Below is my column with the BBC on the impeachment verdict and its aftermath. A new Hill/HarrisX poll shows President Donald Trump at a record high of popularity — finding the same 49 percent level of the earlier Gallup poll. In other words, people heard what they wanted to hear in the trial — and most heard nothing at all by tuning it all out. Indeed, as discussed below, it ultimately did not seem to matter what anyone actually said as opposed to what people wanted to hear.
Here is the column:
The predictable conclusion to the Trump impeachment leaves the trial as the perfect embodiment of our times – reason found little space in a Senate chamber filled with rage.
Trials often reflect societies and times – captured by jurors selected from the surrounding community. It is not surprising therefore that a jury composed of political representatives should perfectly mirror our politics.
What we saw was hardly flattering for either side. One of the most striking aspects is that it really did not matter what people actually said whether it was witnesses or the accused or even the Framers (the people who drafted the US Constitution).
It was the first entirely dubbed trial where advocates simply supplied the words that fit with their case rather than reality.
I personally watched this phenomenon firsthand as my own views were presented in highly tailored fashion by both sides. It included on videotape played by the House managers showing my rejection of the theory, advanced by one of the White House lawyers, Professor Alan Dershowitz, that crimes are needed for impeachments.
The edited tape cut off just before I said that, while you can impeach for just abuse of power, it is exceedingly difficult. It did not matter.
It also did not matter what President Donald Trump himself may have said.
The Republican majority in the Senate was not interested in hearing from National Security Adviser John Bolton, who reportedly was prepared to say that the president lied in denying that he connected the Ukrainian aid to an investigation of Bidens.
Indeed, while news reports recounted what Bolton said in his book, the White House said that it was merely hearsay since he did not say it directly. It then opposed any effort for him to say it directly as a witness.
In the end, however, it did not matter what any witness might say on that or other subjects. Their testimony was presumed and many senators declared that, even if they said something against the president, it would not matter.
That is the real takeaway. It really did not matter what anyone had to say.
It did not even matter what the Framers said, even when they were being cited for what they said.
As a Madisonian scholar, I was particularly aggrieved to see Founding Father James Madison used like a marionette to either vilify or vindicate the president.
The most maddening were the references by Dershowitz, who argued that Madison clearly indicated that a non-criminal act could not be an impeachable offence.
It did not matter that Madison said the opposite. He not only referred to such non-criminal allegations as “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate”, but the “loss of capacity or corruption” that “might be fatal to the Republic”.
Moreover, in a letter in June 1833, he wrote to Senator Henry Clay over the withholding of a land act as a type of pocket veto. Madison assured him “an abuse on the part of the President, with a view sufficiently manifest, in a case of sufficient magnitude, to deprive Congress of the opportunity of overruling objections to their bills, might doubtless be a ground for impeachment”.
That is precisely the type of non-criminal conflict that Dershowitz claimed could not be impeachable. But it did not matter. Those were Madison’s view of Madison, not ours.
I wrote once that Senate trials are always about the senators, not the accused. By extension, they are also about us. This country remains divided right down the middle on Donald Trump.
The trial was like watching a movie where the audience heard only the lines that they came to hear. Indeed, studies indicate that this may be hardwired with people subconsciously tailoring facts to fit their preferences.
Researchers at Ohio State University have found that people tend to misremember numbers to match their own beliefs. They think that they are basing their views on hard data when they are actually subconsciously tailoring that data to fit their biases. In other words, people selectively hear only one side even when being given opposing evidence.
People today receive their news in news silos, cable programming that reassuringly offers only one side of the news. This “echo-journalism” is based on offering a single narrative without the distraction of contradiction.
Recently, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell declared that his show will not allow Trump supporters on as guests because all Trump supporters are “liars”. Likewise, Trump recently denounced Fox for even interviewing Democratic senators. When that is the state of our news, why should trials be any different?
In our hardened political silos, even Framers are bit players in a crushingly formulaic play. Witnesses are as immaterial as facts when the public demands the same predictability from politicians that they do from cable hosts.
We are all to blame. Politicians achieve their offices by saying what voters want to hear and today voters have little tolerance for hearing anything that contradicts their preset views of Trump.
As a result, the trial was pre-packed by popular demand. Speaker Nancy Pelosi even declared that Trump would “not be acquitted” even if he was acquitted. When the actual vote doesn’t matter, why should the actual testimony?
Just as voters get the government that they deserve, they also get the impeachment trials that they demand. Watching on their favourite biased cable networks, voters raged at the bias of the opposing side in the impeachment as refusing to see the truth.
Viewers thrilled as their side denounced their opponents and hissed when those opponents returned the criticism. The question and answer period even took on a crossfire format as senators followed up one side’s answer with a request for the other side to respond. It was precisely the “fight, fight” tempo that has made cable news a goldmine.
As the trial ends, perhaps justice has been done. The largely partisan vote showed that the trial could have had the sound turned off for the purposes of most viewers.
We are left with our rage undiluted by reason. It really did not matter what anyone had to say because we were only hearing half of the trial anyway.
It provided the perfect verdict on our times.
Jonathan Turley is legal analyst for the BBC and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee
Turley Acknowledges Grave Polarization
Here we are, more than 10 years into an economic expansion, with unemployment at an all time low, and the president’s approval is less than 50%. ‘Yes’, one can conclude America is dangerously divided.
Yet this current president just awarded the Medal of Freedom to a radio commentator who, more than any single individual, represents the Culture Wars that divide this country. Trump was, in essence, awarding a medal to polarization. Which means Trump is obviously a very big part of the problem.
Seth:
“Trump was, in essence, awarding a medal to polarization. Which means Trump is obviously a very big part of the problem.”
************************
Oh grow up, Beanie Boy. The country is always divided between those who pull the wagon and those who ride the wagon. I see you have your seat saved. Nothing new. What is new is the extent the ruling class is fanning the flames of division for their own purposes.
Mespo, what are you babbling about?? Trump ‘is’ the ruling class!
You act like he’s a common man. If Trump’s so common he should show his income tax returns.
Seth:
He’s not from the common man; he’s for the common man or at least better than anyone else. There’s the distinction.
Shhh. Don’t tell Peter Franklin Roosevelt was a scion of the Knickerbocker gentry in New York.
Absurd, you’re the only one who knows this?? I read a thousand page bio on Roosevelt. But there are absolutely no similarities between Trump and Roosevelt. It’s just one of those insanely stupid talking point Trumpers like to make while claiming Blacks really love Donald Trump.
But there are absolutely no similarities between Trump and Roosevelt
I gather you absorbed very little of that 1,000 page biography. I’ll give you the similarities:
1. Born upper class
2. Ivy League education
3. Ample number of children
4. Serial adulterer
5. Absence of military service
6. Improvisational approach to public policy
And I’ll give you the differences:
1. Business career v. public office / politically-derived finance job / law practice.
2. Pretty wives v. ugly wife
3. Children with normal-range domestic lives v. children w/ chaotic domestic lives.
4. Good health v. bad health
5. Car salesman manners v. patrician manners
well said absurd. may have noticed the standout similarities
there are some policy approach similarities too– most all:
while both did come from money but focus their policies on uplifting American workers.
perhaps by different means — but the workers are the focus
Here we are, more than 10 years into an economic expansion,
Hmm, why then do you suppose Democrats hate Obama’s economic policies so much that they would take policy positions that would completely destroy our economic expansion?
Yet this current president just awarded the Medal of Freedom to a radio commentator who, more than any single individual, represents the Culture Wars that divide this country.
Peter expects his opponents to think like the proverbial battered wife.
We have the Culture Wars, Peter, because your side cannot leave well enough alone and people resist the asinine things they wish to do. Limbaugh is not Richard John Neuhaus. He did not have a specialty in addressing those particular issues. He is a generic Republican with a broad spectrum of interests. ‘
And if you do not want Culture Wars, Peter, leave the rest of the world alone.
a radio commentator who, more than any single individual, represents the Culture Wars that divide this country.
When the British had a policy of salutary neglect regarding the American colonies, there was no movement for independence. It wasn’t until the British began to impose abusive policies that our first real culture war developed. Rush Limbaugh no more represents our current culture war than Samuel Adams did in his day. He represents a culture that has been under attack by a culture foreign to our American traditions and values. If you find yourself in opposition to Limbaugh, then you’re choosing a side opposed to our founding first principles. Learn your history, because this culture war you and your ilk have imposed on this country is an offensive action forcing the polarization. Of course you see President Trump as a very big part of the problem. Of course you see Rush Limbaugh and every other conservative in the public sphere as a very big part of the problem. The British had their enemies in the colonies as well. I won’t spoil the ending, but that didn’t work out too well for the Brits.
Olly, you have no clue whatsoever of what you’re talking about. Just an aggressive ignoramus pretending to speak for the founding fathers. Bores like you are all too common on these threads.
you have no clue whatsoever of what you’re talking about. Just an aggressive ignoramus pretending to speak for the founding fathers.
You’re projecting Peter. If you are so certain I have no clue what I’m talking about, then prove me wrong. I’m more than prepared to debate this issue with you. Be civil, make your best case and if I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it.
Ready. Go.
Mr. Shill,
In fact, the Constitution speaks for the Founders.
Article 1, Section 8, says Congress cannot tax for individual or specific welfare, aka charity and/or redistribution of wealth, only “…general Welfare,” general Welfare meaning ALL WELL PROCEED and manifesting as roads, water, electricity, sewer, post office (archaic), trash pick-up, etc., understanding that ALL people do not use food, clothing, shelter, transportation, heating fuel, healthcare et al. in the same types, amounts or frequency.
Article 1, Section 8, also says that Congress has the power to regulate ONLY the “value” of “money,” the flow of commerce among nations, states and tribes to preclude favor or bias by one jurisdiction over another, and land and naval Forces.
The 5th Amendment provides the right to private property, which is unqualified by the amendment and is, therefore, absolute, denying Congress any power to interfere with, to possess or dispose of, or to claim or exercise dominion over the private property of individuals.
Sorry, Mr. Shill, the entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional. Free enterprise satisfies demand and self-regulates. Congress has no power to regulate anything except the aforementioned. Individuals are maximally free and government exists only to facilitate the maximal freedom of individuals. Affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc. are all unconstitutional.
___________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
________________________________________________________________
“No person shall be…deprived of…property,..”
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It took place on Constitution day where I was at the time but my USA flag went to the top of the mast port side regardless. It was a triumph of reason and objective thinking over rote dogma. Of Constitutionalism over meaningless manifestos.
“John Bolton, who reportedly” was the primary word.. Like purportedly and allegedly the claims made for Bolton only served to uncover just another RINO caught in the chief spider’s web of deceit, Deceit is the correct word sometimes replaced by ‘spin, It is the sum of nothing.
It did not NOT rise to the level of merely hearsay.but remained at best in the realm of ‘usual BS where the falsely named Democrats were concerned. They aren’t, this isn’t a democracy, and they are in no way democratic. Rejected nine times by the founders they retained one and one only vestige of the original Greeks invention. Direct vote of the individual Whole Citizen to all levels. But to have all levels requires res publica of, by and for the Citizens.
And yet it served to self incriminate the Party of Nothing ‘
The question remains what party will replace the Phony Party and who will lead it? That easily could be a woman though not a victimizer of women like Von Vodka Klinton nor Benita Pelosillyni or Diane Fineslime to name three outcasts,. Nor the members of The Squat none of whom were seated legally.
Far better a war veteran who ensured the equality of rights and responsibility for women not to make them just baby factories the way Warren and Ocasio wish.
What a great day for our Constitutional Republic and damn the socialist by any name.
Doesn’t Madison having said “might” doubtless be a ground for impeachment rather than “should” doubtless be a ground for impeachment suggest his uncertainty about the matter?
This impeachment event started before Trump was even elected and has continued to this day and will continue into the future. This is what Turley is describing as the fault of two sides. Wrong. It is an attempt by the left to invalidate the votes of approximately half the nation. In the minds of the left those that voted for Trump are deplorables and should not have the right to speak their mind much less the right to vote.
The left represents those that are pushing to destroy American institutions including the Constitution.
This impeachment was nothing more than a sham. The standards used for sending the impeachment to the Senate were so low that if used on all Presidents all Presidents would be impeached multiple times throughout their Presidencies. That destroys American government and its system of checks and balances. The British do not have the same checks and balances system so their understanding will be hampered rather than helped by Turleys opinion piece.
Turley has totally missed the train and the BBC is left with an explanation insufficient for what has occurred. Turley loses the picture as he tries to describe a tree instead of the forest.
“We are all to blame. Politicians achieve their offices by saying what voters want to hear and today voters have little tolerance for hearing anything that contradicts their preset views of Trump.”
***********************************
Oh, we are not! People are responsible for their own actions and in-actions. You make it sound like politicians actually do keep their promises. Trump aside, they don’t. The problem is we have a perpetual ruling class that looks out for number one with only scant thought of the public good. Gone are the days of noblesse oblige. These denizens of primarily Northern Virginia in the US but residing in feudal manors elsewhere throughout the world set up their kids for indirect bribes, travel the globe seeking approval and treat ordinary Americans as indentured servants to their wants and needs. These are, in the words of Dickens the “best of times” for some and the “worst of times” for many, many others.” And I, for one, am damn tired of being tarred with their brush.
We need a social realignment! It goes by lots of historical names: French Revolution, American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution et al. The common theme is “revolution,” i.e, turning the world order upside down. We are seeing the cracks of the current structure in Eastern Europe, the UK, parts of Southern Europe and the streets of Paris with an open rebellion against the world conquering globalists who seek world financial domination as a precursor to some borderless open zoo of roaming human herd laborers kept together for their amusement and profit. Nations don’t matter. Culture doesn’t matter. Traditions of freedom matter least of all. All that matters is some faux “oppressor versus oppressed” narrative within the herd keeping it’s members conflicted, docile and bovinely loyal to their globalist herders.
Trump is the antidote for that philosophical poison and everything else is just window-dressing. People intuitively know that and hence their loyalty.
There’s a rustle of revolution in the air. The globalists are just now looking up. Let’s all hope for a whirlwind! And finally, one with no recriminations for those of us who know which way the wind is blowing — and ought to blow.
yeah heck if I’m to blame. i blame those who are blameworthy. out here I’m not dipping my beak into the public trough for one thin dime! heck if I or another ten million to a hundred million nobodies like me can be blamed for the DC Swamp, nor the PC commissars in media and academia.
Prof. Turley, I applaud your courage to go against the Democrat dogma. In this case, however, you assign the same culpability to both sides. I disagree. The left started this process, first with the Russia hoax, then decided to impeach on the flimsiest of charges, even after the transcript of the call was made public. As you yourself testified in the House, this action will have repercussions for future Presidents. The President, and the Republicans had every right to defend themselves using any and all available arguments and legal procedures.
You think this just started at russiagate? This started before trump was even president.You think t started with trump? Or maybe mcconnell?
What I find missing from the above article is “Who started this crap???” I think that matters. If Side A in a war uses poison gas, and then Side B responds wit poison gas of its own, do we decry the use of poison gas without noting that Side A started the crap?
Similarly, if a Bad Wrestler whomps the Good Wrestler over the head with a folding metal chair, does anybody blame the Good Wrestler for doing the same when the opportunity presents itself?
The Democrats have been trashing and smearing the Republicans and Conservatives as racists for years, nuke war starting cowboys since Johnson ran against Goldwater, and everybody as rapists and leches whenever on the flimsiest of evidence. See Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. Really, they believe that Poor Old Blasey Ford was so scairt after Horndog Brett supposedly groped her, that she couldn’t even fly on a plane. Unless it was for something really vital like surfing in New Zealand. And she was so scairt she had to have two front doors! Except she didn’t except for the one she wanted to turn into a duplex. And the whole “no witnesses” among her set of friends.
Frankly, I am glad the Republicans are beginning to show signs that there testicles are finally descending. Do I like it? Nope, but the Democrats used the folding metal chair first!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I think people are crazy if they truly believe its just the other side that started it first. Or just cherry picking dates. Or just being intellectually dishonest. Both sides are as corrupt as you can get and its been going on for decades.
Take your tin foil hats off, we have 1 party pretending to be two, pitting us against each other in a he said she said bs. They may yell and scream at each other but in the end they do whats best for congress and not america
There seems to be complete neglect and intentional misreporting of what the New York Times — based on secondhand information — says Bolton writes in his book. Here is the relevant paragraph from the NYT article (parens used to refer back to facts in the article; UPPER CASE used to comment):
“In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question (about when the aid would be approved because there was only a month left to approve it or inform Congress why not) that
“….he (Trump) PREFERRED (NOT DEMANDED OR QUID PRO QUO’D OR …)
“… sending no (more) assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they HAD (IMPLYING TO ME THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MATERIAL THE UKRAINIANS ALREADY HAD, NOT THAT THEY START SOMETHING NEW)
… about THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION (IMPLYING TO ME THAT TRUMP MEANT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION — OR THE DURHAM INVESTIGATION, NOT SOMETHING THE UKRAINIANS WERE DOING)
… that related to Mr. Biden and SUPPORTERS OF MRS. CLINTON in Ukraine (FURTHER IMPLYING THE STATEMENT WAS ABOUT 2016, NOT 2020).”
Of course we have no way of knowing if that is what Bolton actually wrote (because the Times reporters say they did not see the book) or if someone lied to the Times reporters or if the reporters themselves twisted the words accidentally or on purpose.
But simply based on the words written by the Times reporters, this whole thing is a big nothing burger, nothing different than what the transcript says, and no need for Bolton to testify.
JT, your analysis is flawed by a false assumption: This is a 50-50 split.
In fact, recent polling which you cite on Trump’s approval are outliers and a quick trip to Nate Silvers 538 site, which shows all recent polls clearly demonstrates this fact. Trump is basically where he has been for his entire term – low 40s vs low 50s disapproval. To compound this error, you fail to note that the GOP Senators who stonewalled the hearing represent 15 million less Americans than the Democrats. Add 1/2 Utah and that’s 16.5 million less. This is a minority of Americans ruling the majority, not a 50/50 divide.
You also fail to note that in their continuation of the WH stonewalling the GOP did not want a hearing of the facts, the preponderance of which show he did it. Even GOP Senators admitted this but squelched further evidence from Bolton or anyone else before more Americans could wake up to the facts.
You’ve had a part in enabling the GOP efforts and that’s something you’ll have to live with, just like the complicit Senators. Wake up.
btb – the WH was willing to have the House managers have their witnesses, however they wanted the freedom to call their own witnesses. My understanding is that McConnell wanted it done as fast as possible. New witnesses would have tied up the Senate and they cannot do anything while the trial is going on. And the WH was not going to give up Executive Privilege.
WH didn’t cite executive privilege. They were citing immunity, which doesn’t exist. Agreed on McConnell wanting it done as fast as possible though. He couldn’t have let Bolton testify — it would’ve shredded the last Republican talking points. As soon as discussion turned “drug deal” the chaos would’ve been spectacular. But clearly, he had to hold PAC $ over Republican Senators to block the witness vote.
WH didn’t cite executive privilege. They were citing immunity, which doesn’t exist.
__________________________________________
What Trump team claims doesn’t exist is something in the constitution that gives the Congress authority to subpoena witnesses from the executive
by the book is right if we count in the 20 million or so illegal immigrants on the anti Trump side.
which is a pretty fair assumption
shows the weakness of the premise of majority rule in the first place
you can just fiddle with the demographics for a couple decades then POOF no more majority
but there is no anti Trump majority, however, even if there is no pro Trump majority. there is pluralism!
see what you guys don’t reckon is what you would, if you were in a parliamentary system
a plurality CAN and often DOES govern in liberal society, only with a plurality
if it’s only a plurality in favor of Trump? You better believe we are a strong, coherent plurality
lacking all the bogus “diversity” that you guys will find increasingly hard to handle
Obviously, this blog is filled with members of the TRUMP CULT – from the leader on down – rich to middle class. Echoes of ancient nights in Berlin.
Trump is our Arminius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius#/media/File:Hermannsdenkmal_statue.jpg
the 2020 election will be the Teutoburgerwald of globalism
Agreed, Professor. And it all leads to, at the base level, coming from the level of sheer self interest masquerading at even handed judgement. Dangerous when societies go through this stage. Thanks for addressing it.
Democrats lost both the case, and the respect of the American people, in the House not in the Senate.I saw a lot of reason, measured and logical, from the President’s counsel in the Senate. However, I saw a lot of Democrat rage and emotional appeals/logical fallacies about: a hihilistic future that Schiff or Nadler imagined, Dem Senators’ grandparents, their clergy, and repetition of lies they had told for the last 3 years about this Administration. The Senate review followed a House trial that showed Dems have no respect for centuries of American jurisprudence (impeachment or not) and will ignore it to gain power. The American people are right to recognize that they will do this to us as well.
Our Heavenly Father will be the ultimate judge. Why J.T. are you still defending the Democrat party When they left you a long time ago.
But we killed our heavenly father and then ran around saying he died for our sins.
If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, the Clinton impeachment vote broke on partisan lines. In fact, the Democrats went out to have a group selfie taken of their victory.
The so called “trial” was a joke. Basically it was one Senator after another or one lawyer for each Party getting up after the other, to yak. No evidence. Hearsay on hearsay. Yakkity yak! Don’t come back!
Again, the smarmy even-handedness.
Recall the doddering Robert Mueller, seated next to his minder, revealing he didn’t know much about the investigation he supposedly supervised, most of the man-hours of which were apparently devoted to attempting to shnag the president for obstructing their obstruction investigation. That scam having concluded and been exposed as such, the next gambit for the Democratic Party and the security state wire-pullers was to manufacture an impeachment charge against the President to divert attention from a Biden family scandal. There isn’t an ounce of integrity in any of this. Partisan Democrats just want the president ejected from office, and any fraud will do for that purpose. It is to this that the Democratic Party has been reduced.
Now consider what passes for policy prescriptions in the Democratic Party. (1) Pack the meeting by importing millions of illegal aliens (and interfering in that project is ‘racist’); (2) pack the meeting some more by enfranchising felons; (3) routinized practice of vote fraud (and if you attempt to combat this, that’s ‘voter suppression’); (4) have federal trial judges second-guess every decision your opponents make, issuing egregious injunctions which have to be undone one by one; (5) institute statutory legislation and administrative regulations meant to harass people not on your client list (the ‘dear colleague’ letter and the controversy over the Little Sisters of the Poor are fairly gross manifestations of this, as is the routinized discrimination practiced in public sector hiring and higher education, as are the latest iterations in ‘anti-discrimination law’); (6) gut law enforcement because efforts at crime control are inconvenient for your clientele (blacks, illegal aliens); (7) MOAR unfunded liabilities (which you sell by capitalizing on dissatisfaction generated by the previous generation of unfunded liabilities).
In truth, the Democratic Party is just a grotesque criminal organization. You can see from these boards that it’s most committed supporters are drawn from a collecting pool of the world’s jerks.
Schangrap.
Recall the doddering Robert Mueller… That scam having concluded and been exposed as such, the next gambit for the Democratic Party and the security state wire-pullers
Robert Mueller worked for the trump administration
Mueller has stated that he decided from the outset that he had to follow the dictates of his boss which said that he could not indict a sitting president and he further concluded that meant he could not reach any conclusion about wrong doing by President Trump.
Furthermore Mueller is a life long Republican as was his close friend James Comey so how can the Mueller probe be blamed on the Democratic Party?
Did you not see Mueller’s testimony? Mueller was a figurehead, a figment of his past, incoherent and uninformed of the facts. Steele dossier? What’s that? Democratic hack lawyer Weissman was the lead investigator not Mueller.
Did you not see Mueller’s testimony? Mueller was a figurehead, a figment of his past, incoherent and uninformed of the facts.
________________________________________
Sounds liker a good reason why Trump hired him.
Trump did interview Mueller the day before he was appointed. he knew what he was getting.
they’re fake that’s how
“In truth,Congress and the WH has been a grotesque criminal organization for decades”
Fixed for facts
That was acerbic.
Ascerbic.
they’re fake that’s how
__________________________________________
That is correct.
Trump creates a fake russiagate blames it on the democrats
Its a “witch hunt and a coup attempt”.
Then Trump creates a fake Ukrainegate blames it again on democrats
Another “witch hunt and coup attempt”
and
The Democrats are happy to take credit for these endeavors
The trial mattered, but it was difficult to listen to the Democrats take up 24-hours of the same thing over and over. I got to walk away. As a matter of critical analysis, the entire affair seemed to be leaning in one direction or another. An entirely off-putting process that left me feeling disappointed about all of Congress and the Executive Branch.
All true.
But they started it.
Good commentary. Thanks for your rational thoughts