Uncategorized

Giuliani Suggests Suing Over Impeachment

Rudy Giuliani, personal counsel to President Donald Trump, declared yesterday that he has received advice by experts to sue members of Congress over impeachment efforts. If true, their expertise must be in areas other than constitutional law or impeachment. Such a lawsuit would be frivolous and it is unsettling that Giuliani would put any credence into such fringe advice.

Calling the impeachment effort as “worse than McCarthy,” Giuliani revealed that he had sought legal advice on the issue: “I had a couple of talks with civil rights lawyers and a constitutional lawyer today and here’s what they’re recommending: that we should bring a lawsuit on behalf of the president and several of the people in the administration, maybe even myself as a lawyer, against the members of Congress individually for violating constitutional rights, violating civil rights.”

In a long parade of uniquely bad ideas, this would be the final climax. First, the allegation of self-dealing in the Ukrainian call would be a valid basis for an article of impeachment. It would still have to be proven and there are defenses for any such trial that I have previously discussed. This would be viewed by a court as a facially legitimate inquiry. Second, courts do not second guess the House on such efforts. While there continues to be a debate over what might be reviewable in an impeachment proceeding, it is exceptionally unlikely that a court would seriously question this effort.

The claim is that the impeachment interferes with a president’s inherent authority over foreign relations under Article II. That is facially frivolous. The White House can object on the basis of executive privilege in any demand for testimony or documents. In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the majority opinion (written by by William Rehnquist) deferred to the Congress in such conflicts, ruling that Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments.”  The same is true of the power to impeach.

In other words, this dog won’t hunt.

123 thoughts on “Giuliani Suggests Suing Over Impeachment”

  1. Giving remarks at the SEC Criminal Coordination Conference, Attorney General Barr said he was asked by reporters yesterday what country he was going to next.

    He said, “Greenland.”

    https://abcn.ws/33ai7bJ

    hahaha

    1. David – that vile zebra caused a traffic accident so it deserved to die.

    2. Unfortunate that the police did not have a tranquilizer shot.

      Anyway, I opine that a circus is no place for a zebra.

        1. Anonymous – I know there is evidence to support your claim so I will back you on this on. 😉

  4. Please impeach him already so we can all finally duke it out for real. Civil War 2.0, bring it.

    1. Ivan – if they vote to impeach Trump, Trump has the right to call witnesses is my understanding. First up would be Joe Biden.

        1. Ivan:
          They do know what they’re getting in to and it’s the reason they’re treading lightly with the vote on impeachment. It’s either bipartisan or it’s doomed in the Senate. They also understand there’s a considerable segment of the population who would riot in the streets if they made a power grab like arresting administration officials as Mullah Talib suggests. All-in-all it sucks to be a Dim right now and will only get worse if they insist on playing revolutionary. Most revolutions end in a bloody pile in the street. Especially the ones led against the wishes of a vast majority of the armed population. It’s why the Maoists so desperately want our guns and why we ‘d be fools to give them to them.

  5. There’s a very good reason Obama has not endorsed Biden and it isn’t just because he’s gaffe prone. Biden’s legacy is intertwined with Obama’s legacy and the evidence will demonstrate just how corrupt those legacies are. Obama sent his dog to hunt in Ukraine and China without a leash and that will be Obama’s legacy.

    The Times also reports that in March, Obama summoned Biden’s top campaign advisers, Anita Dunn and Kate Bedingfield, to his Washington office. Multiple sources confirmed to the Times that the ex-president warned the advisers to make sure that Biden doesn’t “embarrass himself” or “damage his legacy.”
    https://www.gq.com/story/obama-to-biden-dont-run

    1. “If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.”

      – Andrew C. McCarthy

      1. Obama had the same sworn duty as Trump to take care and yet he sent Biden the Carpetbagger out without a leash. He weaponized his alphabet soup of federal agencies, including the IC and FBI, against his political/ideological opponents and let those dogs run wild. Obama will be fortunate if his legacy is the only thing damaged in all this.

        1. Obama’s VP, Good Ol’ Joe, was selling his office, thru his son and his brother, that enriched the Biden family — just like we saw the shameless Clintons sell the State Dept thru their Clinton Foundation scam. It’s outrageous that the press, the Democrat-friendly media, has zero interest in exposing blatant corruption. It’s staring them all right in the face and they refuse to investigate or report on it! The press undoubtedly protects Democrats.

          This is why Trump calls the press Fake News. This is why Trump called Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden “stone cold crooked.” Because they are!! It’s readily apparent!!

          But the press has NO interest in exposing the truth about Joe Biden. Nope, they all say let’s leave Obama’s beloved VP alone. Let’s not report on or expose the “scandal-free” Obama years that were actually rife with scandal. Like outrageous scandal, including a compromised VP Biden whose son was flying around on Air Force 2 with him and making dirty deals with foreign countries that enriched the Biden family. It’s outrageous. What a farce the press coverage is of all this.

      2. George though I believe what you quoted from Andrew McCarthy is true, I don’t know that the quote is accurate. Do you know where it came from? It doesn’t strike me as something McCarthy would say.

          1. George, that is OK. I like the sentence. Do you have the article where he put those two ideas together? If you don’t, no problem. TIA

        2. Google McCarthy at National Review. Obama used a pseudonymous account and exchanged the classified e-mails on an illegal server with Hillary. Obama’s crime would have been revealed by Hillary’s indictment.

          “That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.”

          Start here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary/

          1. That is Ok. I read his columns but sometimes miss one so I wanted to make sure I didn’t miss a one sentence quote that stated things correctly even if let unsaid.

  6. Schiff is committing the crime of high office of conspiracy to defraud, abuse of power and treason.

    Treason, as a crime of high office, was challenging the authority of the King.

    Until 1870, in England, the penalty for treason was Drawing and Quartering.

    Schiff should be so lucky.

    1. .So you as a Trump defender, are literally (in a positive way) comparing Trump to a King, one with Absolute power. Wow, at least you are honest.

      2. I compared high offices. Would you compare historical kings with sewer technicians?

        From whence to you derive the authority to write for me, speak for me or otherwise put words in my mouth? Do your readers accept your fraud? You do precisely what Schiff did which was to fraudulently assign a quote to the President. You ——- parasites will do and say anything to obtain your abortion, perversion and “free stuff.”

        You are the personification of one man, one vote democrazy. When frauds, idiots and parasites vote, idiots will be elected. “Democracy” was always republicanism wherein citizens must have met criteria to vote. Democracy, since the Greek inception and Roman perpetuation, has always required qualifications of citizen in order to vote. America is a restricted-vote republic. Not a one man, one vote democrazy.
        ________________

        “the people are nothing but a great beast…
        I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

        – Alexander Hamilton
        ________________

        We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

        – Ben Franklin

  7. Giuliani has apparently been going to the comments section of this very blog in search of expert legal advice.

  8. Give Giuliani his due. He’s trying to due something. Don’t matter if it works. Hes just making headlines to confuse the dims. So no one knows whats happening. That way theres too much to read and people get tired.

  9. We need a Congressional investigation as to whether Pelosi has sex with a male dog in her Congressional Office. That story has been on the internet for a few weeks. The dog is a bulldog named Duke.

  10. Perhaps there is no legal recourse for the series of false allegations and misuse of power by Democrat activists and politicians. Trying to oust a President by any means possible is a soft coup. But it certainly seems unjust.

    Schiff could stand there on television and lie about what Trump said to the Ukrainian PM, without recourse. He could claim he had evidence that Trump was a Russian agent, which he never had.

    Others have lied, made false accusations, or were just plain wrong. If this was a regular person, he could sue for defamation. Granted, he would probably also be sued in turn.

    Giuliani’s comments should have been more measured, unless, of course, his motive was to emphasize that the misconduct has been so egregious that it should be illegal, even though it is not. Perhaps he knew a lawsuit would go nowhere, but wanted to call attention to the constant false accusations against the President, to voters who get Democrat curated information from the mainstream media. Or, he could be letting politics get ahead of the law, which is a bad thing.

    Personally, the only probable legal action that I foresee would stem from the investigation into the origin of others Russian hoax, perpetrated by Democrats against Trump the candidate, and perpetuated to undermine his Presidency.

    As for the allegation that the DNC asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on candidate Trump, while it is indeed hypocrisy, I see no problem with obtaining factual incriminating information from abroad. How else would investigators discover wrongdoing committed overseas without an international investigation? If proven true, it would also emphasize the ludicrous double standard behind the calls for impeachment. The fine line to cross, of course, is to avoid another country’s efforts to interfere with politics with false intel, such as the Russian dossier. Let’s say that rumors surfaced that a future candidate was a sex tourist in Thailand. Of course a Thai investigation into the allegations would be justified, if not coordinated through the government, then through the opposing party. However, the funding and origin of the investigation should be transparent.

    1. OK, I’ll bite: 1. what are the “false allegations”? The documents prove the truth of what the whistleblower complained of, and s/he didn’t have the transcript, so what the hell are you talking about? There was a call with the Ukrainian President, who asked about purchasing more Javelin weapons, but Trump asked for a “favor”. He verbally berated Jeff Mason of Reuters News when he was asked what favor he wanted of the Ukrainian President. At the time of this conversation, Trump had gotten the Pentagon to hold back military aid appropriated by Congress. WH counsel removed evidence of this conversation from the usual computer index and files and put it where access is code word protected–reserved for the most-sensitive state secrets. After the whistleblower took his complaint to counsel for the CIA, against protocol, the CIA handed it to the DOJ and White House counsel, even though Trump was the subject of the complaint. This is highly improper. They tried to bury the complaint, which caused the whistleblower to go to the STAFF of the House Intelligence Committee for advice. The WB never spoke to Congressman Schiff and he never saw the complaint until the IG of the IA turned it over. THESE ARE FACTS, so what are the “false allegations”?

      2. Exactly how are Democrats “abusing” power? It cannot be seriously disputed that Congress has the power of oversight, and to impeach, so exactly how is such constitutionally-granted power being “abused”? If anyone has abused power, it is Trump and now Pence. They tried to leverage US military aid for political advantage. They’re sending out surrogates all over the globe trying to dig up dirt on Biden, HRC and anyone else they can think of to pivot to blame. THESE ARE FACTS.

      3. What “hypocrisy” are you talking about? The Kellyanne Pivot to accuse the Bidens of wrongdoing that happened, if at all, YEARS AGO because Trump got caught breaking the law, couldn’t get his WH counsel and personal AG to bury the matter, is behind in the polls and needs something to serve as a smoke screen?

      4. When you say things like “Russian hoax”, you prove just how deeply stupid you really are. Did you read the Mueller Report? Favor us, if you will, with your take on just how the evidence laid out in those 448 pages constitute a “hoax”. If you can’t, then just admit you are repeating the words you heard on Fox News.

      5. Where is the proof that the DNC asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on candidate Trump 3 years ago? Why is this suddenly some big deal now, 3 years after the fact? Because the whistleblower complaint got put through to the House Intelligence Committee after Team Trump tried to bury it? Where’s your proof?

      6. Do you still not know that the Steele Dossier was NOT the genesis for the Mueller Report? Didn’t they tell you that on Fox? Well, it’s a fact.

      1. 4. When you say things like “Russian hoax”, you prove just how deeply stupid you really are. Did you read the Mueller Report?

        Again, there is this pretense on your part and the bum from Gainesville’s part that you’ve read and there is something of value in there. There is not.

      2. There you go Natacha, using facts and logic and information. Don’t you know that is an act of treason now under Donny?

      3. Natacha, not only do you not understand that Donald Trump won the last election, but you repeatedly misrepresent the Mueller Report findings.

        We have repeatedly discussed allegations against Donald Trump that were either proven false, or not proven. One example was that he was a Russian spy. Another was that he said that Neo Nazis were “fine people.” There have been many discussed on this site, sometimes by Professor Turley himself.

        An example of Democrats abusing power was James Comey of the FBI and Lois Lerner in the IRS. Other examples of abusing government positions are those activists who use their access are the constant leaks. Democrats in the media abuse their positions to alter news stories to impact elections. For example, NYT reporters wrote a book accusing Trump of threatening to shoot migrants and install a snake pit, using unnamed sources. The NYT then ran a story using the book as the source…which was written by Times journalists using unnamed sources. That is not journalistic integrity. Do you require more examples?

        Hypocrisy – as I stated, if the DNC coordinated with Ukraine and Russia to dig up dirt on Trump, then it is hypocritical to complain if Trump asked for a Ukrainian investigation. In the latter case, Trump requested Ukraine investigate allegations of international crimes committed in their country. How else would such crimes be properly investigated, without the country’s cooperation? Where is the proof? Well, that is why there is a call for the investigation. Are you complaining that we don’t have the product of an investigation before the investigation? The allegations were based off of Joe Biden bragging, on camera, about the prosecutor investigating the company getting fired, as well as on Hunter Biden’s command of millions of dollars from countries coincidentally engaging with Joe Biden. In a normal, just world, that would obviously be investigated.

        There is an ongoing investigation into the origin of the Russian hoax and investigation, which referred to the oft repeated claim by Rachel Maddow et al that Donald Trump was working with the Russians, was a Russian spy, was a Manchurian candidate, and/or colluded with Russia. In addition, they are looking into Misfud. It is interesting that Misfud told the FBI that Papadapolous told him that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, when in reality Hillary’s campaign paid a former British spy to pay current Russian spies for false dirt on Donald Trump. The results of this investigation into the origin of the Russia story will be out shortly. The hoax refers to the false allegations about Trump being a spy for Russia. The rest of the Russian investigation was into Russian activities in regards to our election. The false dossier on Trump would be considered one of those activities, as well as the support for Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. I could see how Russia would be pleased with a socialist and/or pacifist in the White House for 2020, so I’m curious what they’ll be up to.

        That anti-capitalist pro-socialist rhetoric so common today, especially among young people and academics, can be traced, in part, to the activities of Russian think tanks whose purpose is to undermine the United States and Capitalism. One such organization, The Dialogue of Civilizations, is headed by a former KGB oligarch Vladimir Yakunin, and counts among its members US academics. They are expanding offices in NY and Brussels. They court academics, fanning their long held anti-capitalist far Left leaning, and they take that bias to the classroom.

        So, whenever you read pro-socialist or anti-capitalist rhetoric here on the blog, or elsewhere online, you have witnessed a trace of a Russian organization, subtly influencing American public opinion to bite the hand that feeds it. Anti-capitalist sentiment may one day put a socialist in power in the US, or sweep Congress, and our liberties would evaporate. Russia would be so pleased.

        1. I forgot to mention one of the most famous false allegations against Donald Trump, that he was an anti-semite. I recall this really blew up when he forwarded a meme with Hillary Clinton behind bars and a sheriff’s badge icon.

          People argued and argued that a 6 pointed star can only refer to the Star of David. Meanwhile, I passed a 6 pointed Sheriff’s Badge sign next to the freeway referring to law enforcement. A lot of local organizations use a sheriff badge icon, including a kids’ gymkhana club. A lot of law enforcement have a 6 pointed star on their badge. The icon itself was called “sheriff’s badge.” Hillary Clinton is not Jewish. There was no Jewish person in the meme at all, and no easily recognizable Jewish imagery.

          No matter. I had people tell me, in total sincerity, that Trump was going to come for them in death vans. Shaking with fear. Really, genuinely scared. It was irrational, of course, so there was no reasoning with them. I saw a 6 pointed non Jewish star all the time, associated with law enforcement or rangers, on road signs, in the local paper, online. I saw non Jewish stars on a daily basis. No one would listen. No, they said that 6 pointed stars only referred to the Star of David, and so the meme was anti-semitic. The SOD is recognizable to non Jewish people easiest when it has internal lines and/or Jewish context. Without, depending on the context, it’s a badge. Any symbolist would discuss the critical importance of context.

          Politicians took up this hue and cry, and passed it on as truth. When it became apparent that the first sitting president with a Jewish first family, who moved the embassy to Jerusalem was not, actually Hitler, then the story evaporated overnight. Instant amnesia. The same people who clung to their husband’s arms while tremblingly telling me they were going to be murdered…literally, or who called, emailed, or spoke with me about their imminent death, just suddenly turned to something else. Amazingly, accusing non Jewish Hillary Clinton of illegal conduct was considered anti-semitic…before everyone forgot all about it. Truth is stranger than fiction.

          So did the politicians who had accused him.

          It’s been one false accusation after another, each one discarded, and another tried on, by those who will not accept the results of an election. They wish a do over by any means possible. That is unjust.

          1. Karen, I don’t know what corner of La La Land you occupy, but this anti-Semitic obsession of yours is just that. I’ve never heard any of this reported by actual media, and it frankly sounds mostly made up to me. Ivanka converted to Judaism because Jared wouldn’t marry her unless she did. That doesn’t make Trump anti-Semitic or anything else. He is as agnostic as they come. Trump’s moving the embassy to Jerusalem was done to curry favor with wealthy Jews, and comes at a cost. Palestinians also claim an historic and heritage stake in this area, and Muslims don’t like the US taking sides in a region subject to conflict based on religion. What business does the US have in moving an embassy from Tel Aviv to the religious center for the world’s largest 3 religions as a show of support for one of these 3 religions? Explain to me the benefit to the average American citizen by moving the embassy. The U.S. Constitution forbids “respecting an establishment of religion.” To me, this violates this law.

            1. Natacha:

              “this anti-Semitic obsession of yours is just that. I’ve never heard any of this reported by actual media.” So this is your ploy. To repeatedly make false statements and deny the truth. When presented with evidence, you just ignore it and move on to the next false statement. So…this isn’t really for you, but anyone reading who might confuse your statements with facts.

              —-A recap of the false allegations that Trump was an anti-semite—–

              1. It was discussed on this blog in real time
              2.https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/politics/donald-trump-star-of-david-tweet-explained/index.html

            2. Natacha:

              You said, “He is as agnostic as they come. Trump’s moving the embassy to Jerusalem was done to curry favor with wealthy Jews, and comes at a cost.”

              Your comment is so anti-Semitic. Not surprising, given the rise in anti-semitism among the hard Left.

              1. Karen: you don’t even know what anti-Semitism is. You can’t answer the question as to how or why moving the embassy to Jerusalem benefits in any manner the average American. If average Americans don’t benefit, then who does? Who wants this symbolic siding of the US with Israel and against the Palestinian people whose roots go back for millennia in the area? Why does or should the US side against with either party’s interests in a city rife with religious conflict?

                1. ah, I didnt think the Embassy needed to be moved, but, it’s not that consequential.

                  And you are being silly if you pretend that the “Palestinian people” go back millennia there and the Jews do not. I mean you know that right? And it was like farther back the Jews than the Arabs it seems to me. Now will the Canaanites please raise their hands, who were there before Abram migrated from Ur? LOL this kind of thing gets ridiculous very quickly.

                  Yes there were people called Arabs there in the time of Christ but Romans Greeks and yes plenty of Jews. Oh and a hodgepodge of others. You can read a list of them in the book of “Acts” look for “Pentecost.” The Romans called the place Palestine. And that’s what they all were to the Romans, whomever they might be. The Palestinians of today, are the Arabs who have roots in that specific location, within the past few generations, or longer. But not necessarily longer. Basically going back to 1947 or so is enough. You get all that right?

                  So it’s not exactly legit to pretend otherwise, as you seem to imply in your previous post.

                  I am not for bending over backwards for Israelis in the slightest bit. And I have been called an antisemite before for different critical things I said about the Jewish religion or Israeli actions or even some powerful Jewish troublemakers I dont like such as the infamous George Soros…… But the craziness I hear some liberal spewing forth against the state of Israel at times is just unbelievably immoderate and patently biased against the state of Israel.

                  The funny thing is in America we have Jews that seem to have a huge chip on their shoulder against Israel too. You know the old joke, “Two Jews, three opinions!”

                  1. Kurtz, of interest the Jews that lived in the area of Palestine were originally referred to as Palestinians.

                2. Natasha, the fighting has gone on long enough in that area and it looks like it will never stop until the “Palestinians love their chidren more than they hate israel’s existence” __Golda Meir (Paraphrased?) The US never delivered on previous promises and that gave hope that Israel would disappear, the ultimate wish of Palestinian leaders and a wish embraced in some of their charters. The death of all Jews is another prevelant thought of many people in the area.

                  This move sent a message. Wake up and start looking for peace instead of training 5 year olds to hate and kill Jews. If one looks at history one will see multiple wars until a final war where there is a definitive victor. Look at the Peloponnesian Wars, the Punic Wars, World war 1 and World War 2 among a host of others. Trump has done some other things that will push towards peace as well all of which show the war is over and Israel will existl. He will not give money to the Palestinians where that money is then spent on paying off the families of those whose relatives have acted as terrorists and killed Israeli children or adults.

                  The west has supported the Palestinians in every fashion possible yet Israel is our friend and ally offering us many benefits. You can continue with your diatribes that seemingly approves of Palestinian children getting killed while killing Israeli children if you wish. That tells us what type of person you are.

                3. against the Palestinian people whose roots go back for millennia in the area?

                  I have news for you, Natacha. There was no ‘Palestinian’ people there in 1917 or in 1920 or in 1947 or even in 1967. It was a formulation not modal among local populations until about 1968. There were people who identified themselves by their lineage or their locality, there were people who identified themselves as Syrians, there were people who identified themselves as Arabs. There were no ‘Palestinians’. Some of the Arabophone population their had a long pedigree in the territory, some did not. NB, the two most prominent ‘Palestinians’ to an English-speaking audience were Yasir Arafat and Edward Said. Both men grew up in Egypt.

                4. Natacha:

                  “Karen: you don’t even know what anti-Semitism is.” Right. I have noticed a pattern that you make ridiculous and false claims, and when presented with evidence disproving it, just ignore it. Then you move on to the next.

                  What an ignorant remark, hot on the heels of an anti-semitic one. You are really on a roll today, Nurse/Lawyer. It’s getting painful to watch.

            3. Natacha, you are both woefully uninformed, and keep making declarations about topics that you have not researched.

              You asked, “What business does the US have in moving an embassy from Tel Aviv to the religious center for the world’s largest 3 religions as a show of support for one of these 3 religions?”

              1. Every country has the right to declare its own capital. The capital of Israel is Jerusalem. Embassies typically reside in the capital of a country, to coordinate with government.
              2. Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf)

              The Congress makes the following findings:
              (1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and
              custom, may designate its own capital.
              (2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital
              of the State of Israel.
              (3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President,
              Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.
              (4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.
              (5) From 1948–1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.
              (6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.
              (7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city adminis- tered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.
              (8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusa- lem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.
              (9) In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress ‘‘strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected’’.
              (10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Rep- resentatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolu- tion 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.
              (11) The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of ‘‘final status’’ issues, including Jerusalem.
              (12) The Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transi- tional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.
              (13) In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging ‘‘planning to begin now’’ for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem.
              (14) In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem ‘‘should take place no later than . . . 1999’’.
              (15) The United States maintains its embassy in the func- tioning capital of every country except in the case of our demo- cratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.
              (16) The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.
              (17) In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David’s entry.

              3. You asked what the benefit was to the average American citizen to have the embassy in Jerusalem. Well, the benefit to anyone of our embassies being located in nations’ capitals is the ease and efficiency, as well as respect and diplomacy, of working with foreign governments.

              4. “The U.S. Constitution forbids “respecting an establishment of religion.” To me, this violates this law.” The Constitution prohibits our government from forcing us to adhere to any particular religion, or lack thereof. It allows freedom of religion. Of course it does not prohibit us from having diplomatic ties or alliances with theocracies, otherwise we would lack such with all of the numerous theocracies in the world.

              1. You cannot answer how the average American benefits from MOVING the embassy. You changed the word “moving” to “have”, which is not the same thing. What was wrong with the embassy being in Tel Aviv? Way less controversial. The US needs to get along with everybody.

                The actual words are: “RESPECTING” an establishment of religion”, which is what the MOVING did.

                1. You cannot answer how the average American benefits from MOVING the embassy.

                  1. Natacha fancies there should be goodies distributed to Democratic Party clientele every time the President does something.

                  2. And, of course, Natacha has no clue what benefits adhere to ‘average Americans’ from having any given embassy any given place. It doesn’t stop her from striking this obnoxious and stupid pose.

                  Here’s a suggestion, Natacha: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. We put pretty much all of our embassies in national capitals. Why do we avoid doing it in re Jerusalem? Because it bothers various parties in the Arab world that Israel holds Jerusalem, which is in turn a subsidiary point of a more general phenomenon: it bothers parties in the Arab world that Israel exists, that Jews live there and prosper there, and that the Jews are not dead. We move the embassy to remind them that we are not deferential to those sentiments. You actually don’t get respect for people when you’re craven with them.

                  1. ” We move the embassy to remind them that we are not deferential to those sentiments. You actually don’t get respect for people when you’re craven with them.” That’s a good point and counts about a hundred times over when it comes to Arabs. I like Arabs but in dealing with them, it’s unwise to appear to be weak or fickle towards one’s own allies.

                    Natch is really running off the rails today, if this is what she’s seizing upon to vent her spleen.

                    Anyhow speaking of which if you read this article about Benny Gantz you would think that the WAPO crew was writing copy for Haaretz

                    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/gantz-the-hope-is-a-government-without-netanyahu-1.7943574

                    after reading that i started to think maybe Bibi is maybe a better chap than i had thought, if the papers hate him so much.

                2. Natacha:

                  “You cannot answer how the average American benefits from MOVING the embassy. You changed the word “moving” to “have”, which is not the same thing.”

                  1. Congress passed an act back in 1995 to move the Embassy to Jerusalem by 1999. Every President since has promised to do so, and then deferred it. If Acts of Congress are not followed, then there is no rule of law. If you believe that the United States should not obey and act of Congress, then make your case.
                  2. If politicians believe not following an act of Congress would benefit their constituents, then there is a solution to that. Another Act of Congress.
                  3. All of our embassies are located in the capitals of their host countries, as far as I am aware. Singling Israel out, in defiance of an Act of Congress is disrespectful.
                  4. How does giving in to terrorist demands not to move the embassy benefit the United States? Pundits and activists took the position that moving the embassy, in accordance with Congress, would lead to a terrorist attack. Typically, the United States does not allow terrorists to control us. It would harm individual Americans to embolden terrorists.
                  5. Freedom of religion in the Constitution applies to Americans exercising their rights to follow any, or no, religion of their choosing. It has absolutely no bearing on international relations. Otherwise, our alliance with Saudi Arabia would be establishing the religion of Wahhabism.
                  6. If you believe that following an Act of Congress establishes Judaism as the national religion of the United States, against the Constitution, then make your case. Based on your earlier antisemitic comment, I wait with baited breath to see what boils out of you next.

                3. Natacha – the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem means it is in the capital of Israel and falls in line with Congressional mandates from as far back as the 1990s. The US needs to get along with the RIGHT people. It is alright to p**s off the wrong people, they were going to be p**sed off anyway,

              2. That doesn’t answer Natasha’s question.
                As noted publicly by the Pentagon, our support for Israel comes at a price to our military in lives and armaments. Pointless symbolism which inflames rather than mitigates conflict therefore hurts our military and therefore our citizens. It has been US policy as well as Israeli policy for decades and across presidencies to promote a two state solution there, and moving our embassy makes that goal more difficult. We gain nothing.

                1. our support for Israel comes at a price to our military in lives and armaments.

                  Only in the empty space between your ears. No lives have been lost attributable to our ‘support’ for Israel. American aid to Israel was bupkis prior to 1973 and reached the peak of its significance around 1984. The ratio of the transfer to Israel’s gross national income has declined for 35 years and now stands at 0.012. It consists entirely of credits which Israel uses to buy military equipment from American manufacturers Perfectly inconsequential portion of the military budget and you wouldn’t notice the expenditure if it had any other beneficiary.

                2. Anon – Israel has repeated offered a two state solution. This has been repeatedly turned down by the Arabs, because they want Israel destroyed. The Covenant of Hamas even called for the destruction of Israel as its goal.

                  There was never any country called Palestine. It was a region, so named by the Romans to punish the Jews. The original Philistines were fishermen, or pirates, and are now extinct. The region of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. There was no Palestinian language or culture. “Palestinian” used to refer to Jews, especially in Europe. After the formation of Israel, Arabs started calling themselves Palestinian, to falsely claim that Jews stole their country. In reality, the Ottoman Empire was broken up into disparate countries, some of them with not the best borders. The lion’s share of the region formerly known as Palestine was given to the Arabs, in the form of Jordan. The Jews were given a tiny sliver of land, Israel. So, there already was a two state solution – Israel and Jordan. However, as Arabs did not want any non Muslim country, and wanted to carry on with the persecution of the Jews, either killing them or treating them as second class citizens who had to pay a jizya for the privilege of remaining alive, they tried to get more and more of Israel. What is now Israel used to be a sparsely populated part of the Ottoman Empire. Most Arabs living in Israel today descended from Arab laborers who traveled there for the jobs, as the British Mandate approved by the League of Nations.

                  Antisemitism is a central theme in the Qu’ran and Hadith. That whole thing about killing Jews everywhere they hid. Apparently, Mohammad held a grudge about being beaten and thrown out for proselytizing. If you order the verses chronologically, the peaceful versus were during the time that Mohammad was powerless, and the sword verses came after he gathered his army and conquered, pillaged, enslaved, etc.

                  Considering that anti-semitism is so critical to the Qu’ran, peace with Israel is tenuous. While Egypt did change its tune for a while, most Middle East countries do not accept the right of any non-Muslim country, let alone a Jewish one, to exist in the region. Period. That means that no offers will ever placate them.

                  https://youtu.be/8EDW88CBo-8

                  https://youtu.be/76NytvQAIs0

                  My father was in the DOD during some of these conflicts, so I was raised on these stories.

                  No, moving our embassy to the capital of Israel does not make a two state solution more difficult. What makes it more difficult is the PA refusing to accept every single offer of a two state solution, or any solution to allow Israel to exist.

                  Israel does get financial aid…which as a condition is used to purchase US military and other supplies, sending the money right back to us.

                  As I told Natatcha, moving the embassy was an Act of Congress.

            4. He’s a Presbyterian Nuthatch. Fact, well known. You call him an agnostic. That is you talking whatever you like, as you are accustomed to do.

            5. it’s a show of support for the state of Israel, which impliedly is a show of support for the Jewish side in contentions over Jerusalem. Not like the Christian side really has anybody to stick up for them, lol.

              You seem to have mistaken that the First Amendment restricts executive action in foreign policy. there are zero cases to suggest that. It restricts Congress and via incorporation, now it restricts the states. Try and go back to Constitutional law before you make yourself look like you didn’t actually take it. Or maybe you didnt?

              To the point, the US has massively intervened on behalf of Sunnis against Shiites in their multi-national squabbles. It took me a while to figure this out, but, in foreign policy matters, First Amendment notions simply do not apply. And they never have.

              The US had from its inception played footsie with various religious groups and factions abroad.

              I don’t favor the moving the embassy to Jerusalem, I think it was just fine in Tel Aviv, but the matter is not that consequential, as the time passed has shown.

              1. “it’s a show of support for the state of Israel, which impliedly is a show of support for the Jewish side in contentions over Jerusalem.”

                Kurtz, not moving the embassy is a show of the US lack of belief that the state of Israel exists and not moving it was a denial of Israel’s right to be treated like every other country with an embassy in its capital.

                1. I dont quite follow you. I don’t think the US didn’t believe Israel existed, because, obviously, the US recognized Israel under Truman, and has a history of closer and closer cooperation over the decades since.

                  I think not moving it was a form of diplomatic deference to the Arabs of various nations. Trump kind of thumbed his nose at all them, which I did not favor, but, it’s ok. It’s not that big of a deal, contrary to what a lot of nutty people said when he moved it. Generally, it shows how fake all these people are, they just want to make trouble for Trump, and when they make a big deal out of something and say it will be a disaster, and then it isnt– they NEVER apologize. They SHOULD apologize to Trump for giving him heck over moving the embassy, because as we have seen, there was practically zero negative fallout at all.

                  And maybe Trump was right and I was wrong. Maybe it has been a good thing for us. Maybe it was a net good, and overall helped the strategic relationship with Israel in ways that’s hard to quantify.

                  Most of all, I think it’s ok, because it seems like the only people it made upset were a bunch of stone throwers maybe, who had a new reason to throw stones for a day, but more importantly, I delight in the displeasure of their sycophants in “The Squad” for whom no wise action of any kind will go uncriticized, ever.

                  1. ” I don’t think the US didn’t believe Israel existed, because, obviously, the US recognized Israel under Truman, and has a history of closer and closer cooperation over the decades since.”

                    Yes, Kurtz, but part of a nation being recognized is for other nations to accept their sovereignty and thus the US should have recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital years ago. What would the US be saying to Canada if it refused to recognize Ottawa as its capital and placed its embassy in quebec?

              2. Kurtz – Iran is Shiite, and Saudi Arabia are Sunni. Both want supremacy in the Middle East. Iran gets support from Russia and China, while Saudi Arabia allied with the United States. There are parallels in our game of thrones.

        2. Karen, again, you are clueless: No one called Trump a “Russian spy”, although he IS in bed with the Russians to whom he owes money. How do we know this? Don, Jr. publicly admitted that most of the Trump companies financing comes from Russia. Trump tried to do a hotel deal in Russia. His public deference to Putin at Helsinki over American Intelligence was shocking and unprecedented, and when Dan Coats, the head of AI wouldn’t back down on the fact that Russians did interfere with the 2016 election, Trump fired him. More evidence–his efforts to get Russia back into the G-7, despite the fact that the rest of the world told him not to bother. HIs refusal to enforce sanctions against Russia for invading and occupying the Crimea and eastern part of the Ukraine, and his withholding of appropriated military aid. Because of Trump’s refusal to enforce sanctions voted on by Congress and inconsistent provision of military aid also approved by Congress, the Ukrainians were forced to enter into a settlement with Putin to let him keep part of their country to stop the bloodshed. He also hides conversations with Putin and transcripts thereof in the secure server.

          Trump DID praise the White Supremacists who were responsible for Heather Heyer’s death as “fine people”. I know Fox News keeps saying this didn’t happen, but it did. After a lot of blowback, he tried to walk it back but he said it. That’s not all. He also called Mexicans and migrants: “animals, vermin, breeders, rapists and criminals.” He cages brown people. Trump IS a racist.

          Did you see the grounds for the NYT’s stories about Trump and the violent things he proposed to do to those attempting to cross the border? People actually in the room heard him say these things. These allegations have not been proven untrue, and ignoring such evidence would be journalistic malpractice. Media do not have to go soft on Trump because Fox News thinks they should. The story was reported as based on unnamed sources actually present. You believe they are lies, but that doesn’t make them lies. Trump says crazy, unhinged things all of the time and lies all of the time.

          This crap about Ukraine is just that: crap. A Kellyanne Pivot alternative facts Fox News talking point. There is NO evidence. “IF the DNC tried to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump”. Where did this come from? Evidence? There is none, yet, you are willing to not only believe there is some, but to accuse media and Democrats of being hypocrites based on this non-existent evidence. You got this straight from Fox News. There are no grounds to even suggest such a thing, but Trump has the US Attorney General, Giuliani and Pompeo traveling the globe, at taxpayer expense, trying to get other countries to gin up information to ttack the Mueller Report and to dig up dirt on the Biden family. To hedge his bets, now he’s got people looking into Elizabeth Warren.

          THERE IS NO RUSSIA HOAX. Period. Read the Mueller Report. Trump’s campaign DID feed sensitive polling information to Russians to help them know where to target a false social media blitz against Hillary Clinton. That is why Trump is and will always be viewed as a fake President. He cheated.

          Where do you come off accusing Democrats of altering news stories that are reported? Oh, and on the topic of abuse of power, some Trump appointee from the Treasury tried to bully people at the IRS when they were auditing Trump’s and Pence’s taxes. This comes form a second whistleblower report.

          What “false dossier” are you referring to? The Steele Dossier? That was NOT the origins of the Russia investigation, and nothing in that document has been proven false. This investigation was started by a Republican opposed to Trump, and handed to HRC’s campaign after Trump got the nomination. I’m not going to even both attempting to respond to your socialist-capitalist conspiracy crap because you are immune to facts. You are a true disciple.

          1. Natacha – have you considered counseling? You are way off the ledge here. You purport to be a lawyer and a nurse and your research skills suck. You probably haven’t seen a fact since 2015.

            2. I noticed that the other day she claimed to work in law, but before that, she said she was a nurse???

                1. Wow. She must be very, um, busy. Interesting how someone who claims to have her, ah, varied background does not understand the concept of supporting documentation.

          2. Natacha – no one called Trump a spy for Russia?

            MSNBC – called Trump a Russian Asset, as well as host to Russian mafia
            https://youtu.be/iDgO_

            CNN – 18 reasons why Trump might be a Russian asset
            https://youtu.be/W2DxiDNRhzc

            Look. I’m limited to 3 links per post. We could also just review your own past posts for a good example of false allegations about Trump working with the Russians. So, we’ll just assume that you are well aware of false allegations that Trump was a Russian asset, and skip over your denials.

          3. Since you won’t attempt to respond to the “socialist-capitalist conspiracy crap”, because knowledge would interfere with your world view, allow me to enlighten you:

            Soviet Active Measures and Politial Propaganda
            https://www.jstor.org/stable/26326426?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

            Russia’s Think Tank Dialogue of Nations
            https://www.dw.com/en/putin-associate-opens-russia-friendly-think-tank-in-berlin/a-19372110

            US academics help Russian oligarch whitewash Russian history
            thinkprogress.org/why-are-these-american-academics-helping-a-sanctioned-russian-oligarch-1d1fa57c98e1/

          4. Natacha:

            Allow me to acquaint you with links, typically used to support statements.

            Here are a couple:

            Since you won’t attempt to respond to the “socialist-capitalist conspiracy crap”, because knowledge would interfere with your world view, allow me to enlighten you:

            Soviet Active Measures and Politial Propaganda
            https://www.jstor.org/stable/26326426?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

            Russia’s Think Tank Dialogue of Nations
            https://www.dw.com/en/putin-associate-opens-russia-friendly-think-tank-in-berlin/a-19372110

            1. Honey, let me explain something to you: when you cite some opinion piece or a you tube fragment of some broadcast, that is not primary sourcing information. Opinions are like buttholes–everyone has one, so repeating someone’s opinion about something you believe to be true is not backing up your assertions with facts. The word “asset” and “spy” are sometimes used interchangeably, especially in the Jason Bourne movies (and I know that much of what you think you know and your cutesy phraseology comes from movies) but no one at MSNBC has ever used the word “spy” to describe Trump. He IS an asset to Russia, in the sense of being valuable to them. I’ve explained why in detail. I feel no need to send a link to every video showing Trump siding with Putin at Helsinki, calling White Supremacists “fine people” the Mueller Report or anything else you could look up on your own.

              1. Nutchacha is many things. Self-aware is not one of those things.

              2. Cutie Pie Pumpkin:

                More on MSNBC with false allegations against Trump. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/himes-fbi-concerns-about-trump-as-russian-agent-unsurprising-1424649283576

                Sweetiepie Dumpling:

                https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

                “Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is — you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing…

                “Those people — all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”

                Reporter: “Should that statue be taken down?”

                Trump: “Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see — and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not — but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

                “So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

                “But they were there to protest — excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead.”…

                “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”…

                “So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly…”

                As has been pointed out to you many times, local townspeople objected to the removal of the statue. They were not part of the Neo Nazis or any other racist group. They just objected to the removal of the statue. The media has lumped them all in with racists, and ludicrously claimed that not a single non racist was there to protest the removal. That’s just absurd. Do they know everyone who was there?

                It has been proven to you over and over again that Trump did not call racists fine people. He was quite clear that he condemned racists, and was referring to those who simply did not want the statue removed.

                Stop perpetuating a debunked myth.

                1. Claiming that Trump called racists fine people is just another, easily disproven hoax.

                  Groups like the Monument Fund filed a lawsuit to block the removal, arguing “that the city violated a state law that protects war memorials and violated the terms of the deed in which donor Paul Goodloe McIntire granted the memorial to the city. The lawsuit will seek a temporary injunction to “freeze the status quo” in Lee and Jackson parks.”

                  The Monument Fund is not a racist organization, and includes “fine people” who object to the removal of the statue.

                  The council that had originally ordered the removal of the statue was a 3-2 vote, so by no means unanimous. It would be ridiculous to claim that the 2 dissenting votes were racist.

                  The Sons of the Confederate Veterans, also a plaintiff in the suit, has a strict policy barring admittance of hate groups, or those who espouse overturning the government. Heritage is integral to Southern culture.

                  Exactly zero of the historical figures I admire would stand up to modern day scrutiny. Even heroic Harriet Tubman would have held some views that would not pass muster today. That is because they were a product of their times. Honoring their contributions to history and advancement in no way advocates for the societal norms of olden times.

                  What I find interesting is that at the time that Trump made the remark that there was blame on both sides, the general public had a more favorable opinion of Antifa. It wasn’t until after that when more became aware of the violent, terrorist tendency of Antifa. We have since seen Antifa harassing the elderly, dragging an older man from his vehicle, and hurting a diminutive journalist.

                  If you told the public, today, that there was blame on both sides at an event where Antifa showed up with bats and charged at an objectionable group, in an area where they did not have a permit, more people would know it was a reasonable statement.

                  Antifa’s reputation is quite bad at this time.

          5. US academics help Russian oligarch whitewash Russian history
            https://thinkprogress.org/why-are-these-american-academics-helping-a-sanctioned-russian-oligarch-1d1fa57c98e1/

            You keep asserting that Trump called racists fine people. I have linked before to his entire statement, which you keep ignoring. He said that there were fine people and bad people on both sides. He said he was not talking abou the racists, who should be condemned totally. So no matter how many times you pretend otherwise, in his statement, he made quite clear that he was not referring to racists.

            I have also discussed how people in the town of question just wanted to keep their statue, and had no affiliation whatsoever with the racists. There were also fine people who protested the presence of the statue, who were not affiliated in any way with violent Antifa.

            You persist in clinging to untruths, no matter how many facts are presented to you. That is not a good thing.

            1. Karen: after the “fine people” statement and the blowback even from Republicans, Kellyanne came up with the cover story that he really meant there were “fine people” on both sides of the dispute in Charlottesville arguing over removal of a Confederate statue, that he really wasn’t referring to those who killed Heather Heyer. That is not the truth. It is a cover story made up by Kellyanne after the fact. When Heather Heyer was killed, there were protesters and Neo Nazis fighting in the streets of Charlottesville, most of whom were not just the “fine people” of Charlottesville. A Neo Nazi ran her down and killed her in cold blood. He made the statement in response to the outrage over her murder. He absolutely REFUSED to condemn the Neo Nazis or their radical beliefs, which is what any previous POTUS would have done, and that is exactly the point. He knows that White Supremacists are heavily represented in his base. In fact, the Kellyanne spin makes no sense in the context of when he made the statement. What kind of Mickey Mouse comment is it to say that “fine people” can disagree about something, in the face of a cold-blooded murder of someone protesting Neo Nazisim?

              So, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and Fox News spins, that’s not what he said or meant at the time. Because you only watch Fox News and want to believe what they tell you, you seem incapable of drawing a distinction between truth and spin. I saw what he said in the context of when he said it. I also saw Kellyanne try to spin it after the fact when the statement generated outrage. I know what I saw. I don’t need any pundit to explain it to me. And, that is not the only evidence of his racism–it goes back to the housing discrimination lawsuit brought by HUD, in which he entered into a consent decree. Also, the name-calling and abuse of South Americans.

              1. Natasha – you ignorant slut. The POTUS condemned both sides and complimented both sides. See the whole f**king speech, you twit.

              2. What Natacha said:

                “He absolutely REFUSED to condemn the Neo Nazis or their radical beliefs.”

                What Trump actually said:

                “The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.”
                “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis.”
                “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally.”

                You poor thing. You sound so very confused.

                1. Natasha will not accept that the version pumped into her head, though not true, is not the truth and we can expect her to repeat her error ridden statement again and again.

  11. Pingback: Giuliani Suggests Suing Over Impeachment – Legal Service for Business

  12. “Rudy Giuliani … has received advice by experts to sue members of Congress over impeachment efforts. … Such a lawsuit would be frivolous…”

    The only question in my mind is if the lawsuit would be more frivolous than the impeachment proceedings which are far more dangerous to the country and its citizens.

    “Second, courts do not second guess the House on such efforts.”

    Does Turley forget how judges have second guessed the President?

    Somewhere along the line Democrats have stepped away from governing and use whatever power they have to destroy the Republic and the Constitution.
    —

    “What Sort of Government Have You Given Us Dr. Franklin?
    a Republic madam, if you can keep it.” __ Benjamin Franklin (unproven)

    1. . … Such a lawsuit would be frivolous…”

      ****************

      “Frivolous” is what a conservative SCOTUS who understands the leftward … nee regressive … drift we’re undergoing through historic corruption in our intelligence services says is “frivolous.”

  13. The Democrats have created a spectacle of our politics and political order in order to smear, demean, and injure conservatives and this Administration. Not only should Pres. Trump sue these clowns, so should Kavanaugh, Flynn, Papadapoulus, and the multitude of other conservatives of whom the Democrats and Press have lied about over and over. Rudy is just showing how ridiculous the Democrats definition of what is within reason. Let’s talk about Democrats frivolous (and vile and absurd) behavior the last few years: Mueller investigation into Trump; Kavanaugh hearings; multiple hearings to insult and sully reputable people like AG Barr, various IG’s, anyone in the administration; multiple 9th Circuit Court rulings with so many overruled. We are sick of the mockery Democrats are making of normal political order and how they are creating civil war in their lust for power and their lack of civil society.

    1. The Democrats have created a spectacle of our politics and political order in order to smear, demean, and injure

      The trash of Arkansas, Bill and Hillary Clinton, raised scorched earth politics to an art-form revered by the Irreligious Left. It is all they know to use in their lust for power. They should all be shot

      insert parody

  16. Mr. Giuliani was apparently an effective (though brutal and unethical) U.S. attorney; he seems to have either lost his legal skills or gone off the deep end.

  17. If true, their expertise must be in areas other than constitutional law or impeachment.

    Areas such as, I’m guessing, eating paste and licking windows?

  18. While i support the prez…. primarily because i don’t like the alternatives, he is his own worst enemy sometimes. I think he should get rid of Giuliani…. he is past his time and prime. Giuliani looked like a complete idiot last week debating a left talking head… calling the guy a litany of names etc. This 3 year impeachment thing is getting old. I can appreciate the prez’ frustration with all this.

  19. His claim is that it is a “fake” impeachment and as such denies the President to call witnesses on his own behalf. He also is going after Schiff, who seems to have made the mistake of bad mouthing the President in an op-ed, which is not covered by Congressional Privilege. That could be interesting.

    Pelosi has not taken this to the floor to get a vote on impeachment, some say because she does not have the votes in her own party. She declared an impeachment investigation which give the President no power to respond.

    1. Paul:

      She’ll never call for a vote because she’d have to have a hearing and let the other side call witnesses. That means a public display of Schiff’s sedition. It’s kabuki for the election. Apparently, Giuliani is loaded for bear an old Ticonderoga Neck knows it.

    1. Sometimes the best tactic for defense is to use the same tactics as one’s enemy and exploit the same vulnerabilities they are trying to exploit. That may seem silly to do because it causes both sides to be neutralized. That is preferable to the enemy taking the offensive over a side that doesn’t defend itself.

      1. “That may seem silly to do because it causes both sides to be neutralized. That is preferable to the enemy taking the offensive over a side that doesn’t defend itself.”
        **********************
        Remember Allen “winning” for the aggressor is to prevail; “winning” for the attacked is to survive. Neutral results go to the defender.

        1. Mespo, you understand these things very well. You can be my lawyer.

          Believe it or not in business situations a lot of lawyers do not understand these simple things.

          1. I think a lot of lawyers don’t like confrontation and don’t think about it. I do and I do. Thanks.

Comments are closed.