Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the latest rationale for opposing any nominee of President Donald Trump: that any nomination or confirmation must wait until the completion of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It is a claim being voiced by both politicians and academics despite the absence of constitutional or historical support.
Here is the column:
In a city where necessity has long been the mother of invention, the retirement of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has unleashed a frenzy of creative arguments of why President Trump should not be able to appoint a second member to the Supreme Court. Panic can lead to many things, but principle is not one of them.
According to Democratic politicians and advocates, there is a long standing principle that any nomination by Trump at this time would be clearly improper. This convenient discovery was explained by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) in a judiciary hearing, where he insisted that, as “a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation,” any nomination or confirmation must wait “until the Mueller investigation is concluded.”
This suggested barrier for a Trump nomination is both artificial and opportunistic. Initially, Democrats argued that Trump should wait until after the midterm elections given the earlier blocking of a vote by Republicans on Merrick Garland’s nomination at the end of the Obama administration. I was critical of the denial of Garland of a vote, but Republicans have noted that this is not a presidential election year and, more importantly, they have no intention of being “Garlanded.”
That has led to this new argument that, somehow, a nomination by Trump would be improper due to special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation. It shares the same motivation with the Garland rationale, which is to avoid a vote on the merits of a nomination while claiming that principle, not politics, is guiding the decision.
Even if Trump were an actual target of the investigation, this argument would still be dubious. However, Trump repeatedly has been told that he is not a target but a subject of the special counsel investigation. This position has not changed over the course of two years when former FBI Director James Comey told both Congress and Trump that he was not a target. Moreover, Mueller reportedly told the White House in March that Trump still was not a target but, rather, a subject.
In the U.S. attorney’s manual, a “subject” is any “person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.” Nevertheless, the mere fact that conduct is relevant to an investigation is being claimed by Democrats as a barrier to a president carrying out a constitutional duty. So, a president is expected to leave the Supreme Court with just eight members, and likely deadlock votes, until there is no longer even a chance, no matter how remote, that he could be elevated to target status and then elevated to being a defendant.
Worse yet, this same logic applies to both state and federal investigations. In either case, the Supreme Court could be the ultimate deciding body on questions related to such investigations. Thus, hostile state attorneys general or district attorneys could effectively block a nomination or confirmation by launching investigations into a president’s conduct.
A special or independent counsel investigation can easily go on for years, so merely starting an investigation into a matter touching on a president’s conduct would be enough to strip presidents of their Article II authority of appointments to the highest court. After all, the Whitewater investigation went on for 2,978 days. Trump has roughly 930 days left in his presidency. Mueller was appointed roughly 400 days ago, so even if he moved at twice the pace of Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, it could be another 1,100 days until Trump would be free to make an appointment, under this theory. That period conveniently would end more than two months into the term of the next presidential term.
If Democrats thought the failure of the Senate to vote on Garland was wrong after roughly 300 days, try a denial of the right of a president to nominate a justice for potentially 10 times that period. Putting such practical considerations aside, the constitutional implications are staggering if a president could be effectively blocked by the mere initiation of a criminal investigation on the state or federal levels.
One of my colleagues, Paul Berman, explained in the New York Times that “people under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.” Of course, by this same logic, presidents “under a cloud” should be denied the appointment of judges on lower courts as well as Supreme Court justices.
Nothing in the Constitution or history supports the claim that any “cloud of investigation” over a president is a barrier to the confirmation of a nominee. Indeed, not a single such objection was voiced when President Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer on April 6, 1994, to replace Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, three months after the appointment of the Whitewater independent counsel. During the summer Breyer was confirmed, Congress subpoenaed 29 Clinton administration officials in its own investigation, and the Clinton legal team ramped up for challenges.
Of course, Trump is not Clinton, and that seems precisely the point. Berman argued that Trump’s “possible crimes are inextricable from his desire for unilateral control of the federal government” and that he is “a president who refuses to acknowledge any checks on his power as legitimate, whether those checks come from the courts, the legislature, the media, the government bureaucracy or his political opponents. This is the perfect recipe for autocracy. In such a world, the importance of checks and balances has never been greater.”
The last point appears to be most important for politicians and advocates alike. The primary check on a president’s appointment power is to deny confirmation. This argument offers Democratic senators the pretense of principle in refusing to vote to confirm any nominee of Trump. The duty of senators is not to refuse to confirm but to insist that a nominee has the intellectual and ethical independence to fulfil the oath of office.
It often seems that both the U.S. criminal code and the Constitution are endlessly flexible when the subject is Trump. However, if necessity is the very mother of invention, consistency is the very meaning of the rule of law. Whoever Trump’s nominee may be, it is the nominee, not the nominating president, who should be the focus of a confirmation vote.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
It is bandered around in Washington DC that Mueller had sex with a dog when he was in law school. Where did he go to law school?
The University of Virginia Law School (1973).
https://www.biography.com/people/robert-mueller-241110
Excerpted from the article linked above:
Mueller followed his father to Princeton, graduating with a bachelor’s in politics in 1966, and earned his master’s in international relations from New York University the following year. He then served with distinction in Vietnam, receiving the Bronze Star, two Navy Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry as an officer in the Marine Corps. Returning stateside, he resumed his education at the University of Virginia Law School, serving on the Law Review and earning his J.D. in 1973.
Unable to achieve his initial goal of a position with the United States Attorney’s office, Mueller joined the San Francisco firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro out of law school. He fulfilled that goal by becoming assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Northern California in 1976, rising to chief of its criminal division in 1981. Mueller then became assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts in 1982, and served as the district’s acting attorney from 1986 to ’87.
Following a year at the Boston firm of Hill and Barlow, Mueller joined the U.S. Department of Justice in 1989 to spearhead the prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. He took charge of the DOJ’s criminal division in 1990, where he oversaw the Lockerbie bombing case and formed the agency’s first cyber-dedicated unit.
Mrs. Ann Cabell Mueller
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdn.panda-gossips.com/production/posts/eyecatches/000/002/005/original.jpg?1517254341
Correction: Ann Cabell Standish Mueller
What was the constitutional or historical support for not acting on the Merrick Garland nomination?
The Senate has plenary discretion over it’s schedule, as well as whether or not to advise and consent to nominees. There is no constitutional provision you can cite which says otherwise.
First, as to the “Merick Garland Rule”, the issue was a lame duck having a say in placing someone on the Supreme Court who could be there for maybe 40 years. So, President Obama was denied his nominee on the alleged basis to give the people, about whom the Republicans supposedly care so much, a say in the process. That Rule absolutely applies here–Congress has to pass on the nominee, so since many of them may well be lame ducks, there should be no voting on any replacement of Kennedy until after the midterm elections. The Republicans are trying to shove through a nominee because they fear Democrats may take over at least one house of Congress, and this is precisely to prevent the people from having any say. More Republican hypocrisy.
Jon appears to be whining about there being special rules for Trump, and that people want to bend interpretations of precedent just to apply to him. The inference in all of Jon’s writings about Trump is that he’s being treated unfairly–that the powers that be are out to get him. Jon must also be a Fox disciple, because this is one of their themes that they hammer constantly, but it’s not true. There can absolutely be no dispute that he is unique. He is the most deceitful, consistent liar in recent history to occupy the Oval Office. He’s had multiple business bankruptcies, multiple marriages, multiple scandals and a consistently and historically low approval rating. He is racist, xenophobic, misogynistic and a bully. He lost the popular vote. He has alienated U.S. allies because of his attempts to bully them, and he holds campaign-style rallies solely to feed his fragile ego. His main agenda has been to roll back environmental and consumer protections, lower taxes for corporations and the uber-wealthy, and to cut social safety net programs to appease wealthy Republicans, and to pander to his racist, xenophobic base. As to the power of the Supreme Court, never forget that Al Gore was denied the presidency by the Supreme Court because they ordered the Florida recount stopped, and as a result, many service members died in the Iraq war started by Bush 2.
Although Jon tries to make the case that Trump isn’t likely to get indicted very soon because of parcing of the words “subject” and “target”, and because the process takes so long, he should just be allowed to proceed. He cites the deadlocked current state of the SCOTUS in support, but it is precisely this deadlock, plus the simple truth that Trump LOST the popular vote, that should prevent Trump from proceeding with a nomination. When the Court is consistently ideologically deadlocked, as it is now, the voice of the people on the tie-breaker could never be more important. The hypocritical Republicans want to shove their agenda through with an extreme conservative whose views do not reflect the will of the people. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Amercans do NOT want Roe v. Wade overturned. However, these are not Trump’s base, and because he needs adulation and cheers, he couldn’t care less what most Americans want, think or feel. His marketing team has dreamed up the slogan: “Promises Kept”, so he’s going to do everything he can to shove through a nominee. That’s not how our government was intended to work. Take that, you Originalists!
Trump’s likely crimes may well eventually find their way before the Supreme Court, so Jon wants to focus on the nominee, not Trump. There are probably hundreds of thousands of lawyers with stellar academic and writing records who would theoretically be qualified. However, like the unconstitutional travel ban, you have to consider Trump’s own words about whom he would nominate for the Supreme Court: someone who would reverse Roe v. Wade being the main qualifier. Also, don’t forget to consider how flattered the possible nominees would be: they know better than to admit they would overturn Roe v. Wade, just like slick Gorsuch.
There’s a remote possibility that Justice Kennedy might have been called upon to recuse himself from any SCOTUS case involving President Trump (such as, if Mueller asks a grand jury to issue a subpoena for Trump’s testimony, for instance). But the alleged conflict of interest behind that supposition appears to be at least as shaky as Turley’s several allegations of Rosenstein and Mueller’s supposed conflicts of interest. And, in any case, there’s no indication that Justice Kennedy would have decided against Trump in a SCOTUS case about a grand jury subpoena for Trump’s testimony. OTOH, it would make an excellent question to pose to Trump’s nominee during his or her confirmation hearing, despite the very long odds against any nominee answering such a question. The simple fact that Trump persistently raises such questions in peoples’ minds, including my own, is . . . [what’s the word] . . . unprecedented.
Obama was denied ‘his nominee’ because the Senate is under no obligation to approve any nominee. Garland was left alone and not subject to the torrents of public abuse which Republican nominees have had to endure.
A TRUMP PICK COULD RULE 20-30 YEARS
BUT DONALD TRUMP IS CLEARLY ”NOT’ THE FUTURE
Less than one third of the potential electorate voted for Donald Trump. At least half of all Americans believes Trump’s election was tainted by foreign actors. Evidence to support that premise mounts with every indictment. Robert Mueller has logged 25 so far.
‘No’, Donald Trump should ‘not’ get a pick to the court. Not until the Midterm Elections have decided the next Congress. The McConnell Rule should apply as it did to Merrick Garland. It would be sheer hypocrisy to waive it for Donald Trump until the people have had a chance to register their input.
Justice Kennedy is only 81; old but not a geriatric case. There is no reason why Kennedy cannot remain on the court until ‘after’ the Midterm Elections.
One should note, however, that Kennedy’s son Justin was the longtime head of Real Estate and Capital Markets at Deutsche Bank. During that period Deutsche Bank approved $1 billion in loans to Donald Trump. This odd but significant link between Trump and Justice Kennedy is all the more reason a court pick should wait until ‘after’ the Midterm Election.
THE ODD LINK BETWEEN KENNEDY AND TRUMP
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html
EXCERPTS FROM ARTICLE ABOVE:
One person who knows both men remarked on the affinity between Mr. Trump and Justice Kennedy, which is not obvious at first glance. Justice Kennedy is bookish and abstract, while Mr. Trump is earthy and direct.
But they had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.
“Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”
Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.
During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.
Get over it Peter Shill, Trump is President. Not accepting the results of an election is typical of the mindset of authoritarians who cast that aspersion against everyone else. Listen to a few of Stalin’s speeches and you will be enamored by them.
Speaking of Stalin, read the Senate Intelligence Committee report if you want to see an example of a Russian authoritarian [Putin] interfering in an American election in order to help elect another authoritarian [Trump]
I wish Obama had done something about Russian interference when he was told instead of downplaying it. This question falls into the much larger question of cyber security and even EMP, but I don’t think the left has much interest in any of this. They are more interested in the degradation of the culture and political economy of this great Republic.
Trump has done nothing to prevent Russian election meddling in 2018 or 2020. Why not? What’s Trump waiting for? A second term in office? And then he’ll think about looking into doing something about Russian election meddling in 2024, maybe? Hell. Trump hasn’t even put Putin on notice yet. At least Obama did that much.
Trump has used armed force against the interests of Putin. His actions are sort of limited while Mueller is investigating. Mueller is investigating Russian election meddling so they say and he has quite a big team.
In any event, cybersecurity is the issue and Russian meddling in the election is just a small part. I believe Trump has called for hardening the grid and has taken some other actions regarding cyber security and I think he mentioned EMP as a threat. That has been a threat for a long time and no Congress or President has adequately addressed it even though it could be catastrophic.
Trump is on the verge of allowing Al-Assad to remain in power in Syria in keeping with Putin’s Syria policy and in direct opposition to US backed Syrian rebels. Trump is also on the verge of allowing Putin to pose as the protector of Israel against Iranian backed forces in The Golan Heights. As for your bluster about cyber-security–get real, already. Trump has already hired four former staffers from Cambridge Analytica to work with Brad Parscale on Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. That ought to tell you something about Trump’s approach to your cyber-security bloviation. Trump fully intends to go back, Jack, do it again. And so does Putin, Allaninny.
“Trump is on the verge of allowing Assad to stay in power”.
I agree that Trump will not try to force the removal of Assad.
When the previous administration decided that “Mubarek must go”, “Gaddafi must go”, and “Assad must go” they did play a major role in removing two of the three ” must go” leaders.
The aftermath of their removal did not go well. Egypt ended up with an even more repressive government, and Libya desended in choas.
After the experiences in Egypt, Libya, and Iraq (a Bush 43 decision), we were less likely to remove leaders of foreign countries.
There are limits to what we can, and should, do.
The likely path to removing Assad would be a military campaign against him.
With Russian and Iranian support, Assad has reestablished control over most of Syria, and is likely to stay in power for a long time.
Had the uprising against him been successful, we don’t know what would have followed Assad’s removal.
The aftermath in the case,of the other countries clearly showed the downside of taking out a country’s leadership.
For that reason and for other reasons, I think that Trump right to “allow Assad to stay in power”.
We don’t need another Iraq, Libya, or Egypt venture. In all three cases, it would have been far better to refrain from implementing a “must go” policy.
Firstly, Diane, you know nothing about cyber-security and you know less about the threats of EMP and its associated problems.
It appears you need a history lesson on an almost daily basis. You write: ” Trump is on the verge of allowing Al-Assad to remain in power in Syria “. That may or may not be, but the first thing one has to consider is what happened in Libya? Assad is a terrible human being, would the anarchy seen in Libya be a good thing in Syria? Will Syria be broken up? Will the Iranians be forced out of Syria? If the Iranians are starved from cash will they be able to support Hezbollah and Hamas? If their support to those terrorists decreases will the Middle East become more peaceful. What about Yemen? Will the Iranians continue to push in Yemen? Will the Iranians be able to buy technology from North Korea feeding North Korea? Putin looks out for Putin but he is an important figure in all these areas. Can Putin be made to change his direction? He has to some degree.
“Putin to pose as the protector of Israel against Iranian backed forces in The Golan Heights.”
I take note of your use of the word “pose”. The Israeli army sees to its own security, not Putin. Putin may do things benefiting Israel, but those things are done to benefit Putin.
You and your friends have predicted all sorts of things that would happen under Trump and for the most part, all are being proven wrong or have already been proven wrong. You have been shown to be a fool with regard to your predictions.
maybe only a third voted for him by popular count i dont know, not that in a parliamentary system that would matter, and here the electoral vote is what counts remember? also that figure about “tainted by foreign whatever” is baloney, hogwash, seriously flawed polling instruments can evoke whatever nonsense the askers want. the russia narrative is phony war state propaganda.
Trump wants rock solid personal loyalty. That’s the foundation of his presidency and whoever best communicates this to him gets the nod.
Generally, leaders want “personal loyalty”. Just look at those from the Obama administration that were impeached, pled the fifth or have been arrested. Personal loyalty does not imply that such loyalty extends to breaking the law or not upholding the Constitution. So far no loyalties to Trump have been shown to extend to breaking the law or the Constitution, however, such loyalties that broke the law and the words of the Constitution extended to many that were in support of Obama and also Hillary Clinton. (See my article posted less than one hour ago written by Hanson).
It seems like the left has no problem of illegalities or ethical lapses, as long as it serves their interests.
Sex, Lies and the Deep State What the affairs of the deep state tell us about it. Daniel Greenfield
At the heart of the effort to bring down President Trump were two affairs. Unlike the bizarre lies about Moscow hotel rooms and prostitutes in the Steele dossier that was used by the Clinton campaign and its allies to smear President Trump and generate an investigation against him, these affairs truly took place.
And they didn’t just expose the malfeasance of four people, but of a corrupt political culture.
The affairs between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in the FBI, and between Senate Intelligence Committee security director James Wolfe and New York Times reporter Ali Watkins, did more than betray the spouses of Strzok, Page and Wolfe. They also betrayed the duties of the two men and two women.
The affairs were not private matters. The two illicit sexual relationships were also illicit political arrangements. As the Inspector General’s report noted, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Clinton ally who has since been fired, used Page as his liaison with Strzok to circumvent the chain of command on the investigation. McCabe used Page as his conduit and Watkins’ media employers used the young reporter as a conduit to her older married lover and the leaked information he allegedly provided her.
BuzzFeed, Politico, the Huffington Post and the New York Times were aware of the Watkins affair. As the Times piece on Watkins coolly put it, “Their relationship played out in the insular world of Washington, where young, ambitious journalists compete for scoops while navigating relationships with powerful, often older, sources.” Usually it’s enemy governments that employ young women having an affair with older married government officials to extract information on Intelligence Committee proceedings.
But here some of the biggest names in the media were caught using the same tactics as the Russians.
How significant was the Ali Watkins and James Wolfe affair? Former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, in her furious defense of Watkins, noted, “most crucially, the value of her journalism (her Carter Page scoop in BuzzFeed actually helped lead to appt of Mueller).” Strzok was forced to leave the Mueller investigation due to the exposure of his texts with Lisa Page. Watkins’ affair with Wolfe has been credited by a key media figure with helping create the monster that is the Mueller investigation.
At the rotten heart of the campaign against Trump lay the betrayal of private and public fidelities.
But the Strzok-Page and Watkins-Wolfe affairs were also crucial in bypassing formal lines of communication. Illicit affairs are popular espionage tradecraft not just because they provide blackmail material against influential officials, but because their very informality makes it easy to create covert networks within organizations as personal intimacy is used to maintain political intimacy.
McCabe allegedly used Page to create such a connection between him and Strzok. The media appeared to have used Watkins to create a link into the Senate Intelligence Committee. It’s unknown if anyone on Wolfe’s end was aware of the affair and using it to feed information to the media. But it would not be too surprising if the open secret of the affair was just as open on his end as it was on the media’s end.
It’s easier to piggyback one illicit secret on another. There were two layers of secret affairs here, one layer of intimacy between two couples, and another layer of illicit intimacy between organizations. The organizational affairs cover three key players in the campaign against President Trump: elements in the FBI, the media and the Senate Intelligence Committee who had adulterated their responsibilities.
When we talk about the deep state, what we really mean are these illicit networks within the government that have their own rogue agenda. These networks exist in every part of the government. Some are just corrupt, trading favors, cash and access. Others are political. Like enemy spy cells, their members coordinate privately to suborn organizations the way that these men and women did.
The arrest of the occasional spy ring gives us an insight into how they operate. The exposure of Strzok, Page and McCabe, of Watkins, Wolfe and the media, gives us an insight into how the deep state runs.
Corruption requires complicity. As every good spy knows, the best sources are those who have proven that they are willing to compromise their ethics in other areas, whether it’s gambling, adultery or theft.
The network that went after Trump was, at least in part, built out of such people. In their varied cases, mistresses and spouses served as crucial conduits to a public official such as the DOJ’s Bruce Ohr whose wife Nellie worked to dig up dirt on Trump for Fusion GPS or McCabe whose wife Jill had received $675,000 for her political campaign through a close Clinton ally, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
Spouses could be used to route financial benefits while mistresses carried information, as Watkins did from Wolfe and Page did from Strzok. Formal political affiliations, such as James Comey’s supposed Republican status, matter less than the private ones of his wife and daughters who are rabid Clinton supporters and Trump opponents. In Washington D.C., formal party affiliation is downstream from social politics. The career networks that matter are built in restaurants and cocktail parties, not polling places.
Up close the swamp is making friends who can help you move from the public sector to the private sector. It’s peddling influence, getting to know people and building transactional relationships. It’s players who know everybody hiring out to other players who need to know everybody. It’s also knowing how to bypass ethics rules, oversight and chains of command to be able to get the things you need to do done. That might be a contract, a subsidy, a sale or the overthrow of the United States government.
It’s just another day in the swamp.
The Mueller investigation rose out of that swamp and the Clinton-Steele dossier dived deep into it. The investigation of the investigations has only begun mapping the swamp. Underneath the turgid waters of the Potomac, the swamp dwellers have their own mores. The stately government buildings, cozy restaurants and dignified manors conceal twisted relationships between people and organizations.
In every society, the governors live by a different set of rules than the governed. In Washington D.C., infidelity to spouses, oaths, governments, voters and ethics is not an aberration. It’s the rule. Adultery to whatever you claim to hold true is the price of admission. It’s how you can be trusted to join the club.
The political side of the imperial city is a small town. And everyone knows all the dirty secrets. Call it the deep state, the swamp or just what happens when government becomes its own culture.
Government runs on rules, on knowing them, enforcing them and breaking them. At the lowest level of power, you know the rules. At the next level you enforce them. At the final level, you break them.
That final level of power is the deep state. It lives where the rules are meant to be broken.
The campaign against Trump ran on the parallel laws of Washington D.C. Its networks were covert alliances that ran on the social relationships of the swamp. That these networks included infidelity and political prostitution as a feature would only be natural. In a transactional town that traffics in relationships, running a coup piggybacked on an affair and prostituting a reporter are virtues not sins.
The legitimate body of government tests for ethics. The parallel deep state tests for corruption. The men and women who went after President Trump didn’t just cheat on each other, they cheated on America.
These parallel networks, in government, in public life and in private life, are the conduits of corruption. To defeat the deep state, these parallel networks in government must be exposed to the light of day.
As long as the deep state remains deep underwater, the corruption will continue.
It seems like the left has no problem of illegalities or ethical lapses, as long as it serves their interests.
Again, no procedural principles, and substantive principles limited to status games.
Absolutely. Add innuendo to the name of their game. Innuendo is the mark of a coward and a Shill.
DSS, I should have also said we face the common problem of entropy so energy has to be invested to maintain our free Republic while the left and other forces are trying to tear it down.
You’re pivoting again. When you use a Hannity-ism like “deep state”, you give yourself away.
“Deep state” is a commonly accepted term except by those that are members of it or supporters of it. It’s an appropriate term to use considering how many of the higher echelons of the FBI have been implicated in activities that extend to criminality.
Yes, that is also Fox/Breitbart’s spin on this phrase they’re trying to coin. There is no “deep state”, just a fat, pathetic, emotionally immature con man who got into the White House with the help of a hostile foreign power that he wants to do business with, supported by racist, xenophobic misogynists who pay him adulation because his fragile ego needs it. So, those who oppose him must be part of a vast, secret plot to deny the racist xenophobes their rightful President. Therefore, it is appropriate to attack the integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department who go after him. because they’re part of the “deep state”. If the vote count was against him, well, that can only be because of illegal voters. That’s the Fox/Breitbart message in a nutshell. What scares me is the people who believe this, primarily because the racist, misogynistic and xenophobic message of Trump resonates with them.
Natacha, see my earlier response to you. You do not wish to have a fact-based argument. You only wish to purvey your hate-filled uneducated rhetoric. Any time you wish to deal with the facts instead of that garbage I will engage you.
Allan: my stomach won’t let me extensively read what you write. You claim I engage in hate-filled rhetoric without factual basis. OK: 1. Trump IS fat. Anyone with eyes can see this. 2. he refers to those attempting to obtain asylum as “infesting” our country. The word “infest” refers to vermin, like cockroaches, rats and mice, and is not a word used to describe people attempting to flee violence and danger. He also separates families and incarcerates babies and children, which are human rights violations. He called Mexicans “rapists” and “criminals”. This is xenophobia–lack of respect for people who are different. 3. Russia did interfere with the 2016 election, for the purpose of helping Trump win. That is no longer subject to serious dispute. The only issue is the extent of Trump’s cooperation, which is being investigated. Trump has tried to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Due to multiple business bankruptcies, he hasn’t been successful in obtaining financing so far, but he hasn’t abandoned plans for this, so he DOES want to business with Russia. He speaks in flattering terms about Putin, who murders people. Those are facts. 4. Trump brags about what he perceives as his right to grab women’s privates. Has called women : “fat pigs” and has used other derogatory language. He says that Congresswoman Maxine Waters has “low intelligence”. This is misogyny–lack of respect for women. 5. When the woman protester got ran over by a White Supremacist in Charlottesville, he said she bore equal blame and said that the White Supremacists were “good people.” These are examples of racism. 6. Trump holds campaign-style rallies with cheering crowds of almost exclusively white people. His fragile ego is well-documented. He needs to take credit for things he didn’t do, and is desperate for praise. 7. He has repeatedly claimed that his loss of the popular vote was due to illegal voters. All of these are facts, not rhetoric.
Teaching Allan to fish, he would still starve. He would just say the water is out to get him.
FishWings, I can’t tell whether you are going through your first childhood or your second childhood. Either way, you need a mother figure to take care of you.
“won’t let me extensively read what you write. ”
That is not surprising or of interest to me for you engage in confirmation bias.
“1. Trump IS fat.”
This is the level of your intellectual abilities. No one need say more or read more of what you say. I do, but only for a laugh. Your statements are a mixture of incompetent analysis, falsehoods and lack of context. In a court of law, you would be laughed out but a big topic of conversation at the cocktail hour when the legal community converses about the most ill-informed person they ever heard in court.
That’s the best you can do, Allan? Have you seen what Trump looks like in golf clothes, especially when photographed from the rear with no coat to cover his huge butt? I wouldn’t mention his obesity, except that he has called women he dislikes”fat pigs”, so his obesity becomes fair game. Just another example of his lack of class and respect for the Office of President.
What “falsehoods” have I uttered? BTW: add the Muslim ban to the comments about xenophobia. At his campaign rallies, he repeatedly told his disciples that he’d keep Muslims out, merely because they practice the Muslim faith. Of course, he never added those traveling from Saudi Arabia, where the 911 terrorists were from, because the Saudis have lots of money.
You love to throw out the clichés: “confirmation bias, incompetent analysis, falsehoods, lack of context, ill-informed.” You cite no counterargument, because you know I am right.
I have cited enough fact for you to choke on, but your number one point is that Trump is fat. That is about a trivial an argument as one can make without resorting to four letter words and imbecilic statements that have no meaning at all. Let us take your number one statement. Tell us how his being fat prevents him from governing.
Natacha – to say that Maxine Waters has a low IQ is just the truth, it has nothing to do with gender. And quit trying to fat shame Trump. What is your BMI?
Quite the fan fic, starting with the claim that Obama officials were impeached. Like who?
In their little bubble that they live, the sky is green and the grass is blue, and it’s ALL Obama’s fault.
Eric Holder.
He was not impeached. They did not have near enough votes.
He resigned so they couldn’t impeach him. These leftist leaders are like cockroaches. As soon as you shine a light on them they disappear.
Dude, they didn’t have the votes.
There was no vote. He resigned.
No vote because they did not have the votes. They had somewhere between 28 and 141. Not 218. https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/07/impeach-holder-joel-gehrke/
I don’t know what your article is supposed to say. Holder had already been held in contempt of Congress for not providing records requested over and over. Things were heating up and there was pressure to impeach him. Whether or not they could have garnered the votes will always be in question since Holder decided to resign removing a lot of political pressure from himself and the administration. You can make an assumption but you cannot conclude how many votes would have been for impeachment. The only way to do that is to go back in time and let things play out without Holder’s resignation.
On the comment section of this blog, too many conclusions are drawn. Learn the difference between an assumption and fact.
Farcical claptrap, but it fits you and your ilk very well. Pro tip: the commemorative “silver” coins they’re shilling to you on Pravda Faux News aren’t actually a good investment in precious metals.
this is to “dangit, I shoulda read the fine print” allan
Mark, I think you are too loyal to parts of your own body. Time for you to get out there and meet the opposite sex.
“Worse yet, this same logic applies to both state and federal investigations.”
Prof. Turley, using the word ‘logic’ and Trump opposition in the same article is usually a dead giveaway.
This demonstrates the need for laws that immunize legislators from arrest except for breach of the peace or felony while the legislature is in session.
And, to a lesser degree the protection of citizens travelling to cast their ballots during elections prevents disenfranchisement.
Right, unless the citizens have been the target of voter suppression, preventing them from voting.
Has Meuller started his investigation yet? I hadn’t noticed but it looks like he’s fiddling about much ado about nothing except drawing a fat check and stacking up meaningless paper – and letting the Congress do his job for him.
Nothing much to concern ourselves with here mostly boring with time after time charges collapsing due to lack of sufficient evidence, manufactured evidence and running around the garden path playing tiddly winks and AVOIDING anything of substance where the answer are to be found ….
Only question here is how long can they spin out this charade which is starting to look like a RICO violation in and of itself.
Back to the serious world.
LOL – this is very funny.
No, the investigation is not complete. There’s a lot going on. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-05/mueller-said-to-tap-more-career-prosecutors-as-trump-probe-grows?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
Stay tuned for the first of Manafort’s trials later this month. You can wait for that, can’t you?
Hollywood, what does the article actually say about Trump? The headline says it all. Despite 2 years of investigation, they are going nowhere, “Mueller Taps More Prosecutors to Help “. They know it, and while they are going nowhere people are fighting back like the Russian company under threat that was never intended to go to court. Now Mueller has to cut such claims or risk opening the investigation to sunlight something he never wants. Manafort? Everything produced happened BT, before Trump. In the meantime, it is becoming clear that the ones fishing for things non-existent are the ones being caught.
What is actually happening?
The Left Can’t Come to Grips with Loss of Power By Victor Davis Hanson
Key Trump administration officials have been confronted at restaurants. Representative Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) urged protesters to hound Trump officials at restaurants, gas stations, or department stores.
Progressive pundits and the liberal media almost daily think up new ways of characterizing President Trump as a Nazi, fascist, tyrant, or buffoon. Celebrities openly fantasize about doing harm to Trump.
What is behind the unprecedented furor?
Just as Barack Obama was not a centrist, neither is Trump. Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States. Trump pledged to do the same and more — but in the exact opposite direction.
The Trump agenda enrages the Left in much the same manner that Obamacare, the Obama tax hikes, Obama’s liberal Supreme Court picks, and the Iran nuclear deal goaded the Right.
Yet the current progressive meltdown is about more than just political differences. The outrage is mostly about power — or rather, the utter and unexpected loss of it.
In 2009, Obama seemed to usher in a progressive revolution for a generation.
Democrats controlled the House. They had a supermajority in the Senate. Obama had a chance to ensure a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for years.
Democrats had gained on Republicans at the state and local levels. The media, universities, professional sports, Hollywood, and popular culture were all solidly left-wing.
A Republican had not won 51 percent of the popular vote in a presidential election since George H.W. Bush’s 1988 defeat of Democrat Michael Dukakis. Before 2016, Republicans had lost the popular vote in five of the previous six presidential elections.
And then visions of a generation of progressive grandeur abruptly vanished.
Obama left behind a polarized nation. Democrats lost both the House and the Senate. During Obama’s tenure, Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the state level.
Presumptive winner Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 presidential election.
Foolishly, Clinton tried to ensure a landslide victory by wasting precious campaign time in unwinnable red states such as Arizona and Georgia. Meanwhile, she too often neglected winnable purple states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all of which Obama had won in 2008 and 2012. Clinton apparently forgot that the Electoral College, not the popular vote, elects a president.
After his election, President Trump did not implode as predicted. By following the Obama precedent of relying on executive orders, Trump began recalibrating everything from immigration enforcement to energy development.
To progressives, Trump became not an opponent to be beaten with a better agenda, but an evil to be destroyed. Moderate Democrats were written off as dense; left-wing fringe elements were praised as clever.
Abroad, Trump did what no other Republican president would have dared, bombing ISIS into submission, canceling the Iran deal, seeking to denuclearize North Korea, pulling out of the Paris climate accord, and moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The U.S. economy took off with new tax cuts and deregulation. Radical improvement in unemployment, economic growth, and oil and natural-gas production created new consumer and business confidence.
Despite his frequent crudeness, Trump is inching toward a 50 percent approval rating in a few polls. That has only made an impotent opposition grow even more furious — both at the other half of the country for supporting Trump, and at a buoyant Trump himself for baiting and ridiculing progressives in the fashion of no prior president.
Worse still, much of the loss of progressive power was at least partly self-inflicted.
Former Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid foolishly dropped the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster for executive appointments and most judicial nominations in 2013. That blunder ensured Republicans the chance to remake the Supreme Court when they took over the Senate in 2014.
Obama chose not to try to win over his opposition, but to alienate it by veering hard left in his second term. Hillary Clinton foolishly got herself into a number of personal scandals that embarrassed her party and helped lead to her defeat.
In reaction to the sudden loss of political power, Democrats would have been wise to run to the center, as did Bill Clinton, who all but ended the era of the Reagan Republicans.
They could have dropped their obsession with identity politics and instead attempted to win over blue-collar voters with more inclusive class appeals rather than racial appeals.
Instead, Democrats have endlessly replayed the 2016 election. In Groundhog Day fashion, Hillary Clinton repeatedly offered tired excuses for her loss.
To progressives, Trump became not an opponent to be beaten with a better agenda, but an evil to be destroyed. Moderate Democrats were written off as dense; left-wing fringe elements were praised as clever.
Voters in 2016 bristled at redistribution, open borders, bigger government, and higher taxes, but progressives are now promising those voters even more of what they didn’t want.
Furious over the sudden and unexpected loss of power, enraged progressives have so far done almost everything to lose even more of it.
And that paradox only leads to more furor.
More pivoting. People could just watch Fox, which would save you the trouble of writing it out here, if they wanted to hear this drivel. No, no other President has tried to de-nuclearize N. Korea? That’s Hannity’s spin now? Here’s a clue, pal: North Korea not only isn’t de-nuclearizing, it’s building up more than before Fatso went over there. Hillary DID win the popular vote, and, no, it’s not because of illegal voting, either, contrary to what your lying President says.
Trump is NOT “inching” toward 50% approval: never has, and never will. That is nothing but a big, fat lie. He is not respected nor respectable. The economic growth President Obama brought about after inheriting the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, has slowed under Trump. You claim there is business and personal confidence? Maybe you don’t read what most people read, but the signs for a major economic recession are on the horizon, and it’s because of Trump. Tax cuts helped only the wealthy, and the money went mostly for stock repurchases, not for bonuses or raises. The tax cuts have massively increased the deficit, which is on track to break all previous records. Republicans have already drafted bills to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and if the stock market takes the major hit that is predicted, older Americans will get screwed. Until then, those who support Trump love how he tells off those uppity women, blacks, intellectuals and Democrats, and how he is caging the brown vermin that are “infesting our” country. Of course, they don’t realize that he is also rolling back environmental and consumer protections put in place to protect them.
Meanwhile: 1. where is Mexico’s check for $20 Billion. YOUR President said “trust me, Mexico will pay.” Why hasn’t it?
2. where are the babies and most of the girls?
Natacha, North Korea may not denuclearize but I think Trump will continue to act against them if they don’t. Former Presidents rolled the can down the road. If he does the same he doesn’t have my vote.
You make all sorts of claims about FOX news when the MSM has been proven over and over again to have stated mistruths. I will make the same offer to you as I have to other people on your side of the aisle. Pick a Fox show or shows that you believe tell lies. We can record the same shows and then debate what they actually said. You won’t do that because Fox is fairly accurate with the news and the facts. Their opinion is theirs and doesn’t constitute a lack of truthfulness only the fact that you and they disagree. IMO that disagreement is mostly due to the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.
There you have it. A way to see who is lying. You won’t engage in such a task because deep down you realize that most of the facts you spew are pure junk and that you have an opinion that is uninformed.
You really, really need to believe that Fox is “America’s newsroom”, don’t you? You really, really need to believe Hannity, Tucker Carlson and the snarky bottle blondie, too. I don’t even know where to start with the lies and misinformation: how about Trump’s standing in the polls? Consistently and historically low. How about all of his alleged achievements? Did he do away with Obamacare? No. Can’t get an immigration bill through Congress, even though Republicans control both houses, so he rules by Executive Order. Who couldn’t do that? How about the claim that there were 3 million illegal voters that explains his loss in the popular election? How about the “historic” Inauguration crowd? How about Benghazi, a non-issue, and all of the attacks on the FBI, the Justice Department and anyone else investigating Trump, merely because they are investigating Trump? How about the non-existent “deep state”? How about accusing Comey of trying to help HRC, when, in fact, the disclosure of reopening the investigation helped Trump? How about Guiliani claiming that Trump denies having sex with Stormy Daniels, when, in fact, he himself has never denied this? What about Melania’s non-education? The list is seemingly endless.
What, exactly, does Trump think he’s going to do about North Korea, anyway? Keep insulting Kim Jong Un, calling him “Little Rocket Man”, so he’ll stop building N.K’s nuclear arsenal just to stop the insults? Trump’s visit accomplished nothing, other than an opportunity to grab more headlines and to play the big shot, which is what he lives for. N. Korea has made similar promises in the past. Trump came away with no timetable, no specific, concrete or enforceable promises, nothing but some vague aspirations, so he’s sending his surrogate to try to get something, anything, to take away the criticism over yet another failure. How about alienating all of our allies? How about the tariffs, which will hurt the US more than other countries? What are soybean farmers in Iowa going to do when they can’t sell their crops?
How about all of the promises not kept? I still want to know when Mexico’s check is coming. but more than that, I want to know where most of the girls and babies are.
“You really, really need to believe that Fox”
Natacha, I believe you don’t know what you are talking about and that is why you won’t take up my offer where we both tape the same shows and then discuss them.
“so he rules by Executive Order”
All Trump has done is take an eraser and erased Obama’s executive orders. That is why Obama should have used the legislative process.
I will deal with one idea at a time. Explain why your number one complaint of Trump being fat prevents him from governing?
In the real world, Natacha has already wasted more time on your inanities than you or your ilk are worth. I don’t believe that you actually think the day glo bozo is anything but a buffoon; you just don’t appreciate the gravity of the danger of having such an startlingly incompetent imbecile as president. Rather, I think you grin and bear because you believe that the day glo bozo is a useful idiot who can be manipulated by the authoritarians around him to put “those people” back into their place. I regret to inform you, however, that yes, your imbecile can be manipulated quite easily; witness the North Korean disaster. Unfortunately, the next guy coming has a lot more ability and skills than the hermit loser who just took the day glo bozo’s lunch money. As for putting “those people” back into their place, that train has left the station; get over it or just die the f*ck off; the “good ole days” weren’t really that good.
this is to “but he’s not a KENYAN!!” allan
Mark, you should really start a new game. Yours is starting to smell.
Natacha – what do you have against people dyeing their hair, especially blondes. Or are you just jealous because blondes have more fun?
Paul, she thinks women dye their hair blonde to attract pedophiles. Seriously, she said that in one of her truly incoherent rants. She based this premise on something Dr. Joyce Brothers said.
But really, why would someone have to be skinny to be an effective president? Obama was skinny, and he almost succeeded in tearing this country apart. Actually, his skinny self is still trying.
FF Sierra,..
Yes, Obama was skinny, and he also had big ears.
If only Obama’s opponents knew how effective the repeated “Natacha Attacks” and obsessions about a president’s appearance were, they could have brought the Obama Aministration down to its knees.
With the same effectiveness of the Natacha-like attacks.
This reminds me of a case I read about many, many years ago where some nut went into a hair salon in Manhattan and started shooting people to protest women getting their hair dyed blonde. Natacha’s dad?
Natacha….wow, when all is said and done, you might be in for some serious help if things don’t go your way.
More Trump fan fic. If you read the superceding indictment, you’ll know that Manafort’s alleged crimes continued during and after his time with the campaign. Moreover, he is in jail today for witness tampering in February of this year. So, stop spinning.
Hollywood, show us how over that short period of time Manafort’s crimes extended to the candidate. You can’t and Mueller can’t because it doesn’t exist. I’ll wait for you to stop yapping like a mindless dog and respond with a well-built argument that is logical and proves Presidential or candidate complicity. Until then you can use the outdoors to spread your manure.
Well, Allan, I don’t know everything Mueller knows. And I don’t know everything you pretend to know. That said, Mr. Manafort has had longstanding entanglements with Russians and Russian intelligence assets. His involvement with Konstantin Kilimnik aka Kostya is troubling and potentially damning. I suppose part of the answer will be found in following the money. https://www.vox.com/2018/6/15/17468524/manafort-trump-mueller-russia-jail
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-astonishing-tale-of-the-man-mueller-calls-person-a/562217/
Another part of the answer may be learned when Cohen flips. The “fixer” has suggested that he can advise about Trump’s advance knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting. Manafort, of course, attended the meeting.
In other words Hollywood, you base your claims on nothing. I don’t know everything the FBI knows. And I don’t know everything you pretend to know. That said the FBI is looking for a serial child rapist and so far you haven’t proven you aren’t the one. Logic doesn’t appear to be a discipline you paid much attention to.
Time will tell, Allan, but I think signs point to my being right and you blowing smoke. Now, enjoy your andouillette.
Time will tell, Hollywood, but almost certainly Trump will not be found guilty of any significant breaches involving the Presidency. On the other hand, even time might never reveal the truth as to who that serial rapist was and for all we know it could have been you.😀
Allan,
Are you trying to reveal something about yourself through projection and failed attempts as humor? Maybe you should seek psychiatric help?
“Maybe you should seek psychiatric help?”
No, I’m perfectly sane, but if I needed one I probably couldn’t get an appointment because you and your friends have filled up all the psychiatric appointments. It’s all part of the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Mueller has logged 25 indictments so far. That’s hardly “doing nothing”.
Half for process crimes and half for Russian internet trolls in cases he wasn’t expecting to have to try. (These last he’s now handing off to a collection of AUSAs). There’s also the Mueller indictment, which could have been handled by the Criminal division or the U.S Attorney and which the presiding federal judge has said in open court is a transparent maneuver to get the President.
You may now resume your talking points.
You really want to die on the “process crimes” mountain? Those are plea deals stupid.
The Judge (I believe Ellis) who made the critical remarks also denied Manafort’s motion to dismiss. He may not like the pressure being brought to bear, but he sees the potential guilt of Manafort.
See the assessment of Andrew McCarthy, stupid. A ‘plea deal’ to turn state’s evidence delineates the conspiracy and the pleading defendant’s part in it. These didn’t. Because there was no conspiracy.
Do you have copies of the plea deals? Produce them, then. Witnesses can testify about more than what’s in their plea deals, Andrew (biased to the nth degree) McCarthy to the contrary, notwithstanding.
“Andrew (biased to the nth degree) McCarthy”
Hollywood, you say these things out of ignorance. McCarthy doesn’t opine to a significant degree. He is more into reporting the news, but he was one of those conservatives at the National Review that was against Trump. In other words, he doesn’t have a closed mind so common on this blog so his reporting is as he sees it even though it demonstrates that his initial judgment was flawed. That you call him biased to the “nth degree” indicates a tremendous lack of knowledge and demonstrates that your conclusions are worthless because you base them on only that which you wish to believe.
I’ve read McCarthy on NRO (where he discourages comments by requiring a subscription) and on PJMedia. He opines all the friggin’ time. And he always reminds you he was an Assistant US Attorney. He and Dershowitz are constantly trying to come up with every technical defense they can for Trump. (And Turley is not far behind.) Dershowitz has been a guest at Mar-a-Lago. Don’t know about McCarthy.
McCarthy opines on the law and not particularly on politics. But if you had read him as much as you say you did you would have seen that he was one of the National Review writers that all wrote a little piece against Trump in the same article. Lots of people have been guests at Mar a Lago.
He and Dershowitz are trying to explain the law to people that should know better. You just don’t like that so you complain.
Why shouldn’t that news media require a subscription for you to leave a comment? The New York Times requires subscriptions as does the WSJ where you can’t even read the columnist without a subscription. Do you think these people should write for free just to satisfy you?
“guest at Mar-a-Lago”
Are you asking to get in there for free as well as comment on NR? No big shakes
How many of those 25 indictments have been about “collusion” with Russia?
When Trump says “This investigation was supposed to be about Russia”, he’s expressing a view that is widely shared.
At a minimum, it is a large minority who question the objectivy and the course of Special Counsel investigation.
You are correct. There is a large minority who question the Special Prosecutor’s investigation. Guess who they are. Trump’s hardcore racist supporters and their ilk. They and Fox will always question anyone or anything that implicates their hero, Trump the felon. So that minority is not dispositive of anything, much less the truth.
Well, Hollywood, I was wondering just how big of an obnoxious fool you were from your earliest comments in this thread.
I thank you for definatively answering that in your last few comments.😒
Your ad hominem comments clearly show who and what you are.
That’s the risk you take, Hollywood, when you make baseless accusations.
Here’s a tip…if you’re upset by what you call “ad hominem attacks”, don’t pull a foolish accusation of lying out of thin air.
Review your other comments and see how polite and “civil” you were in your posts.
Taking the “high road” would mean I would ignore it instead of responding, and blasting a pain-in-the-neck, insulting whiner.
Not everybody believes in always taking the high road.
Glad you woke up from your coma. There are thousands of articles about the investigation that await you as you regain your cognitive faculties. Enjoy!
It looks like screw’em is a fan of fiction and totally dislikes anything already proven.
LOL. Textbook projection from Allan.
When one argues with a leftist there is no need to project. The left lives in a world of dreams and fantasy. totally dominated by their faith-based leftist religion.
How’s Alex Jones’s second civil war started by Democrat’s on July 4th going?
Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist who sometimes gets things right, but I don’t think there will be any Civil War in the immediate future. However, we do have to be on the watch from the violent left including ANTIFA and those that think like Maxine Waters. We had to face that in the past with those that blew up buildings and killed people like the Bill Ayers type who somehow always had the sympathy of Obama.
One of Allan’s pals on the right:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/he-is-a-member-of-a-violent-white-supremacist-group-so-why-is-he-working-for-a-defense-contractor-with-a-security-clearance/
You are as stupid as those that accuse Milo of being a white supremacist. Milo is gay, is partly Jewish and is married to a black man. It must be awfully hard to survive with nothing between your ears.
It’s a good idea to read a cross-section of those thousands of articles.
Here’s a better take on the issue, Professor. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/05/trump-supreme-court-personal-692403
Let’s see If Trump appointed Theodore Chuang or Hawkins or Gould or Paez, I bet “the Russians are coming Booker” would not object.
I won’t lose sleep waiting for those appointments.
Mueller has now incorporated the use of dung beetles. That’s right, to analyze Trump droppings. Lucky for Mueller, these beetles work for…..Bleep.
The left is not dealing with the rule of law. They prefer rule by outlaws because it appears their ultimate goal is a complete remaking of the US and that includes rewriting the Constitution and eventual rule by an elite oligarchy. If that ever comes, watch the guillotines working overtime.
All these excuses of the left are simply part of a never-ending line of excuses. The solution is for the Republicans to solidly engage the rule of law but Rino’s pick and choose based on their master’s whims.
So if this investigation goes on for 8 years, does this mean for 8 years Trump couldn’t make any appointments?. If the president can’t make any appointments and the house and Senate can’t get anything done that leaves bureaucrats making up rules and regs for US to live by. In other words our government would be on automatic pilot.
Democrats have no procedural principles and not many substantive ones. Just improvisations which provide an excuse for them to grab what they want.
I. Bob,…
Of course, your scenario is hypothetical.
But I think many of Trump’s opponents in Congress would actually prefer a crippled Trump presidency to a Mike Pence presidency.
Politically, that is more useful to them.
To date, the impeachment talk, and resolutions, don’t have much support in Congress.
And those making the most noise about impeachment tend to be flakes like Maxine Waters.
Tom, the dummies at the DNC are starting to realize that all of this talk of impeachment is likely causing them votes in the midterms. On election day I plan to wear a Maxine Water’s t-shirt to remind people what they are voting for should they decide to vote Democrat.
Allan – did you see that Diamond and Silk are making a movie called Dummycrats?
Talk about low IQs….
Do these Democrats arguing this novel idea know that the Constitution recognizes only one person at a time as President? Do these same people know that certain appointments can only be made by the President, not the Vice-President, nor anyone else?
These statements being made elevate the Special Counsel, a position not even authorized in the Constitution, above the powers of the Office of the President.
This act of repulsiveness by these Democrats is a vengeful act meant to put an illegal stop to the actions of President Trump. The novel arguments being used are beyond stupid, and any person in government suggesting that they should be continued needs to be relieved of their position immediately.
Democrats have been for more than 30 years madcap about having their preferred candidates on the appellate courts, because they can seldom get what they really want through the deliberation and votes of elected officials and popular referenda. That, in turn, is derived from the Democratic Party being a vehicle for gentry liberals who fancy the opinions of ordinary people (and politicians who act as agents of ordinary people) are simply invalid and should never prevail over the opinions of cadres of the sort for whom the Democratic Party is the electoral vehicle.
Does anyone here believe that the GOP wouldn’t use the same argument if the circumstances were just the opposite? And if the JT’s of the world complained, they wouldn’t craft some other rationale?
He gave you an example of the argument not being used by Republicans under similar circumstances.
Reading comprehension. It’s great stuff.
Spastics Dancer:
And if the JT’s of the world complained, they wouldn’t craft some other rationale?
Teacher, teach thyself.
Again, when have they done it, Bill? No one is culpable for the issue of your imagination.
Stupid is as stupid does! My God, the Democratic Party is suicidal.
Thus, hostile state attorneys general or district attorneys could effectively block a nomination or confirmation by launching investigations into a president’s conduct.
They don’t ever seem to think these things through. Sounds great (for them) on the front-end, but what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Oops.
President Trump is proving to be the Democrat’s Gordian Knot.
That could prove to be a dangerous analogy since the original Gordian Knot was cut by a sword.
That could prove to be a dangerous analogy since the original Gordian Knot was cut by a sword.
RSA,
Exactly. Instead of the Democrats finding a constitutional means to untangle the perceived knot, they seem to rely on the unconstitutional sword to achieve their ideological ends. They do this at their own peril as they’ve removed any legitimate argument against the sword in the future. Without a legitimate defense for their hypocrisy, the Left’s cry of whataboutism is their only response.
So, Olly, it sounds like you are making an argument to support Mueller’s continuing investigation? As opposed to cutting some symbolic knot.
If I chose to ignore all the evidence of misconduct by the FBI/DNC that led to the IC, then sure. That misconduct however was the cutting of the knot, but it wasn’t supposed to be discovered. Instead we were expected to see the illusion of a constitutional process and never ask who’s pulling the levers behind the curtain.
So no, Mueller’s investigation needs to be terminated IF he cannot immediately produce actual evidence warranting the investigation.
Fortunately, you don’t get to decide when Mueller has to do what. As for misconduct, I guess we have to await some further IG report and the Huber report. Gosh, why haven’t those guys immediately produced actual evidence of any alleged misconduct?
Paul C. Schulte,,…
But many of the Democrats, as evidenced by comments like those of Natchacha, accepted Trump’s victory with grace and stoicism. 😄
Best comment of the day!
Tom Nash – Yes, Hillary was very gracious in her speech after losing.
Turley’s right on this one. We’ll just have to take our lumps while fighting the nominee at the confirmation hearing and on the Senate floor.
Democrats need to prepare themselves for a violent backlash if they continue their constitution-defying shenanigans. This is not high school. Americans take their freedom very seriously!
Prescient is omnipresent devoid of intent and outcome.
“A man is inocent , until provin guiltily “ and no incumberancy to his right to the pursuit of happiness shall be recognized.
I was waiting for someone to point that out! An investigation is an investigation. Nothing more. Until a President is found guilty of an offense serious enough to warrant impeachment, and has actually been impeached, he should carry out his constitutional duties.
The argument does not hold water.
Firstly the premise underlying guilt or innocence is that one is innocent until proven guilty, regardless of how that is reversed by authorities in some cases. Authorities steal money from suspected drug dealers based on the simple fact that they have money and then it is up to the target to prove innocence, at their own expense, before getting their money back.
Secondly, the political system in the US is threaded with hypocrisy. Where the Supreme Court was left with only 8 judges for an extended time, with the dominant party using legal and other arguments to support this, that same party will use the same legal mumbo jumbo to expedite the appointment of a replacement before they lose the element of the Senate that might thwart their choice. That power has already taken away the ability of a minority Senate power with the filibuster. Might is right is the argument. It comes, as always, with a mighty dose of hypocrisy and legal mumbo jumbo.
Perhaps the only way out of a Trump loaded Supreme Court is to impeach Trump, find him guilty, run him out of town, and then declare his appointments null and void for whatever legal argument can be crafted. Let’s hear that legal position.
Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court could only be removed by impeachment of the Justices at issue if one could find any impeachable offenses committed by those Justices. It doesn’t seem especially likely.
L4D
My comments were only to illustrate that the judge’s/law’s clout, more often than not, in these issues such as abortion, guns, oligarchical foundations, etc are more a result of the ideology of this or that judge and not the law(s) or our sacred texts. As has been historically chronicled the law can be used to argue polar opposite positions on just about any issue brought before a court. For all his mastery of legal mumbo jumbo, Scalia could have just as easily supported strict gun regulation, as is demanded by the first part of the second amendment and the prohibition of corporations purchasing representatives, senators, judges, etc. The proof of this is that there are equally convincing legal arguments offered up on each occasion, for opposing stances.
As Turley and other legal eagles on this blog see through this lens of a legal world, they view through a glass darkly; to use someone else’s words. It is often entertaining to watch a lawyer argue that black is white and up is down but somewhat sad when they win. It seems to all come down to power and winning with little concern for the structure that is supposed to provide for the will of the people, the best interests of the people, for we the people. The winning is done by the elite, by maintaining a sufficient level of ignorance on the issues, through the entertainment of a game show President. Recently a Mullah in Iran stated that Obama gave out 2,500 green cards or paths to citizenship to Iranians and their families as part of the sanctions/nuclear deal between the West and Iran. This was viewed as ridiculous in Iran, without any foundation whatsoever in the US, a total fabrication, an argument for argument’s sake by a Mullah who was a hard liner and an opponent to the deal. It took Trump less than a day to jump on this and tweet it about as a fact. This asinine behavior from the worst President to ever inhabit the White House is actually lapped up by his supporters. Now, this successful imbecile, this working buffoon, this active liar will appoint a judge who is supposed to see that the Constitution and other sacred texts are maintained as sacrosanct based uniquely on his or her ideology with a good legal gift of the gab. It’s the old making politics is like making sausages; you wouldn’t eat them if you knew how they were made. But, this butcher takes it to a whole new level of disgust.
Exactly, it’s like andouillette. Basically a shit sausage.
Mr. Basonkavich, I lack the ability to disagree with you. And you’re taking advantage of my inability to disagree with you. And I don’t mind at all. More please.
Is this what you do in Canada, if so start exercising your opinions there. Here’s one why not abolish you healthcare plan so Canadians don’t have to come to the U.S. for good healthcare.