Pelosi’s Poison Pill? Speaker’s Comments Are Cited In Federal Court To Block Impeachment Inquiry

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent filings in federal court by the Justice Department opposing the effort of the House Judiciary Committee in seeking grand jury material redacted from the Mueller Report. The Justice Department is relying on the comments of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in arguing that there is no real impeachment investigation proceeding in the House.

Below is the column

Before abruptly ending a press conference this week, an annoyed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi snapped, “Why is it that you are hung up with a word over here when lives are at stake over there?” The word, of course, was “impeachment,” and reporters kept asking about it because the House Judiciary Committee approved something that may or may not be the start of an impeachment investigation. When reporters persisted in asking what the vote meant, Pelosi feigned shock and dismissed them as “the only ones who are so into this.” But that is not quite the case.

Just down the street from Capitol Hill, lawyers could not stop talking about impeachment, and the words of Pelosi were being submitted to Chief Judge Beryl Howell in the District of Columbia in an ironic twist. Two years ago, tweets by Donald Trump were submitted to courts to undermine Justice Department claims in support of his controversial immigration orders. The conflicting statements of the House leadership, including Pelosi, are being submitted by the Justice Department as its principal evidence against the demands of the House, which has been seeking judicial orders to compel disclosure of grand jury evidence, on the basis of this being an impeachment proceeding at long last.

Months ago, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee on its demands for evidence from the White House. I believed some of those demands should prevail. Yet, as the last lead counsel in an impeachment trial, I stressed that the failure to formally declare an impeachment would undermine its position in federal court. For more than two years, I have written about the conspicuous failure of the House to take the obvious steps needed for an impeachment and, most importantly, to do so before time ran out on any real opportunity to impeach President Trump.

The reason is simple. Democratic leaders never intended to impeach Trump. But after winning control of the House in 2018, in part on the expectations they would impeach, they had to give every appearance of wanting to do so without actually doing it. Their new strategy was to investigate every possible allegation against Trump, including those predating his presidency. The information uncovered could be used in the 2020 election while letting the clock run out. Pelosi could declare that time was up and that voters would decide the matter.

In the current litigation, the House is burning time and energy, seeking grand jury material that constitutes a tiny fraction of the information redacted in the special counsel report. For months, the House demanded that Attorney General William Barr turn over that material, even though various experts testified that he lacked the authority to do so. The House finally acknowledged what it knew all along, that only a federal judge can release such information, and only for a “judicial proceeding.”

The House then went to court to litigate the issue while still not formally declaring an impeachment proceeding, wasting additional weeks. Now, about two years too late, the House Judiciary Committee has said it has started something to do with impeachment, but it will not say what exactly. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler pointedly said that he would not get into what to call the current effort of his panel.

However, when asked if this was a vote to start an impeachment process, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer categorically answered no. That is curious, since he was one of those members who signed off on a filing stating that it was exactly that. Reprepresentative Hakeem Jeffries, who is the fifth ranking House Democrat, simply said that he did not know if an impeachment investigation had begun with the committee vote.

Now, the Justice Department has submitted those and other statements to the court, to directly contradict the representations of the House. The many opposing statements by Pelosi are given particular significance by the Justice Department, which observed, “Most prominently, the Speaker of the House has been emphatic that the investigation is not a true impeachment proceeding” and quoted her statement a few weeks ago that Democrats were “not even close” to moving on impeachment.

These statements undermine an already tough case for the House, as Pelosi knows. The impeachments of Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were investigated in clearly defined phases, each the subject of a resolution passed by the entire House. Indeed, the House Judiciary Committee chairman in the Richard Nixon impeachment expressly stated that a “necessary step” has “always been” the passage of an inquiry resolution. There is also an ongoing debate over whether an actual impeachment investigation is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e), which governs the secrecy of grand jury material. The House is asking the court to not only treat its investigation as such a proceeding but to do so when House leaders are also contradicting that characterization.

I did not believe tweets by Trump should have been given much weight in lower court decisions on the immigration case. Indeed, he ultimately prevailed before the Supreme Court. I would also be inclined to disregard the statements by House leaders in accepting this as an impeachment investigation. Yet, that still would leave the difficult question of what constitutes a “judicial proceeding” for grand jury disclosures. While grand jury material was produced in the Nixon impeachment, there is lingering uncertainty in the courts over the true scope of this legal term.

But none of this really matters. House Democrats are continuing with a strategy of “planned obsolescence” of impeachment failure designed to occur just before the 2020 election. Even if the House prevails in court, the grand jury information it is seeking would not materially change an impeachment effort, beyond wasting time to guarantee its failure. Whatever the House Judiciary Committee process is, it lacks the focus, urgency, or credibility to be an impeachment. Indeed, the glacial pace of this process over the last two years makes kabuki look like an action film.

Asked by reporters if the House had finally opened an impeachment investigation, Nadler said, “Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature.” The problem is that a federal court does care about nomenclature, and the difference here is not between an investigation and an inquiry, but between an actual impeachment and raw politics.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He also served as the last lead counsel in an impeachment Senate trial and previously represented the House of Representatives. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

83 thoughts on “Pelosi’s Poison Pill? Speaker’s Comments Are Cited In Federal Court To Block Impeachment Inquiry”

  1. So when is Pelosi going to be investigated and impeached and tried for illegally seating unqualified people as Representatives. Four Requirements by law. Citizenship, Age, Votes, Taking verbally and by signature the Oath of Office. Only Pelosi has the power to skip around that fourth step in the case of The Squat. Open and Shut.

  2. The only person at risk from this entire sordid affair is Brennan, whose reputation and potential livelihood is on the line. At best, Brennan is guilty of extremely poor judgement; at worst, he actively conspired to use the office of Director of the CIA to interfere in the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Neither option speaks well of the U.S. Intelligence Community and those in Congress charged with oversight of its operations.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/14/the-spy-who-failed/

    1. thanks thats good

      “Reports on fake news – 53%
      Reporting gossip – 49%
      Lying spokespeople – 48%
      Celebrity opinions – 36%
      Left-wing agendas – 34%
      Gotcha journalism – 33%
      Right-wing agendas – 32%
      Puff pieces in exchange for access to other important interviews – 31%
      Blind items being reported in the news – 30%
      Hit pieces – 21%
      Rise of independent contributors versus on-staff media – 14%
      And an overwhelming majority (67%) believe ethics in journalism will be worse during the 2020 presidential campaign. When asked about the impact unethical journalism has on the country, Americans cited four chief problems:

      64%: It creates division and partisanship
      63%: It fuels inaccuracies
      60%: It incites hate
      57%: It creates fear
      “If ever there was a time for an in-depth discussion about ethics in the media, it’s now,” said James Ennis Kirkland, president of the San Francisco Press Club.”

      THEY HAVE NO ETHICS. THE BIGGER THE OUTFIT THE LESS THE SOCALLED ETHICS, IT SEEMS

      1. kurtz and mespo buy the Trump line on the media. How else could you buy what he’s selling than by trying to discredit our best sources for news and facts?

        1. The NYTImes reads a book where Kavanaugh supposedly pushed his penis in front of a female’s face. That is your type of media. The NYTimes reports no further and leaves out the fact that the female doesn’t remember that incident ever happening and her friends report a similar story. After doing damage to the reputation of Kavanaugh they retract what they said. This is plainly an attack on anyone who might be considering replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

          That is the sleazy NYTimes at whose altar Anon prays to while the NYTimes preys on the American public.

          1. Kavanaugh didnt push his penis. Friends pushed it into the hand….of someone who denies it ever happened because penis’ being pushed are quite memorable. Pics would help!

            “A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account,….”

            Lucky for Justice Kavanaugh, a classmate who runs a nonprofit, notified senators and the FBI
            What a swell guy.

            Liberals should commit self-immolation in protest!

        2. How else could you buy what he’s selling than by trying to discredit our best sources for news and facts?

          Anon1,
          How many times do you need to be Takata’d by these so called best sources before you start questioning their commitment to quality?

          Check out this list of auto manufacturers and no doubt many on this list are considered to be of the highest quality. And yet everyone of them have issued recalls of their vehicles with Takata airbags after they’ve blown up in customers faces.
          • Acura
          • Audi
          • BMW
          • Cadillac
          • Chevrolet
          • Chrysler
          • Daimler Trucks North America (Sterling Bullet)
          • Daimler Vans USA LLC (Sprinter)
          • Dodge/Ram
          • Ferrari
          • Fisker
          • Ford
          • GMC
          • Honda
          • Infiniti
          • Jaguar
          • Jeep
          • Land Rover
          • Lexus
          • Lincoln
          • Mazda
          • McLaren
          • Mercedes-Benz
          • Mercury
          • Mitsubishi
          • Nissan
          • Pontiac
          • Saab
          • Saturn
          • Scion
          • Subaru
          • Tesla
          • Toyota
          • Volkswagen

            1. About 1.5 years. I live 8 minutes from my office by foot.

              Now your turn Anon; how many times do you need to see these hit pieces retracted before you admit they are no longer honest news brokers?

              I understand you and I see things differently, but you’ve demonstrated a capacity for rational thought and I know you know propaganda when you see it. When you defend them, I know you are only doing so out of loyalty to your cause. I expect that from others on this blog, but not you. Prove me wrong.

              1. You must remember. That isn’t a real name and it has never submitted anything substantiated. What we refer to as a machine part. To the point they can never claim ad hominem while we consider ad machina to be an appropriate response.

              2. Surprising news here, but the NYTs, WaPo, WSJ, AP, NPR, etc are all run by humans under deadline pressures, etc. Unlike you and I, they make mistakes at their jobs and unlike Trump, actually admit it when they do, and retract their errors. Now I know that you would prefer they show more strength and just double down on errors and drag them out for weeks without ever backing down – even under such unarguable events like past weather – but they’re old fashioned that way and they need the customers and the business.

                1. Unlike you and I, they make mistakes at their jobs…

                  Yes they make mistakes. But when those mistakes become a pattern, it’s no longer sufficient to assert these are mere random failings of a few incompetent journalists. The mistakes are always made favoring a liberal ideology. The fact the only consequences of these mistakes is issuing a correction, reflects a specific business model that would require support throughout the organization.

                  1. Olly, that’s false. The NYTs made a big deal out Hillary’s private email server as well as the stolen DNC emails. There was nothing in any of them and Hillary had done nothing Colin Powell and Condi had also done, and she had more reason.

                    You think the news is slanted because your guy is an a..hole and they report on the a..hole things he does every day.. Every buddy in the world knows that.

                    1. Anon1 – Powell and Rice did not have a dedicated server in the bathroom of their home which was sending carbon copies to the Chinese, They also did not destroy 33,000 emails before they could be examined.

                    2. Paul:

                      “Former Secretary of State Colin Powell used a personal computer connected to a private telephone line to send and receive emails to staffers, friends and foreign leaders without having to go through State Department servers.

                      Powell shared that experience with Hillary Clinton two days after she took over as secretary of state. Powell cautioned Clinton to “be very careful,” lest her emails be discovered and become part of the official State Department record.

                      “I got around it by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data,” Powell wrote to Clinton in January of 2009….”

                      Of course Powell destroyed these emails.

                      https://www.npr.org/2016/09/08/493133413/colin-powells-ways-around-disclosure-detailed-in-new-email

        3. Anon1:
          The point of the cited poll, as anyone with a functioning cortex knows, is that the public overwhelmingly doubts what you call “our best sources for news and facts,” and it does so to the tune of 95% which is functionally everybody of every political stripe. You may conclude that this is because of Trump but like Lincoln said “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Sometimes all of the people are spot on right.

          1. Yes mespo, 50 million Elvis fans can be wrong, and while low public approval is news, that applies to your leader as well, something you have repeatedly denied.

            Cynicism is in style. So are tight jeans and tattoos. Buyer discretion is advised.

                1. mespo – I did hear Elvis was working at a Circle K in Mesa, AZ, but that was just a rumor. I am sure he was just part-time and passing through.

    2. As long as the media and the political class is held immune from prosecution, we will continue to see this strategy play out in the foreseeable future.

      It was The New York Times that was sued in Sullivan and, in fact, Sullivan dramatically increased the power and role of the media in society and gave them a constitutional basis for saying anything without compunction about public figures. And, it may be said, set the stage for the next increase in the role of mass communications in society, namely, internet-based media and social media.
      https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/09/defamation-oberlin-nicholas-sandmann-thomas-ascik.html?utm_source=The+Imaginative+Conservative+%28Daily%29&utm_campaign=2fa62420bf-Today%27s+Essays&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b25fb6fc69-2fa62420bf-132528881&mc_cid=2fa62420bf&mc_eid=c1f326aae5

      1. ah, olly, trust me they won’t change this.
        the mass media is america’s own privatized propaganda ministry.

        the openness of the internet was a bait and switch ploy to get it moving, adopted, advanced with human creativity. now they will turn the screws, as they are doing, shut dissenters down, deplatform, and then eventually have a lock on things even more firmly than they did before.

        and the event horizon of telecommunications is on the horizon as the cybernetic merger between the internet, all media and even the human organism is being expored:

  3. Why is it that every dispute lands in the lap of some judge? If Congress wishes to enforce a subpoena, have the Sergeant-at-Arms and a corps of armed men show up at Main Justice and let’s see who wins.

    1. If Congress wishes to enforce a subpoena, have the Sergeant-at-Arms and a corps of armed men show up at Main Justice and let’s see who wins.
      *******************
      Given the Executive’s Commander-in-Chief’s status, I’d say the First US Army trumps the Sergeant-at-Arms.

  4. IOW, most Democratic party voters are just too stupid to realize that all the impeachment claptrap was just BeeEss from the get go. Like the whole Russiagate silliness. But, when the typical Democratic voter wears hair weave, and is busy brawling in Chuck E. Cheeses. McDonalds, and various Waffle Houses, it is pretty easy to fool them.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. That is the name of the game in politics today and if we aren’t careful that game might end up costing us our Republic. Big business has enterred the game with powers that sometimes can equal that of our government.

      “Gabbard Campaign Sues Google Over Suspending Ads, Suppressing Free Speech”

      https://www.theepochtimes.com/gabbard-campaign-sues-google-over-suspending-ads-suppressing-free-speech_3082839.html

      Bad things happen when government ceases to act in an orderly manner.

      1. Tulsi quit the DNC chair she was on. I was recently reminded. In the last cycle. The Hillarites will never forgive her. Silicon Valley hates her. The homosexuals hate her father, who dared to criticize them.

        The Chicoms hate Epoch times, they are affiliated with the Falun Dafa.

        Tulsi has picked many powerful foes. I do not subscribe to all her liberal policy positions but I say this:

        She’s brave, smart, and beautiful.

          1. Good. They need to show advertisers that they are read. They are a small counterbalance to newsmedia like the NYTImes. They need loads of subscribers.

  5. Don’t think for an instant that Pelosi was injudicious with her words. She knew exactly what DOJ would do with them and will now use the Judge’s forthcoming ruling to complain they were thwarted by the “Trump-loving” (lol) judiciary all the while creating fodder for November. These politicians are Machiavellian to the extreme. Their cunning no more on display than in their (as one commenter puts it) “subtle art of lying”:

    “Everyone admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep his word, and to behave with integrity rather than cunning. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have considered keeping their word of little account, and have known how to beguile men’s minds by shrewdness and cunning. In the end these princes have overcome those who have relied on keeping their word.”

    ~The Prince, Ch. 18

      1. Paul:

        She really doesn’t have to. She can strip his chairmanship at any time. Nadler’s carrying out Nancy’s orders and taking the heat.

        “The first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them.”

        ~The Prince, Ch. 21

        By that standard, Princess Nancy has some work to do.

        1. She really doesn’t have to. She can strip his chairmanship at any time.

          The Republican caucus rules and the Democratic caucus rules, differ. IIRC, the Democratic rules have a seniority rank-order as a default, with the proviso that the caucus can replace a committee chair by ballot.

  6. In the present state of Republican’t operation of the control they have achieved thanks to Gerrymandering, voter suppression and their ignoring the will of the majority, they are blatantly and obviously Mafia-Don’s Crime Family.
    The usual method they are forced into for resolution of control is killing since with enough money any of them can get off………

    1. Darrel C. Carlson – All of the Southern States are covered by the Civil Rights Act and when they change their lines for representatives it has to be approved by the feds.

      1. No, the SC in 2013 rescinded that review process under the CR Act of 1965 and southern states can and some do gerrymander and otherwise suppress black voting.

        1. Anon1:
          How does one “suppress: a minority’s vote. I think it better said the current system artificially guarantees black majority voting districts — a perversion of democracy if ever there was one. Baker v. Carr did more to undermine America’s communities than anything ever written.

          1. Note, it’s quite possible to draft a practice manual for drawing electoral constituencies which contains and distributes the exercise of discretionary power and leaves little room for contrived gerrymanders. One crucial element in such a process, however, is replacing strict standards of equipopulousness in the composition of districts. The courts’ a$$-pulls since 1963 have required the use of freehand in drawing districts. (Courts have invalidated district maps which had population ranges as small as + / – 2%). The judiciary, as always, is the enemy of good sense and fair dealing.

            1. TIA:
              Constituencies should be based on a community of interests. That means you don’t make a district with populations having nothing in common. That happens in Virginia.

              1. Any geographic delineation will incorporate people with disparate interests. If communities-of-interest is your aim, the best you can do, in a political unit with Virginia’s properties, is to bracket out the three main urban agglomerations and then use a multilayered clustering convention with regard to the remainder. You apportion between coarse units, and then make adjustments at the boundaries.

                  1. The courts meddle a great deal, and hardly protect us.

                    It’s not hard to derive a sensible map:

                    1. James City County, York County, Williamsburg, Newport News, Hampton, Poquoson, Norfolk (part)

                    2. Norfolk (part), Portsmouth, Virginia Beach (part), Chesapeake (part), Suffolk (part) [you excise the peripheral portions of each, with the bulk remaining]

                    3. Richmond, Henrico County, Chesterfield County (part) [again, excising the more peripheral part]

                    4. Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax City, Arlington County, Fairfax County (part)

                    5. Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince William County (part), Fairfax County (part).

                    6. Fairfax County (part), Loudoun County (part) [more peripheral areas excised].

                    7. Southwest: all jurisdictions south and west of Roanoke. Roanoke, Salem, and part of Roanoke County not included

                    8. Northwest: 12 counties, 1 and 2 counties deep from the W. Va border; Roanoke, Salem, a half dozen other stand-alone munis, Roanoke County (part), Loudoun County (part).

                    The rest of the state you can divide into three roughly rectangular strips running east-northeast to west-southwest, longer laterally than vertially; one embraces Stafford and Fredericksburg, one embraces Charlottesville, and one embraces Lynchburg.

                    That will give you six predominantly metropolitan-urban districts, five predominantly exurban / small town / rural districts.

                    1. There is no “sense” guiding this process, except the sense of will-to-power.

                      Politics is always and everywhere a business of group conflict. The groups change, the objectives change, the territories change, the states change, the means change, the eternal flux remains the same.

              2. This is the problem we face. Certain groups might never be represented if lines are drawn based solely on population and lines that bluntly crisscrooss. A lot of those that complain about gerrymandering are exactly those that complained that the alternative method didn’t provide them with representation. There is no perfect fix and no way to satisfy certain people.

          2. Mespo, by writing software that maximizes GOP -, the white b person’s party – representation. At least 2 purple states in the south have overwhelming GOP representation in their state legislatures and congressional representation all out of proportion to their vote tallies statewide – Florida and North Carolina.

            1. Welcome to politics. In the Civil Right era the Democrats lead by LBJ turned on a dime against the white working class and adopted a strategy to become the antiwhite party. Let us pass for a moment on the moralistic question of whether that was just or not, and simply look at the obvious strategy.

              This was the latent design of the 65 immigration reform act to dilute the future electorate with children for foreigners.

              This was the explicit design of the 65 Voting rights act, to ensure more black citizen participation in the electorate.

              Were white voters simply to feel sorry for their “historic crimes” and aquiesce to the Democrat Party’s newfound strategy of throwing them overboard? No, they switch to Republicans, and people blame Republicans for accepting the newfound votes aka the “Southern Strategy”

              but are white votes invalid because they are self interested? nobody says that about black votes.

              and so we can see the essential hypocrisy. black votes good, white votes bad.
              and here we see many whites that applaud the notion. for whatever reasons, does not matter.

              this cynical strategy has ensured not racial equality, not racial tolerance, but increasing racial animus, as white people more and more awaken to their intentional demographic replacement. they will be acting more and more according to their racial interests. This is exactly the dynamic of prison, where outnumbered white prisoners (‘woods”) accept leadership from other inmates that follow explicit racial group survival strategies. There is nothing which you can do to deprogram this. It is survival inculcated through countless millenia of evolutionary struggle.

              But the cynical leadership of the Democrats saw and understood what had been warned about in earlier generations, to use Stoddard’s phrase, “The rising tide of color,” and they jumped on it like a surfer headed out in the big waves which precede the hurricane.

              The cynically antiwhite strategy was what the Democrats chose under LBJ. They could have taken a more modest approach towards equality, but recognizing the trends, tried to outdo the former party of abolitionism, the Republicans. Lead by LBJ, who was one day a cynical segregationist, the next day, the cynical leader of the anti-white strategy of his party for the next century to come.

              LBJ was the most cynical, ruthless, and cunning of all American presidents, time will tell. Unless another can step up and make an even more dramatic change of course for the ship of state.

              1. someone will say, Oh, you are using the evil notion of a Frenchman who was quoted by a mass shooter. (Le Grand Remplacement). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaud_Camus In spite of the fact Camus is a homosexual who has explicitly condemned terror. And yet: if a fool says the sky is blue, is it not still blue?

                DeGaulle too was something of a traitor to his former agenda. He said he would never betray France, but then, he threw the pieds noirs overboard, and opened the gates of migration from the former colony Algeria, and those following in his footsteps pursued similar policies.

                Perhpas this is the inevitable democraphic consequence of decolonization, equality, etc. But are white people in France or the US allowed to vote their interests or not? if they are then Democracy still has meaning.

                Since the newspapers are daily denouncing whites as Racists however, I am sure it will be a struggle. If you look at the jilets jaunes, they are putting up a struggle and one can be sure there is more to come.

                You can call me a racist, just for making such observations, and it will simply confirm the proposition. This is the reverse-psychology effect of all the vitriol and strident denunciations of white people who look around themselves and take obvious conclusions.

                1. he threw the pieds noirs overboard, and opened the gates of migration from the former colony Algeria,

                  He wasn’t an idiot. There was no practical way to retain Algeria as a settlement colony in the long run and the cost was getting ruinous.

                  As for Berbers and Arabs living in Metropolitan France, that antedated deGaulle. No clue why you’d like to stick him with the bill for the problems France has with its Muslim population. He left office 50 years ago.

                  1. maybe it was ruinous and should have been abandoned, but he betrayed them

                    his collapse became the collapse of the people he lead. let’s just say DeGaulle was no Charles Martel

                    the influx of foreigners into France antedated him yes but his choices made the situation worse.

                    I am not sure exactly what should have been done, but he was in charge not me. and see where it has come.

                    1. maybe it was ruinous and should have been abandoned, but he betrayed them

                      That is just a nonsense judgment. The pieds noirs did not have an unlimited claim on the resources of France, nor could France be expected to bludgeon the Arab and Berber majority forever and ever until they relented. The best that might have been achieved would have been to establish a set of coastal enclaves where the pieds noir population could live absent the Arabs and Berbers. That would have required the mass abandonment of agricultural property by the European population.

                      but his choices made the situation worse.

                      Quit talking out of your rectum.

                    2. Start with the context of the postwar period in which he held sway:

                      “2.2. Immigration Policies in the 1950s – 1970s
                      During the Trente Glorieuses, which followed the Second World War, immigration policies were strongly determined by three major factors: the economic reconstruction, the desire to increase the French population, and the belief that French society has the capacity to integrate new comers, based on the strong republican tradition . After the independence of the Maghreb countries, workers were still coming in great numbers to France, especially from Algeria, because of their “quasi-citizens” status. Three major reasons – the need for a
                      labour force, the unclear status of citizens of former colonies and the respect for the civil and human rights – led to a relatively open immigration policy in France until the mid-1970s.
                      Immigration grew from 66,400 individuals per annum in the 1946-1955 to almost 250 thousand in the 1956-1967 (Table 1). The economic crisis that followed the oil price shock led to a rise in unemployment and waves of xenophobia. French citizens were seeing the immigrants as the main cause for the lack of working places, and politicians start acting in he direction of stopping immigration. Consequently, the immediate measure was to stop recruiting foreign labour. Additionally, external and internal controls were introduced – visas
                      and work permits respectively. (Hollifield 2004: 189-191) However, immigration from former colonies continued through family reunification. ”

                      — “family migration policies in france” 2010

                      https://ec.europa.eu › migrant-integration

                      ————————————-

                      I am not suggesting that De Gaulle was personally enamored of migrants. It’s known that he dismissed the plight of the harkis (Muslim loyalists of France) who were hacked to death by their “countrymen” in Algeria after the French pulled out.

                      I also read the following:

                      in a 1959 letter, from Charles de Gaulle to his confidant Alain Peyrefitte, which advocates withdrawal from French Algeria:

                      It is very good that there are yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They prove that France is open to all races and that she has a universal mission. But [it is good] on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are, after all, primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion.

                      De Gaulle then declares that Muslims, “with their turbans and djellabahs,” are “not French.” He asks, “Do you believe that the French nation can absorb 10 million Muslims, who tomorrow will be 20 million and the day after 40 million?” If this were to happen, he concludes, “my village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées!”

                      https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/04/the-french-origins-of-you-will-not-replace-us

                      ————————

                      He said that Muslims would not make good French? And yet. you can see that he had in his previous breath, flatly endorsed the multiracial notion of French citizenship. And in secular “laicite” loving France, yes, the issue is less one of religion than it is of race. Now and I would suspect back then. So it seems to me that he may have been a little self delusional on the issue and was a point of leadership which gave gravity to the deracinated secularized notion of citizenship whatever his private, limited anti Muslims sentiments may have been.

                      —————————-

                      add to that, labor demand, and what was needed to satiate it. the powers that be wanted migration, from where-ever. So, back to the first overview point.

                      ________________

                      that’s my thought, may not be convincing to you, but not extracted from filth.

                1. you can dismiss what i said anon1 that would be easier than addressing it.
                  i think you know exactly what i mean. LBJ was a segregationist when it served him and then he threw all those folks we now politely call ‘the white working class” under the bus, when he turned course and got behind Civil Rights.

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/

                  the broader question: besides LBJ, who is the essential type: have other subsequent administrative elites of the western world decided to not only to downgrade but actually replace native born whites as the former majority populations, with teeming hordes of foreigners?

                  the answer is obviously, yes they have.

                  the average guy finds that troubling. you’re not the average guy. you’re one of those well educated, enlightened sorts, who is too high to feel any affinity with those below you, especially on something as coarse and obvious as the color of your skin.

                  me, I’m not so high and mighty. i’m just another nobody out here in flyover.

                    1. they were viewed as that at the time, by Democrat segregationists, of their working class Southern white constituencies.

                      you can demonize them all you like, but i am just repeating what they were saying at the time. that’s why i linked the Atlantic article, but of course why would you bother to read it.

                      labor dynamics explains a lot of history, perhaps:

                      it explains why negro slaves were brought (cheap labor)
                      why civil war (emancipate labor to make more wage earners, more cheap labor)
                      why segregation (maintain the loyalty of the next higher caste of labor when it was strong enough to rebel– a pullback, retrenchment)
                      why immigration restruction of 1924 (another retrenchment)
                      why civil rights (emancipate more labor held back by archaic segregation forces no longer strong enough to rebel– ie labor force expansion, cheap labor)
                      why woman’s lib (emancipate female labor from home into workforce, cheap!)
                      why mass migration from third world (onshore more cheap labor)

                      at every turn, the working class white native born male takes the punch.

                      you wonder why “Racism?” look at the group interests of those who emanate it. they’re dispossessed, and angry about it. simple as that.

                      of course, it’s not always strictly a racial or gender phenomenon, often across the span of american history a more-massive volume of foreign migration has raised the hackles of a wider swath. probably Trump gets a broader base of support than you guys may think, because of this dynamic.

                      at best we are in a period of retrenchment.

                      the next big thing however will be when the AI and robotics revolutions really pick up pace. that will be some really really cheap labor “coming online”

                      maybe then “humanity” will get a new sense of “universal brotherhood” if only as opposed to the robots… or one day will we see “human rights” expanded to robots…replicants… oh wait Philip k. Dick already went there…..wth!

                    2. The CR Acts of 64 and 65 didn’t throw anyone under the bus. That’s nonsense.

                      I live in the Deep South and did then.

                      Blade Runner is the perfect production to disprove your dyspeptic theory.

                      Why is Los Angeles better now than when the first movie was made and how do people buy an even worse LA in the recent version?

                      Because, like you, they want to.

                      You have to explain why the world is a safer, more peaceful place, and with healthier and better off citizens if your theory is going to hold.

                    3. The CR Acts of 64 and 65 didn’t throw anyone under the bus. That’s nonsense.

                      1. The first of these elaborated on a bit of legerdemain: the notion that the distinction between inter-state and intrastate commerce was factitious.

                      2. It removed from vendors the discretion to limit their custom, without regard to the properties of what it was they were vending.

                      We can see the downstream consequences of measures like this in our own time.

                    4. The black diners in TIA’s Dennys today will no doubt have a different interpretation of the CR Acts of 64 & 65.

                    5. Anon1 – maybe the white diners at Johnson’s Golden BBQ have a different interpretation of the CR Acts of 64 and 65.

                    6. no the comment about LA is nonsense. Let me simplify this some.

                      Voting Rights act is about making more black votes.
                      Ergo that means diluting the white vote. These are fixed pies. there is no “rising tide lifts all boats” in this equation. More black votes means the white vote is diluted, ergo, generally less power for the white group.

                      You guys say that’s great.
                      I question that.

                      Why is it good for blacks to have more power,
                      and good for whites to have less?

                      Prove to me that it’s a moral and social good for whites to have less power.
                      That is your proposition! Own it and prove it.

                      That’s the fundamental normative premise which underlies all this stuff,

                      And the IRONY?
                      it’s coming from a left wing that today promotes moral relativism.

                      Guess what? I’m old but a little younger than you. I grew up with that relativism in college.
                      And if everything is relative? Then justice is an illusion and what I want is more power.

                      And I’m not black, so, laws like that come at my expense.
                      They are there to disempower me because of the color of my skin.
                      Since I am white and cant change my skin, I am opposed to things that hurt me.

                      See how that works?
                      Welcome to my thinking on this which is strictly a product of moral relativism.

                      There’s many tens of millions who think my way too. They will show their faces more as the vise tightens, you can be sure of that.

                      Like some SJW chump who gets pinched on a DUI and finds himself eating lunch at the white table, maybe some day you too will find yourself understanding these propositions as well.

                    7. this is all very simple. I remember them making us read Malcolm X in college. Oh, I liked the book, it was entertaining.

                      And I Got the message. The message is racial solidarity.

                      Since all things are relative, socially constructed, etc., then you SJWS have no moral authority over me to tell me “Black good, white bad”

                      I can define what’s good for myself. And guess what? It isnt having LESS power, that’s for sure.

                      Ergo as a voter, I would vote my own group interests and repeal the whole mess of the civil rights suite.

                      If blacks can do that then I can do it too. Diversity has a place for me in the world too, dont it?

                    8. lurtz, putting aside the fact that the original Blade Runner is supposed to take place in 2019, and therefore we can dismiss BR2049 as equally stupid BS, we can also dismiss as BS your sense that blacks having their right to vote ensured takes something away from you that wasn’t stolen. You never owned that. Our ancestors robbed them. And you think you should keep it?

                      Too bad.

              2. But he couldn’t pass his Civil Rights act which had a huge negative response from his own party but sought and won 100% of the GOP’s minority membership to get it through. The Progressive Socialist Party at that time was still in transistion phase and full tilt anti civil rights. So really nothing has changed

                1. Michael, that’s false.

                  he original House version:

                  Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
                  Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
                  Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
                  Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
                  The Senate version:

                  Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
                  Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
                  Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
                  Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

            2. One could write software for opposing purposes too. Your handlers sent you some really inane talking points.

              It’s been true for > 40 years that court ordered racial gerrymandering works toward max-black plans. Period. And If you have to compose a district by connecting little globs with strips which run one mile north and south of the Interstate, some judge will insist you do that. You can’t admit that, because it undermines Correct-the-Record’s talking points.

            3. Anon1 – this is going to come as a big shock to you, but blacks are not prevented from joining or voting with the Republicans.

        2. Actually, what the court decision in question said was that it was rum to have Southern states under perpetual supervision consequent to social data collected in 1965.

Leave a Reply