well—“something bad” (but how and why will depend on whom you ask…or who you are).
Jus’ sayin’….
Still, if one wishes to blame Dubya, well sure, why not. It’s (still) a free country.
As for blaming Bush for Barack, one could… but might not one show a little charity and lay the blame on Fannie and Freddie…and those who made it rather difficult to curb their voracious appetites? Or might one blame McCain—charitably, of course.
Still, McCain, even though he was himself, did not too badly considering the economic melt-down that took place at a bad time for the GOP in the 2008 elections.
Opening multiple cans of worms.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/jonathan-turley-impeachment-claims-against-trump-contradict-obama-in-fast-furious/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/impeachment-is-the-perfect-opportunity-for-trump-and-the-gop-to-lay-out-all-the-evidence-against-ukraine-and-joe-biden
We might get reminded of stories such as this one:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603894.html
Well – there you go.
Just because Hunter Biden worked for a firm that was paid for the efforts of people lobbying his father, that’s not evidence that Joe Biden was corrupt.
Besides, the earmarks lobbied for were set up by the staff of Biden’s running mate. Clearly, no connection there.
MBurge:
GWB, is there anything he can’t ruin or didn’t destroy?
I’m sure he turned you into a newt as well. But you haven’t gotten better, just bitter.
Thread winner from Althouse commenter:
ga6 said…
Drag a hundred dollar bill through a law school and…..
@Roy Nathanson:I believed his “crime” was too trivial
Why the sneer quotes on “crime”? Perjury is a felony. He lost his law license over it, and he had to pay fines and settlements.
George W. Bush failed to protect this country from the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.
Which wasn’t a consequence of decisions he made. While we’re at it, he’d only been in office for 8 months.
He launched a war against a country that had nothing to do with that attack.
Since our policy in Iraq was not a direct response to al Qaeda, your point is irrelevant.
That war got thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. The primary justification for that war turned out to be incorrect. We are STILL dealing with the aftermath of that war nearly 20 years later.
1. We aren’t dealing with any aftermath. It’s a troubled country, but lots of places are.
2. Most amused that palaeopests and red-haze pests fancy the Iraqi insurgency doesn’t have any ammunition. The Iraq Body County has estimated that about 15% of the casualties in Iraq over 16 years are attributable to coalition forces and Iraqi state forces.
While he was President, the U.S. military tortured prisoners and the U.S. government spied on Americans without getting warrants.
Also amused that palaeopests cannot tell the difference between the military and the CIA. BTW, I have news for you. The National Security Agency practiced industrial scale scanning of international telephone calls, telexes, and wires between 1947 and 1975. I don’t think they limited themselves to just the numbers.
He led this nation into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
He did so only in the mind of economic illiterates. The problems in the financial sector were not a consequence of any policy initiative of the Administration and the efforts of the Administration in 2004 (promoted by John McCain among others) to induce an improvement in accounting practices at the mortgage maws were rebuffed by their agents in Congress, most prominently Barney Frank. If you want to list discrete measures which induced structural problems in the financial sector, you’d identify two or three. One was the sabotage of Brooksley Born’s efforts in 1998 to institute regulatory changes which would flush out the dark market in derivatives. Another was the decision by Freddie Mac to slash underwriting standards in 2003. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were formally private firms whose elite levels were chock-a-block with Democratic Party insiders like Herb Moses, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and James Johnson. People have identified the Federal Reserve’s loose policy (which lasted from the fall of 2002 to the fall of 2004) as a factor; Dr. Bernanke does have a response to that.
The federal regulatory agencies failed to keep ahead of technical innovations in finance after 1994, and that did have ill-effects. However, Bush was just one actor in that saga. In assessing Bush, you have to look at the responses implemented during his last 17 months in office, and look at what his successors added and subtracted and how other countries have responded in similar situations.
Just to speak to partisan GOP concerns, George W. Bush’s leadership resulted in Republicans LOSING the Senate, LOSING the House, and LOSING the White House.
George Bush’s ‘leadership’ and a half dozen other factors. Dwight Eisenhower handed off the Presidency to a Democrat and Bill Clinton to a Republican. George Bush the Elder was voted out of office in 1992 for reasons which are a puzzle. The Republican Party never had an ample plurality in either house of Congress (the number of house seats averaged about 226 over the dozen years they held the chamber after 1994) and they could readily have lost control consequent to banal cyclical shifts of a sort you commonly have in federal midterm elections.
And I’m not even going to get into a whole bunch of other stuff, like how he handled one of the worst natural disasters to ever hit a major American city.
FEMA is an agency which employs 6,000 people to cover the whole country. If you have a breakdown of discipline and organization among local first-responders, you’re going to have a mess, and George W Bush wasnn’t Mayor of New Orleans or Governor of Louisiana. A genuine criticism of Bush would be to offer a complaint about staffing policies of the sort that put an empty suit like Michael Brown in charge of the agency. Was New Orleans rebuilt or not?
As I wrote, you can certainly debate WHERE George W. Bush belongs on the list of “Most Catastrophic Presidencies in Modern American History” but there’s no argument about belonging on that list.
Well, I’m arguing with you. You’re not differentiating between circumstances faced and events flowing from the President’s contingent decisions.
MBunge:
Of course an argument can be made that George W. Bush was not one of the 10 worst presidents. It’s a matter of opinion. Just because you don’t agree with the arguments doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
He faced a very difficult set of choices after 9/11, Very. And his economic problems were mostly a result of the work of others, such as Democrats in Congress. I don’t think he was an especially good president. But not one of the 10 worst at all. I would call him middling. But I’m basically not interested in such lists, which for the most part are highly subjective (although there are a few presidents such as Buchanan and Harding who seem to make all the lists). And I’m especially uninterested in them when they include very recent presidents such as GW Bush.
Lots of interesting commenters at Althouse, but this made me laugh.
Bilwick said…
Skylark wrote: “They settled on ‘bribery,’ because regular Americans understand ‘bribery,’ then Americans saw the case and said “I know bribery, and this isn’t bribery.”
“Liberal” Democrats were angry because it wasn’t the kind of bribery they approve of: “Vote for me, and if elected, I’ll plunder your neighbor and split the swag with you.”
12/4/19, 1:31 PM
And there is always this MO:
Amadeus 48 said…
This shambles today is all fairly predictable. If you have no facts, you argue the law. If you have no law, you argue the facts. If you have no case, you pound the table.
And I’m especially uninterested in them when they include very recent presidents such as GW Bush.
Aye. One man’s worklife typically runs about 45 years. One should be fairly tentative about making historical judgments in regard to times more recent than that.
And his economic problems were mostly a result of the work of others, such as Democrats in Congress.
Disagree, Mainly, casino bankers ruined their own institutions. The crucial period ran from the end of 2003 to the end of 2007. The trouble is, a whole class of experts either didn’t notice or didn’t get the ear of the politicians and regulators until it was too late. Hank Greenberg actually assigned a pair of minions to figure out just what Joseph Cassano’s staff was up to at AIG’s Financial Products Unit in London; he didn’t know.
“Of course an argument can be made that George W. Bush was not one of the 10 worst presidents. It’s a matter of opinion. Just because you don’t agree with the arguments doesn’t mean they don’t exist.”
I didn’t write “10 worst Presidents.” I wrote “Most Catastrophic Presidencies in Modern American History.” There is a difference. If you can come up with 10 more catastrophic Presidents than George W. Bush since 1900, for example, I’d love to see it.
And of course when I state there is “no argument” I mean no REASONABLE argument. People can make unreasonable arguments all day about anything.
Mike
I wrote “Most Catastrophic Presidencies in Modern American History.”
There have been 15 presidents since 1929. There have been four notable sets of events which impinged on people’s daily life in disagreeable ways since then and in re discrete public policies are implicated. One was the Depression, one the 2d World War, one the breakdown of law and order in core cities (co-incident with the VietNam War and associated disturbances), and one was a series of failed macroeconomic policies implemented over 16 years. George Bush the Younger wasn’t responsible for any of them.
If you’re talking events abroad involving the United States, anything that’s happened since 1945 has been penny-ante compared to the World Wars. That aside, our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan have been modest when compared to Korea and VietNam.
“Which wasn’t a consequence of decisions he made. While we’re at it, he’d only been in office for 8 months.”
I don’t really need to get into the rest of your post, that pretty much sums up the quality of the moral, ethical, and practical reasoning put into it. It’s certainly fine to throw Bill Clinton and a bunch of other folks into the pot but to claim an American President cannot or should not be held accountable for failing to protect the nation from the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor is self-refuting nonsense. IT WAS LITERALLY HIS JOB AND HE FAILED AT IT.
The United States of America was in worse shape when George W. Bush left office than when he began. The Republican Party was in worse shape when George W. Bush left office than when he began. Yet over 10 years after leaving office, folks like you still feel compelled to defend his sacred honor. Anyone who thinks Democrats are the only problem facing us should keep that in mind.
Mike
rcat on December 5, 2019 at 10:50 am said:
RE: “Rage has unhinged them. And their base expects it.”
In Dante’s Inferno, the wrathful punish each other in the swamp of the river Styx. Those consumed by hate are simply brought together, and they torture each other for eternity:
* * *
That’s about as good a description of Hell as you could get.
Note that the people they usually torture here on earth are no longer available.
The Democrats and Left are already eating their own in a grotesque parody of Dante.
This story is a funny example, but sad as well, because it’s so trivial and so demeaning.
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/never-too-woke-chris-pratt-forced-to-apologize-for-water-bottle/
BTW, anyone seen “The Good Place” on NBC?
Our son showed me a couple of episodes from Season 1.
The premise is intriguing; the season closer…interesting.
MBurge – Calling an argument unreasonable doesn’t necessarily make it so. When people who argue the other side call your arguments unreasonable it doesn’t make them so either. Let’s skip the descriptive adjectives and debate the facts one at a time.
Don’t forget where the impeachment putsch started.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15219/durham-indictments
I don’t really need to get into the rest of your post, that pretty much sums up the quality of the moral, ethical, and practical reasoning put into it. It’s certainly fine to throw Bill Clinton and a bunch of other folks into the pot but to claim an American President cannot or should not be held accountable for failing to protect the nation from the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor is self-refuting nonsense. IT WAS LITERALLY HIS JOB AND HE FAILED AT IT.
I never mentioned Bill Clinton.
The President is not some omniscient being. It is puerile to pretend he is.
That aside, the primary failure was attributable to airline security measures which had been in place for nearly 30 years. George Bush wasn’t in charge of the Massachusetts Port Authority.
The United States of America was in worse shape when George W. Bush left office than when he began.
And we’ve been pointing out to you that that’s not fairly attributable to decisions he made (though some of it is attributable to matters left unattended – by the President and just about every other actor).
MBunge:
Calling an argument “self-refuting nonsense” doesn’t make it so.
Obviously, you believe the argument is “self-refuting nonsense.” But it’s not even remotely “self-refuting” to say that neither Bush nor any other president had the information to stop 9/11. The threats were general and not specific. He had only been in office a little while. There were systemic (mostly Congress-passed) checks in place that made it especially difficult to put together any of the intelligence from the different agencies in order to get the full picture. If anyone was at fault, it was the officials at the FBI who didn’t follow up on this sort of thing.
TommyJay on December 5, 2019 at 3:13 pm said:
… Here is a piece on Schiff requesting and getting phone records on Devin Nunes and R. Giuliani. Nunes was on Fox last night, and journalist John Solomon had his phone records collected too, someone claimed.
* * *
I saw a couple of mentions of that yesterday, including this, but Nunes adds important details to the claims that Schiff made, “Nunes knew about the subpoena and didn’t object.”
Well – there you go.
Some of the chatter is that Schiff was just looking for records of calls that Lev Parnas made and hoovered up the Republicans “accidentally” – but if he subpoenaed 5 numbers that theory needs a little more work.
This falls into the Democrat MO for the impeachment hearings, which is to sling tar around and see what sticks, rather than conducting any kind of legiimate investigation. In this case, of course, the inclusion of “evidence” AFTER the hearing was concluded, when it cannot be challenged in an official setting, is lawless and despicable.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/04/devin-nunes-adam-schiff-violated-my-civil-liberties-phone-snooping-legal-options/
Analysis of the legal implications by Dyer, regardless of how Schiff got the numbers.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/12/04/incredibly-adam-schiff-subpoenaed-phone-records-of-nunes-giuliani-others-bragged-about-it-to-msnbc/
MBunge:
A “catastrophic” president should by definition be a “worst” president.
In addition, you are not the final judge of whether an argument is “reasonable” or not. Also, you said “no argument” period.
My arguments are quite reasonable. Nor do I have any particular love for Bush. As I said, I think he was a middling president rather than a good one. He was, however, faced with enormous challenges and many were not of his own making. That he didn’t solve some of them successfully does not make him a “catastrophic” president.
You can define these things any way you want, and you can dismiss and insult the arguments of others, but you have not done so successfully.
sdferr on December 5, 2019 at 3:19 pm said:
MZ Hemingway: Impeachment Is Slowly Destroying Democrats’ 2020 Political Hopes
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/05/impeachment-is-slowly-destroying-democrats-2020-political-hopes/#.XelMT0R9GTc.twitter
I haven’t read this yet, but presume to paste title and link.
* * *
Nothing is ever lost by linking a post by Mollie.
In re “Democrats eating their own” — you can’t make this stuff up.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/05/watch-leftist-white-man-steals-mic-from-black-councilwoman-supporting-pete-buttigieg/
This is who the Democrats extol as their front-runner, and they have problems with Trump’s “demeanor” —
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/05/campaign-denies-joe-biden-called-iowa-voter-fat-in-viral-video/
(following transcript of the exchange)
I’m seeing shadows of the “truth not facts” comment Biden made earlier on the campaign trail.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/08/10/bidens-gaffe-is-the-lefts-truth/
“Everybody knows who Donald Trump is. Even his supporters know who he is. We got to let him know who we are. We choose unity over division. We choose science over fiction. We choose truth over facts.”
Fake but accurate lives on.
“But here’s a post at Legal Insurrection describing Pam Karlan’s entry into the low blow sweepstakes, which involved mocking Barron Trump’s name.” – Neo
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/12/05/nolte-cnns-chris-cuomo-trashes-melania-as-hypocrite-for-defending-barron/
Lindsey Graham was right, at the Kavanaugh hearings, about that power lust; I hope he acts consistently on what he said.
This behavior is not new for the Democrats.
I remember the vile attacks on Sarah Palin’s family, followed by the mealy-mouthed tut-tutting about how the Obama kids were “off limits” – which replicated their pattern of frowning censoriously if Chelsea Clinton was ever criticized — and continues now, even though she is an adult volutnarily engaging in politics — but gleefully attacking the Bush daughters for any teenage peccadilloes.