606 thoughts on “A New Administration”

  7. No more tRump approval/disapproval-ratings graph on FiveThirtyEight. I’ve already been freed from one obsession.

  8. No more tRump approval/disapproval-ratings graph on FiveThirtyEight. I’ve already been freed from one obsession.

  9. Humorous aside, I saw a headline about tRump pardoning Bannon, and I read it as Barron, thinking he pardoned his 14-year-old son. I couldn’t imagine what he would need to be pardoned for.

  10. Humorous aside, I saw a headline about tRump pardoning Bannon, and I read it as Barron, thinking he pardoned his 14-year-old son. I couldn’t imagine what he would need to be pardoned for.

  11. I watched Biden’s inaugural address in real time, and just watched it again. I continue to be struck by how fortunate we are to have him in that office, at this time.
    Biden is, by all appearances, a decent and sincere person. He doesn’t indulge in partisan animus or culture war BS. He has the background, history, and relationships to know what the job is, how the place works, and how to be effective in practical terms.
    But mostly, he appears to be a genuinely decent human being.
    That is about as good as it is likely to get, for us, now.
    We’ve been handed a gift. I hope we make the most of it.

  12. I watched Biden’s inaugural address in real time, and just watched it again. I continue to be struck by how fortunate we are to have him in that office, at this time.
    Biden is, by all appearances, a decent and sincere person. He doesn’t indulge in partisan animus or culture war BS. He has the background, history, and relationships to know what the job is, how the place works, and how to be effective in practical terms.
    But mostly, he appears to be a genuinely decent human being.
    That is about as good as it is likely to get, for us, now.
    We’ve been handed a gift. I hope we make the most of it.

  15. I happened to be in my car when Lady Gaga sang the national anthem (had to do a task this morning, unfortunately). But when I passed the federal courthouse with the Stars and Stripes waving there in front, I almost had to pull over. I’m filled with hope, joy and optimism for all of us.
    Just listened to “A Change Is Gonna Come” posted by Laura on the other thread. Thanks to everybody who posted links over there! We can do this.

  16. I happened to be in my car when Lady Gaga sang the national anthem (had to do a task this morning, unfortunately). But when I passed the federal courthouse with the Stars and Stripes waving there in front, I almost had to pull over. I’m filled with hope, joy and optimism for all of us.
    Just listened to “A Change Is Gonna Come” posted by Laura on the other thread. Thanks to everybody who posted links over there! We can do this.

  23. The inaugural was both reassuringly dull, and at the same time rather good.
    I think the ham sandwich will exceed expectations substantially.

  24. The inaugural was both reassuringly dull, and at the same time rather good.
    I think the ham sandwich will exceed expectations substantially.

  25. I’m not claiming that this ham sandwich is likely to be as good to eat as the one @04.36, but you should know that people here have been watching it to soothe their nerves. The man making the sandwich is a famous Irish sports commentator:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPB6LTWThH4&ab_channel=IrishTimes
    I thought Gaga was great. And I was very moved by Kamala Harris. A huge sigh of relief is being breathed around (most of) the world.

  26. I’m not claiming that this ham sandwich is likely to be as good to eat as the one @04.36, but you should know that people here have been watching it to soothe their nerves. The man making the sandwich is a famous Irish sports commentator:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPB6LTWThH4&ab_channel=IrishTimes
    I thought Gaga was great. And I was very moved by Kamala Harris. A huge sigh of relief is being breathed around (most of) the world.

  31. Turn the page? Uhmkay…
    But let’s leave a bookmark behind, so we can easily refer back to the MAGAt Uprising, the Cruz-Hawley Circus, the McConnell Masquerade, and the Transition Intransigence.
    Biden will have his hands full trying to beat Covid and revive The Economy while mending alliances abroad, for a while. So Biden needs our help for the clean-up in aisle MAGA.
    In particular, we need to make clear to the MAGAts in our midst that the Earth is round, water flows downhill, and He, Trump lost the election — and that people who doubt any of those things will have a hard time convincing us to take their “policy” positions seriously.
    –TP

  32. Turn the page? Uhmkay…
    But let’s leave a bookmark behind, so we can easily refer back to the MAGAt Uprising, the Cruz-Hawley Circus, the McConnell Masquerade, and the Transition Intransigence.
    Biden will have his hands full trying to beat Covid and revive The Economy while mending alliances abroad, for a while. So Biden needs our help for the clean-up in aisle MAGA.
    In particular, we need to make clear to the MAGAts in our midst that the Earth is round, water flows downhill, and He, Trump lost the election — and that people who doubt any of those things will have a hard time convincing us to take their “policy” positions seriously.
    –TP

  33. that people who doubt any of those things will have a hard time convincing us to take their “policy” positions seriously.
    But you gotta admit, if someone refuses to admit that Trump lost, what that makes abundantly clear is that they reject reality. And, therefore, their policy proposals probably do as well — and should be distained accordingly.

  34. that people who doubt any of those things will have a hard time convincing us to take their “policy” positions seriously.
    But you gotta admit, if someone refuses to admit that Trump lost, what that makes abundantly clear is that they reject reality. And, therefore, their policy proposals probably do as well — and should be distained accordingly.

  35. As I’ve become an oldster, I find that winter SAD affects me more. This year was even worse because of the stress of buying a house, moving, and selling a house. But the days are already enough longer to be making a difference.

  36. As I’ve become an oldster, I find that winter SAD affects me more. This year was even worse because of the stress of buying a house, moving, and selling a house. But the days are already enough longer to be making a difference.

  39. I’ve been sort of bouncy and happy all day. Not too much news watching, just doing the usual which for me means caring for cats at a sanctuary and doing some planting in the greenbelt–but happier. Then I checked the news and found out that Joe restored Bears Ears and Escalante/Staircase National Monuments. And that’s when I started crying. II guess we all have different things that trigger us. And there were sooooo many things Trump did. But when he attacked Southern Utah he was desecrating the holy land.

  40. I’ve been sort of bouncy and happy all day. Not too much news watching, just doing the usual which for me means caring for cats at a sanctuary and doing some planting in the greenbelt–but happier. Then I checked the news and found out that Joe restored Bears Ears and Escalante/Staircase National Monuments. And that’s when I started crying. II guess we all have different things that trigger us. And there were sooooo many things Trump did. But when he attacked Southern Utah he was desecrating the holy land.

  41. So when Biden got to the part of his speech today where he says:
    “I ask every American to join me in this cause.Uniting to fight the common foes we face: anger, resentment, hatred, extremism, lawlessness, violence, disease, joblessness, hopelessness.”
    In my head I kept expecting Zack de la Rocha from Rage Against the Machine to pop up and start shouting “All of which are American dreams! All of which are American dreams! All of which…”
    Good day, despite this omission.

  42. So when Biden got to the part of his speech today where he says:
    “I ask every American to join me in this cause.Uniting to fight the common foes we face: anger, resentment, hatred, extremism, lawlessness, violence, disease, joblessness, hopelessness.”
    In my head I kept expecting Zack de la Rocha from Rage Against the Machine to pop up and start shouting “All of which are American dreams! All of which are American dreams! All of which…”
    Good day, despite this omission.

  43. You need a better latitude, Michael Cain.
    :^)
    Life is complicated. We do the best we can. There are a small number of places that meet the altitude/latitude combination that I would pick. Ain’t none of them that put my wife with mild early dementia close to her granddaughters.
    As I’ve said for decades in response to people’s mindless, “How are you?” “Overall, quite well. If you want to hear me whine, I have a list.”

  44. You need a better latitude, Michael Cain.
    :^)
    Life is complicated. We do the best we can. There are a small number of places that meet the altitude/latitude combination that I would pick. Ain’t none of them that put my wife with mild early dementia close to her granddaughters.
    As I’ve said for decades in response to people’s mindless, “How are you?” “Overall, quite well. If you want to hear me whine, I have a list.”

  45. Interesting stuff. I wondered if I would go to sleep and wake up and it was 2015 and this was all a bad dream. A national Who shot JR moment. Unfortunately, didn’t happen.
    Nous talking about what music, I’m wanting to write a inauguration version of the libretto of the high excutioner in the Mikado.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWo_3CIcTBQ

  46. Interesting stuff. I wondered if I would go to sleep and wake up and it was 2015 and this was all a bad dream. A national Who shot JR moment. Unfortunately, didn’t happen.
    Nous talking about what music, I’m wanting to write a inauguration version of the libretto of the high excutioner in the Mikado.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWo_3CIcTBQ

  53. Joe restored Bears Ears and Escalante/Staircase National Monuments
    The man gave a speech, and then went to work. And got stuff done.
    Here’s his first day.
    And it was kind of a half day, because for the first half of the day, he was… busy.
    I’m sure we’ll all find a thousand things to complain about before the Biden years are done. But I really can’t overstate how pleased and relieved I am to have somebody in the office who seems interested in serving somebody other than himself.
    It’s freaking great.
    Good night, all.

  54. Joe restored Bears Ears and Escalante/Staircase National Monuments
    The man gave a speech, and then went to work. And got stuff done.
    Here’s his first day.
    And it was kind of a half day, because for the first half of the day, he was… busy.
    I’m sure we’ll all find a thousand things to complain about before the Biden years are done. But I really can’t overstate how pleased and relieved I am to have somebody in the office who seems interested in serving somebody other than himself.
    It’s freaking great.
    Good night, all.

  55. My (Internet) friends,
    Aahhh… today was a good day.
    I was fortunate to attend a fund raiser for Barbara Boxer’s last Senate run and Joe Biden (at the time VP) was there. I was toward the end of the line and after shaking his hand I told him that my mother had great respect for him and now (after hearing him speak) I understood why.
    He immediately picked up on the fact that she was gone and asked me about her. This man is a mensch (as others have observed).

  56. My (Internet) friends,
    Aahhh… today was a good day.
    I was fortunate to attend a fund raiser for Barbara Boxer’s last Senate run and Joe Biden (at the time VP) was there. I was toward the end of the line and after shaking his hand I told him that my mother had great respect for him and now (after hearing him speak) I understood why.
    He immediately picked up on the fact that she was gone and asked me about her. This man is a mensch (as others have observed).

  57. Michael Cain: you have a difficult balancing act – many sympathies to you.
    Biden first day: hallelujah. And a mensch is exactly what he is.

  58. Michael Cain: you have a difficult balancing act – many sympathies to you.
    Biden first day: hallelujah. And a mensch is exactly what he is.

  63. I do not feel anybody in their right mind would reasonably call Ezra Klein a wild eyed radical, but speaking for myself, a wild eyed radical, I am on board with this.

  64. I do not feel anybody in their right mind would reasonably call Ezra Klein a wild eyed radical, but speaking for myself, a wild eyed radical, I am on board with this.

  65. Not sure why radicals get termed “wild eyed”.
    It’s the unionized radicals you have to watch out for: once they become ionized they’re even MORE radical.

  66. Not sure why radicals get termed “wild eyed”.
    It’s the unionized radicals you have to watch out for: once they become ionized they’re even MORE radical.

  69. Yes, bobbyp, it certainly makes sense to me.
    On a different note, and despite many people here having an ambivalent attitude (or worse) towards Anne Applebaum, I thought this a worthwhile approach, despite her grudging acceptance of the McKinney attitude towards McConnell (least said by me the better).
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/seditionists-need-path-back-society/617746/
    There’s a lot in it that’s worthwhile, but you really need to read the whole thing (it’s not long). She does talk about Colombia and the FARC, and the psychologists who deal with exit-counselling for people exiting cults. I chose this extract, but it was hard.
    Outside politics, outside the law, outside the norms—the seditionists have in fact declared their independence from the rest of us. January 6 was indeed their 1776: They declared that they want to live in a different America from the one the rest of us inhabit, ruled over by a different president chosen according to a different rule book. And yet they cannot be wished away, or sent away, or somehow locked up. They will not leave of their own accord, and Americans who accept Biden’s lawful victory won’t either. We have no choice except to coexist.
    But how? Clearly we need regulation of social media, but that’s years away. Of course we need better education, but that doesn’t help us deal with the armed men who were standing outside the Ohio statehouse this week.
    Here’s another idea: Drop the argument and change the subject. That’s the counterintuitive advice you will hear from people who have studied Northern Ireland before the 1998 peace deal, or Liberia, or South Africa, or Timor-Leste—countries where political opponents have seen each other as not just wrong, but evil; countries where people are genuinely frightened when the other side takes power; countries where not all arguments can be solved and not all differences can be bridged. In the years before and after the peace settlement in Northern Ireland, for example, many “peacebuilding” projects did not try to make Catholics and Protestants hold civilized debates about politics, or talk about politics at all. Instead, they built community centers, put up Christmas lights, and organized job training for young people.
    This was not accidental. The literature in the fields of peacebuilding and conflict prevention overflows with words such as local and community-based and economic regeneration. It’s built on the idea that people should do something constructive—something that benefits everybody, lessens inequality, and makes people work alongside people they hate. That doesn’t mean they will then get to like one another, just that they are less likely to kill one another on the following day.

  70. Yes, bobbyp, it certainly makes sense to me.
    On a different note, and despite many people here having an ambivalent attitude (or worse) towards Anne Applebaum, I thought this a worthwhile approach, despite her grudging acceptance of the McKinney attitude towards McConnell (least said by me the better).
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/seditionists-need-path-back-society/617746/
    There’s a lot in it that’s worthwhile, but you really need to read the whole thing (it’s not long). She does talk about Colombia and the FARC, and the psychologists who deal with exit-counselling for people exiting cults. I chose this extract, but it was hard.
    Outside politics, outside the law, outside the norms—the seditionists have in fact declared their independence from the rest of us. January 6 was indeed their 1776: They declared that they want to live in a different America from the one the rest of us inhabit, ruled over by a different president chosen according to a different rule book. And yet they cannot be wished away, or sent away, or somehow locked up. They will not leave of their own accord, and Americans who accept Biden’s lawful victory won’t either. We have no choice except to coexist.
    But how? Clearly we need regulation of social media, but that’s years away. Of course we need better education, but that doesn’t help us deal with the armed men who were standing outside the Ohio statehouse this week.
    Here’s another idea: Drop the argument and change the subject. That’s the counterintuitive advice you will hear from people who have studied Northern Ireland before the 1998 peace deal, or Liberia, or South Africa, or Timor-Leste—countries where political opponents have seen each other as not just wrong, but evil; countries where people are genuinely frightened when the other side takes power; countries where not all arguments can be solved and not all differences can be bridged. In the years before and after the peace settlement in Northern Ireland, for example, many “peacebuilding” projects did not try to make Catholics and Protestants hold civilized debates about politics, or talk about politics at all. Instead, they built community centers, put up Christmas lights, and organized job training for young people.
    This was not accidental. The literature in the fields of peacebuilding and conflict prevention overflows with words such as local and community-based and economic regeneration. It’s built on the idea that people should do something constructive—something that benefits everybody, lessens inequality, and makes people work alongside people they hate. That doesn’t mean they will then get to like one another, just that they are less likely to kill one another on the following day.

  71. Drop the argument and change the subject.
    that’s the vibe i’m getting from Biden.
    no, there’s not going to be any steel-fisted reckoning from Biden. Biden is going to try to gently lead the country, as one, to a better place. and that will be enough to lead people away from the GOP mythology.
    hope he’s right.

  72. Drop the argument and change the subject.
    that’s the vibe i’m getting from Biden.
    no, there’s not going to be any steel-fisted reckoning from Biden. Biden is going to try to gently lead the country, as one, to a better place. and that will be enough to lead people away from the GOP mythology.
    hope he’s right.

  73. hope he’s right.
    Me too. Whatever works is fine by me. And by “works” I mean a) ends voter suppression and inbuilt one-party advantage, b) helps income and health inequality, c) improves equality before the law, and d) defangs populist, authoritarian, anti-democratic movements in the population at large. Getting even or jailing the bums is secondary. Eyes on the prize(s).

  74. hope he’s right.
    Me too. Whatever works is fine by me. And by “works” I mean a) ends voter suppression and inbuilt one-party advantage, b) helps income and health inequality, c) improves equality before the law, and d) defangs populist, authoritarian, anti-democratic movements in the population at large. Getting even or jailing the bums is secondary. Eyes on the prize(s).

  77. Drop the argument and change the subject.
    And the last line from bobbyp’s link: “Just help people, and do it fast.”
    I think Trump needs to be held to account. However, for the moment, an impeachment trial where the penalties are limited to disqualification from ever holding office again (well, that and the reality of being convicted) might be good. Not least because assurances that he won’t get hammered with the other possible penalties (e.g. the loss of his pension) might get a couple more critical votes on board for conviction.
    Let the various states convict him of some of the many charges he faces. Let his creditors bankrupt him (for real this time) when his loans come due. But save the Federal charges for his accomplices. And save the Federal government bandwidth for repairing the damages.
    It’s not as emotionally satisfying as throwing the book at him. Certainly not for me. But it may be the pragmatic approach.

  78. Drop the argument and change the subject.
    And the last line from bobbyp’s link: “Just help people, and do it fast.”
    I think Trump needs to be held to account. However, for the moment, an impeachment trial where the penalties are limited to disqualification from ever holding office again (well, that and the reality of being convicted) might be good. Not least because assurances that he won’t get hammered with the other possible penalties (e.g. the loss of his pension) might get a couple more critical votes on board for conviction.
    Let the various states convict him of some of the many charges he faces. Let his creditors bankrupt him (for real this time) when his loans come due. But save the Federal charges for his accomplices. And save the Federal government bandwidth for repairing the damages.
    It’s not as emotionally satisfying as throwing the book at him. Certainly not for me. But it may be the pragmatic approach.

  79. Yesterday federal troops were forced to tear gas antifa “protestors”.
    You can call them rioters, even if they’re on my “side.” (Scare quote battle!)

  80. Yesterday federal troops were forced to tear gas antifa “protestors”.
    You can call them rioters, even if they’re on my “side.” (Scare quote battle!)

  83. https://www.thedailybeast.com/worse-than-we-imagined-team-trump-left-biden-a-covid-19-nightmare?ref=home

    “What we’re inheriting from the Trump administration is so much worse than we could have imagined,” Jeff Zients, the Biden administration’s COVID-19 czar, said in a call with reporters Wednesday. “We don’t have the visibility that we would hope to have into supply and allocations.”
    “I think we have to level-set expectations,” added Tom Frieden, the former director for the Centers for Disease Control in the Obama administration. “There are lots of things that an incoming administration can do on Day One, including speaking honestly about the pandemic.”
    The new administration is already behind, in part because the Trump administration was unprecedentedly hostile during the transition. The question now, however, is how Biden can get a handle on a raging pandemic when his team is already so far behind.

  84. https://www.thedailybeast.com/worse-than-we-imagined-team-trump-left-biden-a-covid-19-nightmare?ref=home

    “What we’re inheriting from the Trump administration is so much worse than we could have imagined,” Jeff Zients, the Biden administration’s COVID-19 czar, said in a call with reporters Wednesday. “We don’t have the visibility that we would hope to have into supply and allocations.”
    “I think we have to level-set expectations,” added Tom Frieden, the former director for the Centers for Disease Control in the Obama administration. “There are lots of things that an incoming administration can do on Day One, including speaking honestly about the pandemic.”
    The new administration is already behind, in part because the Trump administration was unprecedentedly hostile during the transition. The question now, however, is how Biden can get a handle on a raging pandemic when his team is already so far behind.

  85. The new administration is already behind…
    The question now, however, is how Biden can get a handle on a raging pandemic when his team is already so far behind.
    and just like that, the blame has shifted.

  86. The new administration is already behind…
    The question now, however, is how Biden can get a handle on a raging pandemic when his team is already so far behind.
    and just like that, the blame has shifted.

  87. I thought it valuable to ask, who is the rest of us?
    Absolutely clearly in the context of the article “the rest of us” was the people who didn’t vote for Trump, who accepted the result of the election even if they had voted for Trump, and who didn’t try to overthrow (or support those who tried to overthrow) the certification in the Capitol. The 200 rioters in Portland needed dealing with, appear to have been dealt with, and hardly constitute an “ungovernable” mob. Unlike, perhaps, the sizeable percentage of the US population who think the election was stolen from Trump, and support the seditionaries who tried to overthrow its result.

  88. I thought it valuable to ask, who is the rest of us?
    Absolutely clearly in the context of the article “the rest of us” was the people who didn’t vote for Trump, who accepted the result of the election even if they had voted for Trump, and who didn’t try to overthrow (or support those who tried to overthrow) the certification in the Capitol. The 200 rioters in Portland needed dealing with, appear to have been dealt with, and hardly constitute an “ungovernable” mob. Unlike, perhaps, the sizeable percentage of the US population who think the election was stolen from Trump, and support the seditionaries who tried to overthrow its result.

  89. The problem is that we have these virtual spaces where people act out and it bleeds into their local space. If it were just the local space and people behaved like this, they would be shunned. Even if it wouldn’t be formalized, people with any kind of emotional intelligence would realize that this kind of behavior is going to reap a bad reaction.
    I just had an elementary school classmate who I friended me a couple of years ago, hadn’t posted anything on FB of note, post ‘fuck Biden, he stole the election’. You ignore it, or you put him to sleep, or you unfriend him. Only the latter one has the possibility of him noticing and even then, it’s not a big thing. Behave like that in the grocery store week in, week out, and the culmulative weight of opprobation will tell.
    That’s why diversity matters, you increase the potential for negative pressure.

  90. The problem is that we have these virtual spaces where people act out and it bleeds into their local space. If it were just the local space and people behaved like this, they would be shunned. Even if it wouldn’t be formalized, people with any kind of emotional intelligence would realize that this kind of behavior is going to reap a bad reaction.
    I just had an elementary school classmate who I friended me a couple of years ago, hadn’t posted anything on FB of note, post ‘fuck Biden, he stole the election’. You ignore it, or you put him to sleep, or you unfriend him. Only the latter one has the possibility of him noticing and even then, it’s not a big thing. Behave like that in the grocery store week in, week out, and the culmulative weight of opprobation will tell.
    That’s why diversity matters, you increase the potential for negative pressure.

  93. Rural Missouri looms large in Hawley’s political identity as much because of what it is as because of what it is not, chiefly: other places, outside the Great American Middle, where he contends American values are under attack. Those places are the domain of a “cosmopolitan elite,” Hawley told a ballroom of conservative dignitaries in DC last year.

    as soon as Fox News moves its HQ to East Westburg, MO and none of its stars come from NYC, L.A., SF and greater New England, with Ivy League educations, i’ll give a fuck about what “the base” says about people from the heartland.

  94. Rural Missouri looms large in Hawley’s political identity as much because of what it is as because of what it is not, chiefly: other places, outside the Great American Middle, where he contends American values are under attack. Those places are the domain of a “cosmopolitan elite,” Hawley told a ballroom of conservative dignitaries in DC last year.

    as soon as Fox News moves its HQ to East Westburg, MO and none of its stars come from NYC, L.A., SF and greater New England, with Ivy League educations, i’ll give a fuck about what “the base” says about people from the heartland.

  97. Sorry, I thought it wasn’t paywalled (I’m a subscriber) – anyway, seems like great book.
    I didn’t notice it was paywalled either, but in my case it’s because I run a modest set of filters that control what files get loaded and processed by my browser. Since it’s an open thread, I’ll get up on my perennial soapbox…
    What almost all media sites with paywalls do is load data into your computer (sometimes many megabytes), and code into your computer, then when you load an article the code runs and looks at the data, and if the code doesn’t like the data it covers up the article. You are under no obligation, legal or ethical, to allow them to behave this way. After all, they make no promises that the software will be benign. They don’t pay you for the storage space you’re providing. They count content that they didn’t create against your monthly limit (eg, AP articles).
    After this past week’s adventure with Parler and AWS, I am waiting for one of the big browsers (not Chrome, for obvious reasons) to announce that the default setting will be to not download content from doubleclick.net until they demonstrate a workable scheme to block inappropriate or offensive content.

  98. Sorry, I thought it wasn’t paywalled (I’m a subscriber) – anyway, seems like great book.
    I didn’t notice it was paywalled either, but in my case it’s because I run a modest set of filters that control what files get loaded and processed by my browser. Since it’s an open thread, I’ll get up on my perennial soapbox…
    What almost all media sites with paywalls do is load data into your computer (sometimes many megabytes), and code into your computer, then when you load an article the code runs and looks at the data, and if the code doesn’t like the data it covers up the article. You are under no obligation, legal or ethical, to allow them to behave this way. After all, they make no promises that the software will be benign. They don’t pay you for the storage space you’re providing. They count content that they didn’t create against your monthly limit (eg, AP articles).
    After this past week’s adventure with Parler and AWS, I am waiting for one of the big browsers (not Chrome, for obvious reasons) to announce that the default setting will be to not download content from doubleclick.net until they demonstrate a workable scheme to block inappropriate or offensive content.

  99. If I can figure out how to block everything from doubleclick.net, I will do it. I’ve never seen anything useful from there.

  100. If I can figure out how to block everything from doubleclick.net, I will do it. I’ve never seen anything useful from there.

  101. Various Republican Senators and other elected officials are taking offense at Biden’s negative remarks about racists, etc. On the grounds that it was a slur on them. But Biden didn’t mention them, either individually or collectively as Republicans. Do they even realize that their complaint is only valid IF they embrace the application of those terms to themselves? That is, it’s only if they call themselves racist that they have been slurred.

  102. Various Republican Senators and other elected officials are taking offense at Biden’s negative remarks about racists, etc. On the grounds that it was a slur on them. But Biden didn’t mention them, either individually or collectively as Republicans. Do they even realize that their complaint is only valid IF they embrace the application of those terms to themselves? That is, it’s only if they call themselves racist that they have been slurred.

  103. Yesterday federal troops were forced to tear gas antifa “protestors”.
    in Portland OR.
    Portland has a history, going back decades, of chronic violent confrontation between anarchists and white supremacists. Or, between either of them and local government and LEO. By decades, I mean 30-40 years, although both parties have deeper roots in the area.
    If either “side” ever needs fresh ammunition for the rage machine, Portland is sure to provide, and on a timely basis.
    I thought it valuable to ask, who is the rest of us?
    non-seditionists. which side of that you want to land is up to you.

  104. Yesterday federal troops were forced to tear gas antifa “protestors”.
    in Portland OR.
    Portland has a history, going back decades, of chronic violent confrontation between anarchists and white supremacists. Or, between either of them and local government and LEO. By decades, I mean 30-40 years, although both parties have deeper roots in the area.
    If either “side” ever needs fresh ammunition for the rage machine, Portland is sure to provide, and on a timely basis.
    I thought it valuable to ask, who is the rest of us?
    non-seditionists. which side of that you want to land is up to you.

  105. Do they even realize that their complaint is only valid IF they embrace the application of those terms to themselves?
    but where’s the political mileage in that?

  106. Do they even realize that their complaint is only valid IF they embrace the application of those terms to themselves?
    but where’s the political mileage in that?

  107. wj: … it’s only if they call themselves racist that they have been slurred.
    Or: if they’re wearing the shoe, maybe it fits.
    –TP

  108. wj: … it’s only if they call themselves racist that they have been slurred.
    Or: if they’re wearing the shoe, maybe it fits.
    –TP

  109. A crowd of about 150 people gathered at Revolution Hall, a music venue in southeast Portland, and marched to the headquarters of the Democratic Party of Oregon on Wednesday afternoon. Some individuals vandalized the building with graffiti and smashed windows, while others moved dumpsters into the middle of the street and lit the contents on fire, police said.

    and Democrats are supposed to take responsibility for this?

  110. A crowd of about 150 people gathered at Revolution Hall, a music venue in southeast Portland, and marched to the headquarters of the Democratic Party of Oregon on Wednesday afternoon. Some individuals vandalized the building with graffiti and smashed windows, while others moved dumpsters into the middle of the street and lit the contents on fire, police said.

    and Democrats are supposed to take responsibility for this?

  111. Democrats created a monster they can’t control! (That’s parody, but I’m guessing it will be indistinguishable from reality.)

  112. Democrats created a monster they can’t control! (That’s parody, but I’m guessing it will be indistinguishable from reality.)

  115. Do they even realize that their complaint is only valid IF they embrace the application of those terms to themselves?
    It’s hard to see past the grievance.
    That friend that I was talking with on FB messenger for about an hour after American Benghazi ended up defriending me. He did so because he said my FB post was elitist.
    I was making fun of Democrats, mind, asking what book they were planning to recommend to Republicans to explain Ossoff voters the way that they all rushed out to buy a copy of Hillbilly Elegy after the Clinton loss. As if the Trump voters would ever care that they had not understood and won over Obama/Trump voters. It’s not their M.O.
    One person, naturally, commented that Trump voters don’t read. And that one comment was enough to make someone whose wedding party I had been a part of decide that my initial post was insulting him personally.
    Trump voters do read, it’s just that the majority of them read everything the same way that Joe Pesci listens in Goodfellas. Their identity is the chip on their shoulder. It’s all they have.

  116. Do they even realize that their complaint is only valid IF they embrace the application of those terms to themselves?
    It’s hard to see past the grievance.
    That friend that I was talking with on FB messenger for about an hour after American Benghazi ended up defriending me. He did so because he said my FB post was elitist.
    I was making fun of Democrats, mind, asking what book they were planning to recommend to Republicans to explain Ossoff voters the way that they all rushed out to buy a copy of Hillbilly Elegy after the Clinton loss. As if the Trump voters would ever care that they had not understood and won over Obama/Trump voters. It’s not their M.O.
    One person, naturally, commented that Trump voters don’t read. And that one comment was enough to make someone whose wedding party I had been a part of decide that my initial post was insulting him personally.
    Trump voters do read, it’s just that the majority of them read everything the same way that Joe Pesci listens in Goodfellas. Their identity is the chip on their shoulder. It’s all they have.

  119. Who forced them to do it?
    Biden. The person who is also running scared of the hard socialists and set to bend his knee to the power of The Squad.
    Follow the clues, normie. It’s all right there in the open if you look hard enough.
    Where we go one, we go all…even if that place is patently absurd.

  120. Who forced them to do it?
    Biden. The person who is also running scared of the hard socialists and set to bend his knee to the power of The Squad.
    Follow the clues, normie. It’s all right there in the open if you look hard enough.
    Where we go one, we go all…even if that place is patently absurd.

  121. “who accepted the result of the election even if they had voted for Trump, and who didn’t try to overthrow (or support those who tried to overthrow) the certification in the Capitol.”
    Not one of the liberal commentators here ever accepted the result of the election of Trump. They supported at every step the attempt to nullify that election using every tool at the disposal of the Democrats, up to and including impeachment based on a completely debunked conspiracy theory that the election wasn’t legitimate because of Russian interference. The election wasn’t legitimate because Hilary got more popular votes. The list goes on.
    Trying to equate some stupid act by a few hundred right wing nut jobs to the sedition of the entire Democratic party and anyone left of them over the last four years is simply laughable.
    For myself, both elections seemed to be legitimate. While I didn’t want either of them to be President. It is what it is.

  122. “who accepted the result of the election even if they had voted for Trump, and who didn’t try to overthrow (or support those who tried to overthrow) the certification in the Capitol.”
    Not one of the liberal commentators here ever accepted the result of the election of Trump. They supported at every step the attempt to nullify that election using every tool at the disposal of the Democrats, up to and including impeachment based on a completely debunked conspiracy theory that the election wasn’t legitimate because of Russian interference. The election wasn’t legitimate because Hilary got more popular votes. The list goes on.
    Trying to equate some stupid act by a few hundred right wing nut jobs to the sedition of the entire Democratic party and anyone left of them over the last four years is simply laughable.
    For myself, both elections seemed to be legitimate. While I didn’t want either of them to be President. It is what it is.

  123. If I can figure out how to block everything from doubleclick.net, I will do it. I’ve never seen anything useful from there.
    I believe all of the common ad-blockers have doubleclick.net on their list of bad guys by default. If you can find, download, and install an app on your phone, you can handle a browser add-on. I run uBlock Origin. You can whitelist any ad-supported site you like with a couple of clicks.

  124. If I can figure out how to block everything from doubleclick.net, I will do it. I’ve never seen anything useful from there.
    I believe all of the common ad-blockers have doubleclick.net on their list of bad guys by default. If you can find, download, and install an app on your phone, you can handle a browser add-on. I run uBlock Origin. You can whitelist any ad-supported site you like with a couple of clicks.

  133. Not one of the liberal commentators here ever accepted the result of the election of Trump. They supported at every step the attempt to nullify that election using every tool at the disposal of the Democrats
    Somehow, I don’t remember that. They all disliked, intensely disliked, the fact that Trump had won. And they were unhappy that he had won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. But I don’t recall anyone trying to argue that he had NOT won the electoral vote. Or that he was not, in fact, the duly elected President.
    There were questions about voter suppression, yes. But there were minimal suggestions that there was outright electoral fraud. Certainly no suggestions that there was electoral fraud on a scale which would have reversed the results.
    Whereas these past two months . . . .
    But perhaps someone can point me to where, on this blog, anyone argued that Trump had not been legitimately elected President. (Just to be clear, saying that he is a bastard isn’t the same as saying that he wasn’t legitimately elected.)

  134. Not one of the liberal commentators here ever accepted the result of the election of Trump. They supported at every step the attempt to nullify that election using every tool at the disposal of the Democrats
    Somehow, I don’t remember that. They all disliked, intensely disliked, the fact that Trump had won. And they were unhappy that he had won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. But I don’t recall anyone trying to argue that he had NOT won the electoral vote. Or that he was not, in fact, the duly elected President.
    There were questions about voter suppression, yes. But there were minimal suggestions that there was outright electoral fraud. Certainly no suggestions that there was electoral fraud on a scale which would have reversed the results.
    Whereas these past two months . . . .
    But perhaps someone can point me to where, on this blog, anyone argued that Trump had not been legitimately elected President. (Just to be clear, saying that he is a bastard isn’t the same as saying that he wasn’t legitimately elected.)

  135. Marty, barely a word of what you say above is factually accurate.
    1. Everyone here accepted the result of Trump’s election. They deplored it, they lamented it, they wished it otherwise, but they never tried to “nullify the result”.
    2. They did say that Russia interfered in Trump’s favour, because Russia did. This has never been debunked, on the contrary all your intelligence agencies support it. What was not proven is that the Russian interference was actually successful in electing Trump, nor (although there is some evidence for it) that there was actionable collusion.
    3. Many (or most) here think it is a real problem that it is so easy for someone to win a presidential election despite losing the popular vote by many millions. This is not the same as saying that the election is not legitimate under current rules.
    4. Nobody ever tried to “nullify the election” by impeaching Trump. He has been twice impeached for serious misdemeanours in office, which your system allows (although apparently Rs think blowjobs from an intern should qualify).
    the sedition of the entire Democratic party
    Words have meanings. The Democratic party did not commit sedition, and your contention that they did is meaningless and absurd. As for calling the January 6th attack on the Capitol some stupid act by a few hundred right wing nut jobs, this starts to raise serious doubts about what you think, or what you are saying. This was an attempt to subvert American democracy, incited by the President, as now acknowledged by many previously Trump-loyal Republican politicians, and if you think otherwise I am seriously worried about what is happening to your thought processes. Do you actually believe this ridiculous guff, or are you just trying to yank our chains?

  136. Marty, barely a word of what you say above is factually accurate.
    1. Everyone here accepted the result of Trump’s election. They deplored it, they lamented it, they wished it otherwise, but they never tried to “nullify the result”.
    2. They did say that Russia interfered in Trump’s favour, because Russia did. This has never been debunked, on the contrary all your intelligence agencies support it. What was not proven is that the Russian interference was actually successful in electing Trump, nor (although there is some evidence for it) that there was actionable collusion.
    3. Many (or most) here think it is a real problem that it is so easy for someone to win a presidential election despite losing the popular vote by many millions. This is not the same as saying that the election is not legitimate under current rules.
    4. Nobody ever tried to “nullify the election” by impeaching Trump. He has been twice impeached for serious misdemeanours in office, which your system allows (although apparently Rs think blowjobs from an intern should qualify).
    the sedition of the entire Democratic party
    Words have meanings. The Democratic party did not commit sedition, and your contention that they did is meaningless and absurd. As for calling the January 6th attack on the Capitol some stupid act by a few hundred right wing nut jobs, this starts to raise serious doubts about what you think, or what you are saying. This was an attempt to subvert American democracy, incited by the President, as now acknowledged by many previously Trump-loyal Republican politicians, and if you think otherwise I am seriously worried about what is happening to your thought processes. Do you actually believe this ridiculous guff, or are you just trying to yank our chains?

  137. Not one of the liberal commentators here ever accepted the result of the election of Trump. They supported at every step the attempt to nullify that election…
    I’ll start by saying that, as a simple point of fact, you mis-state the grounds for which Trump was impeached.
    And I’ll leave it there, because that and the rest of it are barely worth discussing. Just a paragraph full of falsehoods.
    it is what it is.

  138. Not one of the liberal commentators here ever accepted the result of the election of Trump. They supported at every step the attempt to nullify that election…
    I’ll start by saying that, as a simple point of fact, you mis-state the grounds for which Trump was impeached.
    And I’ll leave it there, because that and the rest of it are barely worth discussing. Just a paragraph full of falsehoods.
    it is what it is.

  139. russell, Portland, Seattle *hand wave* The only violence I saw on inauguration day was from the left. After all my *handwaving* came true, there are just more violent leftists on a day to day basis. Democracy survived, essentially unchallenged, and the right couldn’t even generate any decent local protests much less a riot on the big day. All those armed and dangerous right wingers just didn’t have enough sedition in them after all.

  140. russell, Portland, Seattle *hand wave* The only violence I saw on inauguration day was from the left. After all my *handwaving* came true, there are just more violent leftists on a day to day basis. Democracy survived, essentially unchallenged, and the right couldn’t even generate any decent local protests much less a riot on the big day. All those armed and dangerous right wingers just didn’t have enough sedition in them after all.

  143. I am seriously worried about what is happening to your thought processes.
    For me, that ship sailed a long time ago.

  144. I am seriously worried about what is happening to your thought processes.
    For me, that ship sailed a long time ago.

  145. “(although apparently Rs think blowjobs from an intern should qualify).”
    An act that would get any CEO fired on the spot, completely unacceptable behavior in this society.
    It was not just a blowjob, it is considered an abuse of a power relationship that is strictly outside the bounds of any measure of propriety. And he knew it, so he lied. The lie is the big tell, just as it was with Trump.
    Trying to handwave it away is again laughable.
    People do lots of things that are “an attempt to subvert American democracy” including attacking Democratic Party headquarters on inauguration day. The attempt to somehow make Jan 6 the responsibility of Republican’s or the right beyond the participants is an exercise in nullification.
    What I think is the President riled up the crowd, got probably a little more action than he expected, but didn’t mind a bit because he actually believes the election was stolen. Because he is not in touch with reality at this point, or maybe is now. The small faction that completely misunderstood the Presidents dedication to their action were dumbasses, he wouldn’t have the balls to do much but talk and tweet. So they were just idiots.
    And to pretend that any meaningful percentage of the 75 million people who voted for him supported that is ludicrous. Most of them don’t see a smoking gun in his speech, because they don’t want to as much as you do.
    Lastly, I did not misstate the grounds on which he was impeached. I simply stated that everyone here supported impeaching based on a completely debunked conspiracy theory that the election wasn’t legitimate because of Russian interference. Not that he was.
    There is not, if read in good faith, one untrue thing in that paragraph.

  146. “(although apparently Rs think blowjobs from an intern should qualify).”
    An act that would get any CEO fired on the spot, completely unacceptable behavior in this society.
    It was not just a blowjob, it is considered an abuse of a power relationship that is strictly outside the bounds of any measure of propriety. And he knew it, so he lied. The lie is the big tell, just as it was with Trump.
    Trying to handwave it away is again laughable.
    People do lots of things that are “an attempt to subvert American democracy” including attacking Democratic Party headquarters on inauguration day. The attempt to somehow make Jan 6 the responsibility of Republican’s or the right beyond the participants is an exercise in nullification.
    What I think is the President riled up the crowd, got probably a little more action than he expected, but didn’t mind a bit because he actually believes the election was stolen. Because he is not in touch with reality at this point, or maybe is now. The small faction that completely misunderstood the Presidents dedication to their action were dumbasses, he wouldn’t have the balls to do much but talk and tweet. So they were just idiots.
    And to pretend that any meaningful percentage of the 75 million people who voted for him supported that is ludicrous. Most of them don’t see a smoking gun in his speech, because they don’t want to as much as you do.
    Lastly, I did not misstate the grounds on which he was impeached. I simply stated that everyone here supported impeaching based on a completely debunked conspiracy theory that the election wasn’t legitimate because of Russian interference. Not that he was.
    There is not, if read in good faith, one untrue thing in that paragraph.

  147. Well one thing the violence in Portland and Seattle proves: the Democrats are not radicals and not a vehicle for “antifa”.
    And another thing the violence proves: representative government is not threatened by them. It’s a local policing issue and If I ran the world I would tell the cops to arrest arrest arrest and I would also them that if they can’t make those arrests without killing or severely injuring people then they are not competent and should not be cops.
    As for the right–which is far more numerous and far more violent over time (according to the FBI) being unable to organize much in the way of protests: I wasn’t expecting them to show. Being bullies, I expected them to crawl off and hide after the spectacle they made of themselves at the Capital.
    Democracy survived but remains challenged by the Republican party. They will gerrymander wherever they can. They will pass laws to restrict access to mail in ballots wherever they can. Their attacks on voting rights–organized, deliberate, planned–are an attack on representative government.
    And the Republican hate/fear/lie “news” is still operational and still pumping out the propaganda that created the radicalization of Republican voters that fuels the attacks the Republican party is making on representative government. The most obvious example of this being the lie about voter fraud which is believed by most Republican voters The Repubican party has been delegitimizing the rest of America for decades and thst’s what gave a Texas realtor the sense of entitlement that allowed her to think she was in the right to use violence to try to overturn and election
    There were representatives from extremist groups in the attack on the capital. But large numbers of people there were employed otherwise lawabiding middle class white people who had drunk the KoolAid of Republican messaging and were full of entitlement. And there were lots of former soldiers, lots of cops, and lots of Republican lawmakers.
    What they had in common was the belief in their entitlement, their belief that THEY were American and the rest of us just don’t count . That’s what nearly every Republican politician and the Faux hater line up and the galaxy or “conservative” “news” has been sawing for years.
    Our democracy is still in critical danger from these people. And they are not trawler trash Nazis. They are the people next door in anytown anywhere who believe that Biden didn’t really win and Obama’s citizenship should have been investigated and Hilary something about her emails and Hunter Biden/China/something, and Democrats are socialists etc the whole demeaning, defaming marginalizing bullshit that makes them believe that they have to vote Republican to save America from the rest of us
    So no Democracy is not safe and no those idiots in Portland and Seattle are not threat to democracy and yes the Republican party is.

  148. Well one thing the violence in Portland and Seattle proves: the Democrats are not radicals and not a vehicle for “antifa”.
    And another thing the violence proves: representative government is not threatened by them. It’s a local policing issue and If I ran the world I would tell the cops to arrest arrest arrest and I would also them that if they can’t make those arrests without killing or severely injuring people then they are not competent and should not be cops.
    As for the right–which is far more numerous and far more violent over time (according to the FBI) being unable to organize much in the way of protests: I wasn’t expecting them to show. Being bullies, I expected them to crawl off and hide after the spectacle they made of themselves at the Capital.
    Democracy survived but remains challenged by the Republican party. They will gerrymander wherever they can. They will pass laws to restrict access to mail in ballots wherever they can. Their attacks on voting rights–organized, deliberate, planned–are an attack on representative government.
    And the Republican hate/fear/lie “news” is still operational and still pumping out the propaganda that created the radicalization of Republican voters that fuels the attacks the Republican party is making on representative government. The most obvious example of this being the lie about voter fraud which is believed by most Republican voters The Repubican party has been delegitimizing the rest of America for decades and thst’s what gave a Texas realtor the sense of entitlement that allowed her to think she was in the right to use violence to try to overturn and election
    There were representatives from extremist groups in the attack on the capital. But large numbers of people there were employed otherwise lawabiding middle class white people who had drunk the KoolAid of Republican messaging and were full of entitlement. And there were lots of former soldiers, lots of cops, and lots of Republican lawmakers.
    What they had in common was the belief in their entitlement, their belief that THEY were American and the rest of us just don’t count . That’s what nearly every Republican politician and the Faux hater line up and the galaxy or “conservative” “news” has been sawing for years.
    Our democracy is still in critical danger from these people. And they are not trawler trash Nazis. They are the people next door in anytown anywhere who believe that Biden didn’t really win and Obama’s citizenship should have been investigated and Hilary something about her emails and Hunter Biden/China/something, and Democrats are socialists etc the whole demeaning, defaming marginalizing bullshit that makes them believe that they have to vote Republican to save America from the rest of us
    So no Democracy is not safe and no those idiots in Portland and Seattle are not threat to democracy and yes the Republican party is.

  149. An act that would get any CEO fired on the spot, completely unacceptable behavior in this society.
    It was not just a blowjob, it is considered an abuse of a power relationship that is strictly outside the bounds of any measure of propriety. And he knew it, so he lied.
    I agree with this. And that it should not be handwaved away.
    But to compare that behaviour by a POTUS, no matter how reprehensible, to an attempt by a POTUS to blackmail an ally into investigating a political rival’s family, before releasing already authorised aid, or to a POTUS inciting a mob to riot and force a VPOTUS to betray his oath to protect the constitution by certifying the results of an election, seems incredible. I repeat, do you actually believe this ridiculous guff, or are you engaged in some sort of strange performance art/reductio ad absurdum?

  150. An act that would get any CEO fired on the spot, completely unacceptable behavior in this society.
    It was not just a blowjob, it is considered an abuse of a power relationship that is strictly outside the bounds of any measure of propriety. And he knew it, so he lied.
    I agree with this. And that it should not be handwaved away.
    But to compare that behaviour by a POTUS, no matter how reprehensible, to an attempt by a POTUS to blackmail an ally into investigating a political rival’s family, before releasing already authorised aid, or to a POTUS inciting a mob to riot and force a VPOTUS to betray his oath to protect the constitution by certifying the results of an election, seems incredible. I repeat, do you actually believe this ridiculous guff, or are you engaged in some sort of strange performance art/reductio ad absurdum?

  151. I didn’t bring up Clinton you did.
    I haven’t defended a single action by Trump, I was pointing out the actions of the Democrats. Both that Trump did things wrong and the Democrats spent four years trying to nullify an election they never considered legitimate can be true. It is not either/or.

  152. I didn’t bring up Clinton you did.
    I haven’t defended a single action by Trump, I was pointing out the actions of the Democrats. Both that Trump did things wrong and the Democrats spent four years trying to nullify an election they never considered legitimate can be true. It is not either/or.

  153. Both that Trump did things wrong and the Democrats spent four years trying to nullify an election they never considered legitimate can be true.
    But the latter is not true, by any definition of the word “true”. Since you will not answer whether you actually believe any of this, I am afraid that (like russell) I have to conclude there is no point continuing this conversation. I can only hope you don’t really believe it, and that the next time we hear from you you will not be down the Q rabbithole.

  154. Both that Trump did things wrong and the Democrats spent four years trying to nullify an election they never considered legitimate can be true.
    But the latter is not true, by any definition of the word “true”. Since you will not answer whether you actually believe any of this, I am afraid that (like russell) I have to conclude there is no point continuing this conversation. I can only hope you don’t really believe it, and that the next time we hear from you you will not be down the Q rabbithole.

  155. Both that Trump did things wrong and the Democrats spent four years trying to nullify an election they never considered legitimate can be true.
    That is totally correct. They COULD both be true. But, in point of fact, only one of them actually is.

  156. Both that Trump did things wrong and the Democrats spent four years trying to nullify an election they never considered legitimate can be true.
    That is totally correct. They COULD both be true. But, in point of fact, only one of them actually is.

  157. Impeachment is not the nullification of an election, no matter how many times you say it is. It is not the same thing as attempting to prevent the transfer of power. It is not even the same thing as suing to have the election nullified. Your false equivalencies are moronic.

  158. Impeachment is not the nullification of an election, no matter how many times you say it is. It is not the same thing as attempting to prevent the transfer of power. It is not even the same thing as suing to have the election nullified. Your false equivalencies are moronic.

  161. Your lack of ability to see that even before he was sworn in the Democrats were laying the groundwork to declare the election illegitimate and try to find a way to get rid of him is moronic. Nullification can happen in more ways than one, thee Democrats successfully used the tools at their disposal to do it. No one in a position to actually do it tried to stop the transfer of power, no matter how many times you say it the swearing in of Joe Biden was never at risk. To consider a mob attacking the the Capitol building any threat to our Democracy is moronic.
    Because, we are not a banana republic where the military and the President make a lot of money from being in power that can buy legislators. But mostly because the states would have to agree to support such a thing and, they wouldn’t.

  162. Your lack of ability to see that even before he was sworn in the Democrats were laying the groundwork to declare the election illegitimate and try to find a way to get rid of him is moronic. Nullification can happen in more ways than one, thee Democrats successfully used the tools at their disposal to do it. No one in a position to actually do it tried to stop the transfer of power, no matter how many times you say it the swearing in of Joe Biden was never at risk. To consider a mob attacking the the Capitol building any threat to our Democracy is moronic.
    Because, we are not a banana republic where the military and the President make a lot of money from being in power that can buy legislators. But mostly because the states would have to agree to support such a thing and, they wouldn’t.

  165. The transfer of power was never at risk because the objections were total bullsh*t. But all the frivolous lawsuits, the actions of people in congress, and the encouragement of the mob on January 6th have no equivalent.
    What tools did the Democrats successfully use to nullify an election? What election was nullified?

  166. The transfer of power was never at risk because the objections were total bullsh*t. But all the frivolous lawsuits, the actions of people in congress, and the encouragement of the mob on January 6th have no equivalent.
    What tools did the Democrats successfully use to nullify an election? What election was nullified?

  167. russell, Portland, Seattle *hand wave*
    yeah, no.
    first of all, the number of people on this board who are on ‘the left’ is probably two or three. bobbyp, and I don’t know who else, so I’m spotting you two more.
    ‘the left’ actually means something, and what it means is not ‘not on the right’. the political spectrum in this country runs from the middle to significantly to the right of the middle. what people call ‘the left’ nowadays is basically what was a bog standard middle-of-the-road position from about 1930 until the Reagan era.
    the people who rioted on inauguration day are actually – some of them, anyway – on ‘the left’. most of them are anarchists. they have literally no connection to the (D)’s as a party, see also the fact that they were protesting Joe Biden’s inauguration. they have bugger-all to do with pretty much anyone on this board, and most people here do not support them, at all, in any way. I sure don’t.
    If I mention the history of left and right wing extremist violence in Portland and other, similar cities, it’s just an attempt to provide context. So that we all understand WTF we’re talking about. Receive it or don’t, that’s up to you.
    Trump and his campaign were under investigation before he was inaugurated because there was – and is – good reason to believe that people in his campaign were co-operating with Russian nationals to fnck with the election. Full stop.
    Trump was impeached because he deserved to be impeached. There were ample grounds for impeachment beginning from the first day of his time in office, continuing up to his last day in office. The fact that he was only impeached twice during that time is the only thing remarkable in any of that.
    Not because he was (R), but because he’s Trump. He is a freaking crook, has been a crook all his life, will be a crook until his last dying breath, I have no doubt. He is a crook.
    The people who rioted at the Capitol on Jan 6 included folks who were looking for Pence and members of Congress, in order to try to force them to throw out the electoral vote. It’s highly unlikely that that would have prevented Biden from taking office, it’s highly unlikely that it would have brought about any useful outcome whatsoever.
    What it would have brought about is utter chaos, and there is not one person on the freaking planet who has any idea what it would have led to, or what kind of situation we’d be looking at right now.
    Unlike the actions of free-lance anarchists, who basically hate any reasonable candidate for office except maybe Bernie, the folks on January 6 were quite explicitly partisan supporters of Trump. And, their actions were encouraged by Trump. And, he did nothing – not one damned thing – to stop them from rioting and possibly capturing and killing members of Congress and the VPOTUS.
    Instead, he watched it on TV.
    You’ve been here quite a while, so I’m showing you the respect of responding to your comments with basic, factual information. Information you surely are aware of and have access to, but which you seem unable to absorb.
    But I’m sick of arguing about bullshit. I’m asking you to quit bringing this BS here.

  168. russell, Portland, Seattle *hand wave*
    yeah, no.
    first of all, the number of people on this board who are on ‘the left’ is probably two or three. bobbyp, and I don’t know who else, so I’m spotting you two more.
    ‘the left’ actually means something, and what it means is not ‘not on the right’. the political spectrum in this country runs from the middle to significantly to the right of the middle. what people call ‘the left’ nowadays is basically what was a bog standard middle-of-the-road position from about 1930 until the Reagan era.
    the people who rioted on inauguration day are actually – some of them, anyway – on ‘the left’. most of them are anarchists. they have literally no connection to the (D)’s as a party, see also the fact that they were protesting Joe Biden’s inauguration. they have bugger-all to do with pretty much anyone on this board, and most people here do not support them, at all, in any way. I sure don’t.
    If I mention the history of left and right wing extremist violence in Portland and other, similar cities, it’s just an attempt to provide context. So that we all understand WTF we’re talking about. Receive it or don’t, that’s up to you.
    Trump and his campaign were under investigation before he was inaugurated because there was – and is – good reason to believe that people in his campaign were co-operating with Russian nationals to fnck with the election. Full stop.
    Trump was impeached because he deserved to be impeached. There were ample grounds for impeachment beginning from the first day of his time in office, continuing up to his last day in office. The fact that he was only impeached twice during that time is the only thing remarkable in any of that.
    Not because he was (R), but because he’s Trump. He is a freaking crook, has been a crook all his life, will be a crook until his last dying breath, I have no doubt. He is a crook.
    The people who rioted at the Capitol on Jan 6 included folks who were looking for Pence and members of Congress, in order to try to force them to throw out the electoral vote. It’s highly unlikely that that would have prevented Biden from taking office, it’s highly unlikely that it would have brought about any useful outcome whatsoever.
    What it would have brought about is utter chaos, and there is not one person on the freaking planet who has any idea what it would have led to, or what kind of situation we’d be looking at right now.
    Unlike the actions of free-lance anarchists, who basically hate any reasonable candidate for office except maybe Bernie, the folks on January 6 were quite explicitly partisan supporters of Trump. And, their actions were encouraged by Trump. And, he did nothing – not one damned thing – to stop them from rioting and possibly capturing and killing members of Congress and the VPOTUS.
    Instead, he watched it on TV.
    You’ve been here quite a while, so I’m showing you the respect of responding to your comments with basic, factual information. Information you surely are aware of and have access to, but which you seem unable to absorb.
    But I’m sick of arguing about bullshit. I’m asking you to quit bringing this BS here.

  169. It was not just a blowjob, it is considered an abuse of a power relationship that is strictly outside the bounds of any measure of propriety. And he knew it, so he lied.
    I agree with this. And that it should not be handwaved away.
    As do I.
    Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. It’s a credible basis for impeachment, and he was in fact impeached.
    It’s been 22 freaking years. Next topic, please.

  170. It was not just a blowjob, it is considered an abuse of a power relationship that is strictly outside the bounds of any measure of propriety. And he knew it, so he lied.
    I agree with this. And that it should not be handwaved away.
    As do I.
    Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. It’s a credible basis for impeachment, and he was in fact impeached.
    It’s been 22 freaking years. Next topic, please.

  173. You whose transformation has been fascinating to watch?
    Jennifer Rubin’s.
    I only know her from her WaPo writings,and then only since the Clinton Administration (I think).
    She at times struck me as someone who might have been liberal if not for the state of Israel, or if not for the attack on 9-11. But whether she was a former liberal, or was always conservative, conservative commentary was definitely her thing for a very long time. Infuriatingly so.
    But something happened when Trump rose within the GOP. Rubin’s cup of gobsmacked disgust ran over, and she slowly but surely estranged herself from the entire GOP (well, except for Romney). To the point where some of her columns are pretty damned Woke. Astonishingly so.
    And one thing I’ve noticed during Rubin’s transition from Conservative Commentator to Holy Shit She’s Liberal Now. She’s really enjoying the awakening.
    I get the sense there are internal contradictions being a conservative pundit forced on her that she is now free of, and by god she likes it. She’s also no longer forced by ideological loyalty to ally herself with people who you could tell, even back then, repulsed her.
    What I’m saying is, Jen Rubin seems to be a very happy person these days, and not just because Trump is gone. She wants to burn down the whole GOP, and she’s fiercely joyous about wanting to burn down the whole GOP.
    That just strikes me as a very different sort of transition, from someone going down the Q rabbit hole. You don’t get the sense they enjoy what they’re doing, or the company they’re keeping.
    Just saying.

  174. You whose transformation has been fascinating to watch?
    Jennifer Rubin’s.
    I only know her from her WaPo writings,and then only since the Clinton Administration (I think).
    She at times struck me as someone who might have been liberal if not for the state of Israel, or if not for the attack on 9-11. But whether she was a former liberal, or was always conservative, conservative commentary was definitely her thing for a very long time. Infuriatingly so.
    But something happened when Trump rose within the GOP. Rubin’s cup of gobsmacked disgust ran over, and she slowly but surely estranged herself from the entire GOP (well, except for Romney). To the point where some of her columns are pretty damned Woke. Astonishingly so.
    And one thing I’ve noticed during Rubin’s transition from Conservative Commentator to Holy Shit She’s Liberal Now. She’s really enjoying the awakening.
    I get the sense there are internal contradictions being a conservative pundit forced on her that she is now free of, and by god she likes it. She’s also no longer forced by ideological loyalty to ally herself with people who you could tell, even back then, repulsed her.
    What I’m saying is, Jen Rubin seems to be a very happy person these days, and not just because Trump is gone. She wants to burn down the whole GOP, and she’s fiercely joyous about wanting to burn down the whole GOP.
    That just strikes me as a very different sort of transition, from someone going down the Q rabbit hole. You don’t get the sense they enjoy what they’re doing, or the company they’re keeping.
    Just saying.

  175. Assume, just for the sake of discussion, that Clinton was guilty of pretty much everything he was accused of — including from before he took office. Would he be even close to Trump? Nope. He’s a scumbag, but he just ain’t in Trump’s league when it comes to illegal (or immoral, or unethical) behavior.
    As russell notes, the only surprising thing about Trump being impeached twice is that we got so numbed to his transgressions that it was only twice. Consider what things would have gotten any other President impeached and removed. If Trump had gotten impeached every time he committed one of those, he’d have faced impeachment votes monthly weekly. For 4 years.

  176. Assume, just for the sake of discussion, that Clinton was guilty of pretty much everything he was accused of — including from before he took office. Would he be even close to Trump? Nope. He’s a scumbag, but he just ain’t in Trump’s league when it comes to illegal (or immoral, or unethical) behavior.
    As russell notes, the only surprising thing about Trump being impeached twice is that we got so numbed to his transgressions that it was only twice. Consider what things would have gotten any other President impeached and removed. If Trump had gotten impeached every time he committed one of those, he’d have faced impeachment votes monthly weekly. For 4 years.

  177. I should note, My comment and russell’s last comment crossed and ‘the last sentence’ begins with ‘I’m asking you…’

  178. I should note, My comment and russell’s last comment crossed and ‘the last sentence’ begins with ‘I’m asking you…’

  179. Jen Rubin seems to be a very happy person these days, and not just because Trump is gone. She wants to burn down the whole GOP, and she’s fiercely joyous about wanting to burn down the whole GOP.
    Not quite. Consider that Liz Cheney was her Person of the Week last Sunday.
    Certainly there are big chunks of today’s Republican Party that she would like to trash. (I feel the same way myself.) But I think a rather better label for her would be one that one of my more liberal friends once hung on me: “But you’re a tolerent conservative!”

  180. Jen Rubin seems to be a very happy person these days, and not just because Trump is gone. She wants to burn down the whole GOP, and she’s fiercely joyous about wanting to burn down the whole GOP.
    Not quite. Consider that Liz Cheney was her Person of the Week last Sunday.
    Certainly there are big chunks of today’s Republican Party that she would like to trash. (I feel the same way myself.) But I think a rather better label for her would be one that one of my more liberal friends once hung on me: “But you’re a tolerent conservative!”

  185. Rubin’s transformation has been awesome. her outrage at Trump and the GOP is a joy to behold.
    and yeah, wrs. but, after all these years. i think we all know Marty’s going to just keep on whattabouting and parotting those dumb-ass Hannity-grade talking points, no matter what evidence he has to ignore. and man, is it tiresome.

  186. Rubin’s transformation has been awesome. her outrage at Trump and the GOP is a joy to behold.
    and yeah, wrs. but, after all these years. i think we all know Marty’s going to just keep on whattabouting and parotting those dumb-ass Hannity-grade talking points, no matter what evidence he has to ignore. and man, is it tiresome.

  187. Not quite. Consider that Liz Cheney was her Person of the Week last Sunday.
    Okay, Jen’s crushing on Romney and Cheney.
    And, as much as I hate to give Dick’s Daughter any credit at all, because she is a thoroughly vile person, Liz did make it safe for GOPsters to vote for impeachment. A whole nine other Resp took her up on it. (Still 10 more than voted for the first impeachment).

  188. Not quite. Consider that Liz Cheney was her Person of the Week last Sunday.
    Okay, Jen’s crushing on Romney and Cheney.
    And, as much as I hate to give Dick’s Daughter any credit at all, because she is a thoroughly vile person, Liz did make it safe for GOPsters to vote for impeachment. A whole nine other Resp took her up on it. (Still 10 more than voted for the first impeachment).

  189. But I think a rather better label for her would be one that one of my more liberal friends once hung on me: “But you’re a tolerent conservative!”
    if Republicans were like wj here, the country would be a better place.

  190. But I think a rather better label for her would be one that one of my more liberal friends once hung on me: “But you’re a tolerent conservative!”
    if Republicans were like wj here, the country would be a better place.

  191. Compare those last two cites.
    Someone blew somebody in the first case, but no matter how many Republican Party dicks were sucked in the second case, there was no procuring a vaccine.
    Twenty-two years from now Marty won’t give a hoot about those blowjobs.

  192. Compare those last two cites.
    Someone blew somebody in the first case, but no matter how many Republican Party dicks were sucked in the second case, there was no procuring a vaccine.
    Twenty-two years from now Marty won’t give a hoot about those blowjobs.

  195. AFAIK Rubin is still a crazy Likudnik – I sometimes wonder: what do you have to say to get fired as WaPo / NYT columnist?

  196. AFAIK Rubin is still a crazy Likudnik – I sometimes wonder: what do you have to say to get fired as WaPo / NYT columnist?

  197. what do you have to say to get fired as WaPo / NYT columnist?
    until Marc Theissen and Hugh Hewitt get booted from WaPo, Rubin is perfectly safe.

  198. what do you have to say to get fired as WaPo / NYT columnist?
    until Marc Theissen and Hugh Hewitt get booted from WaPo, Rubin is perfectly safe.

  211. again. I didn’t bring up Clinton
    Not sure how you discuss what constitutes valid grounds for a presidential impeachment without going thru the available examples. Which comes down to 1) Trump, 2) Clinton, and maybe 3) Nixon (even if he did resign when told he would get impeached and removed otherwise).
    Allege inadequate grounds for impeachment, and you have implicitly brought up all of them.

  212. again. I didn’t bring up Clinton
    Not sure how you discuss what constitutes valid grounds for a presidential impeachment without going thru the available examples. Which comes down to 1) Trump, 2) Clinton, and maybe 3) Nixon (even if he did resign when told he would get impeached and removed otherwise).
    Allege inadequate grounds for impeachment, and you have implicitly brought up all of them.

  215. You forgot about Andrew Johnson, wj
    I thought about Johnson. But it was sufficiently long ago that exhaustive documentation isn’t (so far as I know) available. Nowhere near for what we have these days anyway. So it’s harder to get into details about motives of the cast of characters. Therefore, since impure motives are part of the discussion, I decided to omit his particular case.
    I know lawyers will cite precedents going back that far. And we’ll doubtless hear a couple if Trump raises the argument that he can’t be tried after leaving office. But IANAL.

  216. You forgot about Andrew Johnson, wj
    I thought about Johnson. But it was sufficiently long ago that exhaustive documentation isn’t (so far as I know) available. Nowhere near for what we have these days anyway. So it’s harder to get into details about motives of the cast of characters. Therefore, since impure motives are part of the discussion, I decided to omit his particular case.
    I know lawyers will cite precedents going back that far. And we’ll doubtless hear a couple if Trump raises the argument that he can’t be tried after leaving office. But IANAL.

  217. Trial after leaving office has already happened. Senate did not ultimately convict, but explicitly claimed authority to hold a trial. Not that a judgment from 150 years ago is binding, but if one is going to argue against a standing precedent then more than hand waving should be offered. Of course standards in the ObWi court of law are a different thing.

  218. Trial after leaving office has already happened. Senate did not ultimately convict, but explicitly claimed authority to hold a trial. Not that a judgment from 150 years ago is binding, but if one is going to argue against a standing precedent then more than hand waving should be offered. Of course standards in the ObWi court of law are a different thing.

  219. the Senate . . . explicitly claimed authority to hold a trial. Not that a judgment from 150 years ago is binding
    I believe there is also a Supreme Court ruling (Nixon** v. United States) that says that the Senate’s procedures in an impeachment trial are not subject to judicial review. So if the Senate decides to hold a trial this time, Trump likely can’t get the courts to intervene.
    ** No, a different Nixon.

  220. the Senate . . . explicitly claimed authority to hold a trial. Not that a judgment from 150 years ago is binding
    I believe there is also a Supreme Court ruling (Nixon** v. United States) that says that the Senate’s procedures in an impeachment trial are not subject to judicial review. So if the Senate decides to hold a trial this time, Trump likely can’t get the courts to intervene.
    ** No, a different Nixon.

  221. I thought about Johnson. But it was sufficiently long ago that exhaustive documentation isn’t (so far as I know) available.
    I do not believe that to be the case. The historiography strikes me as fairly substantial.
    Yours,
    Just another nebbish with a history degree

  222. I thought about Johnson. But it was sufficiently long ago that exhaustive documentation isn’t (so far as I know) available.
    I do not believe that to be the case. The historiography strikes me as fairly substantial.
    Yours,
    Just another nebbish with a history degree

  223. Ridiculous to fixate on who brought up Clinton. I brought him up, and my purpose was to show that, despite him having lied, and about something very improper, the grounds for his impeachment were by several orders of magnitude less serious in the context of his conduct as POTUS than any grounds for either of the two impeachments of Trump, which bear directly on his main responsibilities as POTUS, and his oath to protect the constitution. And that the R’s who decided to impeach Clinton on those grounds (and spend $40million on the investigation, if I remember correctly) were not accused (quite correctly of course) of trying to nullify his election, or of sedition.
    I repeat: words have meanings. If someone chooses to assign arbitrary, novel meanings to words, actually contradictory to their true, established meanings, there is no basis for discussion.

  224. Ridiculous to fixate on who brought up Clinton. I brought him up, and my purpose was to show that, despite him having lied, and about something very improper, the grounds for his impeachment were by several orders of magnitude less serious in the context of his conduct as POTUS than any grounds for either of the two impeachments of Trump, which bear directly on his main responsibilities as POTUS, and his oath to protect the constitution. And that the R’s who decided to impeach Clinton on those grounds (and spend $40million on the investigation, if I remember correctly) were not accused (quite correctly of course) of trying to nullify his election, or of sedition.
    I repeat: words have meanings. If someone chooses to assign arbitrary, novel meanings to words, actually contradictory to their true, established meanings, there is no basis for discussion.

  225. nothing a Democrat does is legitimate, therefore everything a Democratic politician does w.r.t. a Republican executive is seditious.

  226. nothing a Democrat does is legitimate, therefore everything a Democratic politician does w.r.t. a Republican executive is seditious.

  227. It’s ridiculous to bring up Clinton with the hand waving impeachment for a blow job tripe. Why do you belabor it? It has nothing to do with Trump and I never said they were comparable.
    Trump, arguably justified, not definitively by any legal measure, was impeached ultimately for something that happened over half way through his term.
    All the investigations before that were basically baseless built on fraudulent FISA warrants by people who refused to accept him as President. The facts support that statement.
    For two years we all pretty much agreed we would accept the conclusions of the Mueller report, even me. When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it. The left decided it really did say he was guilty and the right declared it exonerated him. One more place where I smh. It of course did neither.
    The request to investigate the Bidens was surely politically motivated, but well within a Presidents purview if there was any actual evidence of wrong doing. That question still seems unanswered.
    The sedition charge wouldn’t be brought by any prosecutor because it requires interpreting intent of political speech that stops short of clearly calling for violence. I am perfectly happy to have an impeachment trial over it but I think iys not a compelling case.
    All said, given the choices, I am pleased Trump lost.

  228. It’s ridiculous to bring up Clinton with the hand waving impeachment for a blow job tripe. Why do you belabor it? It has nothing to do with Trump and I never said they were comparable.
    Trump, arguably justified, not definitively by any legal measure, was impeached ultimately for something that happened over half way through his term.
    All the investigations before that were basically baseless built on fraudulent FISA warrants by people who refused to accept him as President. The facts support that statement.
    For two years we all pretty much agreed we would accept the conclusions of the Mueller report, even me. When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it. The left decided it really did say he was guilty and the right declared it exonerated him. One more place where I smh. It of course did neither.
    The request to investigate the Bidens was surely politically motivated, but well within a Presidents purview if there was any actual evidence of wrong doing. That question still seems unanswered.
    The sedition charge wouldn’t be brought by any prosecutor because it requires interpreting intent of political speech that stops short of clearly calling for violence. I am perfectly happy to have an impeachment trial over it but I think iys not a compelling case.
    All said, given the choices, I am pleased Trump lost.

  229. The facts support that statement.
    No. They do not.
    When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.
    We only have a redacted version of the report. There is also the issue of (checks notes) obstruction of justice. I believe that is still a crime, but you never know these days in GOP la-la land.
    More here.
    but well within a Presidents purview if there was any actual evidence of wrong doing. That question still seems unanswered.
    Ah, yes. The absence of evidence is itself evidence! Nice job, Sherlock. Absent ANY evidence, the only reasonable response to your logical monstrosity is, “(redacted)”

  230. The facts support that statement.
    No. They do not.
    When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.
    We only have a redacted version of the report. There is also the issue of (checks notes) obstruction of justice. I believe that is still a crime, but you never know these days in GOP la-la land.
    More here.
    but well within a Presidents purview if there was any actual evidence of wrong doing. That question still seems unanswered.
    Ah, yes. The absence of evidence is itself evidence! Nice job, Sherlock. Absent ANY evidence, the only reasonable response to your logical monstrosity is, “(redacted)”

  231. The party of No is at it again. Let’s see, if they manage to get and keep a 100% filibuster rate.
    And since Manchin has already vowed to vote against changes in the filibuster rules this will not change in the forseeable future.
    And the Georgia GOP is rather candid that it will be necessary to change all or almost all voting laws in their state, so they “can win elections again”.
    “Same procedure as last Dem presidency, Mitch?” “Same procedure as EVERY Dem presidency!” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinner_for_One )

  232. The party of No is at it again. Let’s see, if they manage to get and keep a 100% filibuster rate.
    And since Manchin has already vowed to vote against changes in the filibuster rules this will not change in the forseeable future.
    And the Georgia GOP is rather candid that it will be necessary to change all or almost all voting laws in their state, so they “can win elections again”.
    “Same procedure as last Dem presidency, Mitch?” “Same procedure as EVERY Dem presidency!” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinner_for_One )

  235. The facts support that statement.
    I call bullshit.
    How many FISA warrants? How many were found deficient, let alone ‘illegal’? What were the deficiencies or illegalities?
    You say the facts support what you’ve said, I say lay ’em out. And then, we can discuss *the facts*.
    Short of that, this is an exercise in he said / she said.
    It’s an academic topic in any case, because it’s been litigated. But if you want to get into it and make the kinds of claims you’re making, you need to show you work.
    When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.
    Collusion was only part of what Mueller looked into.
    Seriously, you are bringing a highly manicured collection of arguments here. And I have no idea what the point of it all is.
    What would you like us all to take away from your comments here?

  236. The facts support that statement.
    I call bullshit.
    How many FISA warrants? How many were found deficient, let alone ‘illegal’? What were the deficiencies or illegalities?
    You say the facts support what you’ve said, I say lay ’em out. And then, we can discuss *the facts*.
    Short of that, this is an exercise in he said / she said.
    It’s an academic topic in any case, because it’s been litigated. But if you want to get into it and make the kinds of claims you’re making, you need to show you work.
    When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.
    Collusion was only part of what Mueller looked into.
    Seriously, you are bringing a highly manicured collection of arguments here. And I have no idea what the point of it all is.
    What would you like us all to take away from your comments here?

  237. It’s not the lack of evidence, it’s just not clear yet
    The NYPost piece you cite here seems to be the NYPost telling us how everybody else is suppressing the substance of the case against Biden.
    The actual substance, whatever it is, fails to appear.

  238. It’s not the lack of evidence, it’s just not clear yet
    The NYPost piece you cite here seems to be the NYPost telling us how everybody else is suppressing the substance of the case against Biden.
    The actual substance, whatever it is, fails to appear.

  239. Marty, as a matter of interest, can you confirm whether you accept stories from the NYPost as fact, but not from the NYT?

  240. Marty, as a matter of interest, can you confirm whether you accept stories from the NYPost as fact, but not from the NYT?

  243. What would you like us all to take away from your comments here?
    Both sides! (But especially Democrats…)

  244. What would you like us all to take away from your comments here?
    Both sides! (But especially Democrats…)

  247. When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.
    Collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.
    Mueller: “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.”

  248. When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.
    Collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.
    Mueller: “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.”

  251. I do not believe that to be the case. The historiography strikes me as fairly substantial.
    Live and learn. That’s part of what I’m here for.
    But my point was actually that I didn’t forget Johnson. Leaving him out was a conscious decision — albeit appatently based on insufficient information.

  252. I do not believe that to be the case. The historiography strikes me as fairly substantial.
    Live and learn. That’s part of what I’m here for.
    But my point was actually that I didn’t forget Johnson. Leaving him out was a conscious decision — albeit appatently based on insufficient information.

  255. If you read it, it quotes the Times and NBC News.
    But this is not what I asked. You don’t have to answer, naturally, but given that I think you have indicated in the past you do not consider the NYT to be a reliable source of fact, I was wondering if you considered the NYPost to be one.

  256. If you read it, it quotes the Times and NBC News.
    But this is not what I asked. You don’t have to answer, naturally, but given that I think you have indicated in the past you do not consider the NYT to be a reliable source of fact, I was wondering if you considered the NYPost to be one.

  261. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime
    Of course it doesn’t say “no evidence “. It says they aren’t in the position to determine if there was a crime because their role wasn’t to be prosecutors. They were investigators.
    Words mean only what Republicans say? Those days are Over.

  262. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime
    Of course it doesn’t say “no evidence “. It says they aren’t in the position to determine if there was a crime because their role wasn’t to be prosecutors. They were investigators.
    Words mean only what Republicans say? Those days are Over.

  263. The individual article with the quotes from various sources was interesting, if not compelling. It happened to be the Post which I also don’t read regularly.

  264. The individual article with the quotes from various sources was interesting, if not compelling. It happened to be the Post which I also don’t read regularly.

  265. Of course it doesn’t say “no evidence “
    The most they could say would be “We haven’t been able to find evidence.” Of course, it’s hard to determine if there is evidence if your subpoenas for documents are ignored. And if witnesses lie or refuse to speak at all because they have been promised pardons.

  266. Of course it doesn’t say “no evidence “
    The most they could say would be “We haven’t been able to find evidence.” Of course, it’s hard to determine if there is evidence if your subpoenas for documents are ignored. And if witnesses lie or refuse to speak at all because they have been promised pardons.

  267. Meanwhile, tRump encouraged Russia on a television broadcast to find the emails. And Junior met with a Russian representative explicitly on the premise of getting dirt on Clinton from a foreign adversary – explicitly, as in, he put it in writing. Whether or not these things are criminal, they are far below the bar one should expect from a candidate for POTUS or that candidate’s high-level campaign staff. But it’s a conspiracy theory (having nothing to do with tRump’s first impeachment).

  268. Meanwhile, tRump encouraged Russia on a television broadcast to find the emails. And Junior met with a Russian representative explicitly on the premise of getting dirt on Clinton from a foreign adversary – explicitly, as in, he put it in writing. Whether or not these things are criminal, they are far below the bar one should expect from a candidate for POTUS or that candidate’s high-level campaign staff. But it’s a conspiracy theory (having nothing to do with tRump’s first impeachment).

  269. Actually, not nothing. It at least establishes tRump’s willingness to accept campaign assistance from other nations.

  270. Actually, not nothing. It at least establishes tRump’s willingness to accept campaign assistance from other nations.

  273. Assuming Jabbabonk gets convicted and Congress afterwards passes a lifetime ban on running for or holding federal office, could the GOP majority in both houses after the next midterm elections simply reverse that [ignoring a likely presidential veto for the sake of argument]? Or would a pardon issued by the next GOP president nullify it (it seems to be widely assumed that the limits in the pardon power only apply to one’s own impeachment not to that of somebody else in a different administration)?

  274. Assuming Jabbabonk gets convicted and Congress afterwards passes a lifetime ban on running for or holding federal office, could the GOP majority in both houses after the next midterm elections simply reverse that [ignoring a likely presidential veto for the sake of argument]? Or would a pardon issued by the next GOP president nullify it (it seems to be widely assumed that the limits in the pardon power only apply to one’s own impeachment not to that of somebody else in a different administration)?

  275. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed papers to nullify the election ?
    hundreds of Republicans stormed the US Capitol a couple of weeks to literally, explicitly, by their own words, nullify the election.
    look, over there, a Democrat! eek!

  276. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed papers to nullify the election ?
    hundreds of Republicans stormed the US Capitol a couple of weeks to literally, explicitly, by their own words, nullify the election.
    look, over there, a Democrat! eek!

  277. Assuming Jabbabonk gets convicted and Congress afterwards passes a lifetime ban on running for or holding federal office, could the GOP majority in both houses after the next midterm elections simply reverse that [ignoring a likely presidential veto for the sake of argument]?
    the House can undo an impeachment. but i don’t know if it can undo a Senate’s impeachment conviction.

  278. Assuming Jabbabonk gets convicted and Congress afterwards passes a lifetime ban on running for or holding federal office, could the GOP majority in both houses after the next midterm elections simply reverse that [ignoring a likely presidential veto for the sake of argument]?
    the House can undo an impeachment. but i don’t know if it can undo a Senate’s impeachment conviction.

  279. the House can undo an impeachment. but i don’t know if it can undo a Senate’s impeachment conviction.
    Once delivered to the Senate, how does the House withdraw the articles of impeachment? (I should know to never say never about improbable Congressional procedural matters, but still.) I suppose they could decline to send managers to handle the prosecution if the Senate tried the case. But once the Senate has voted and things are settled, I don’t see how either chamber could revisit the matter. My take would be if the Founders intended for impeachment to be reversible, they would have said so.

  280. the House can undo an impeachment. but i don’t know if it can undo a Senate’s impeachment conviction.
    Once delivered to the Senate, how does the House withdraw the articles of impeachment? (I should know to never say never about improbable Congressional procedural matters, but still.) I suppose they could decline to send managers to handle the prosecution if the Senate tried the case. But once the Senate has voted and things are settled, I don’t see how either chamber could revisit the matter. My take would be if the Founders intended for impeachment to be reversible, they would have said so.

  281. hmm. that makes sense, too. i guess, ultimately, this is one of those things that is currently theoretical, since it has never been tried.

  282. hmm. that makes sense, too. i guess, ultimately, this is one of those things that is currently theoretical, since it has never been tried.

  287. I don’t see how either chamber could revisit the matter.
    On the face of the Constitution, no, there is no apparent mechanism to set aside an impeachment, but that probably doesn’t matter. Leaving aside technical points, suppose *very, very hypothetically* the House voted out Articles of Impeachment on a sitting president and the Senate convicted unanimously. And then, miraculously, the only witness supporting the Articles of Impeachment recanted and said it was all just a big troll.
    IOW, if a conviction was based on evidence later found to be false, it is a certainty that the House and Senate could unring that bell and put everything back to the status quo ante.
    Trust me. I’m a lawyer.

  288. I don’t see how either chamber could revisit the matter.
    On the face of the Constitution, no, there is no apparent mechanism to set aside an impeachment, but that probably doesn’t matter. Leaving aside technical points, suppose *very, very hypothetically* the House voted out Articles of Impeachment on a sitting president and the Senate convicted unanimously. And then, miraculously, the only witness supporting the Articles of Impeachment recanted and said it was all just a big troll.
    IOW, if a conviction was based on evidence later found to be false, it is a certainty that the House and Senate could unring that bell and put everything back to the status quo ante.
    Trust me. I’m a lawyer.

  291. In the Teapot Dome scandal, Interior Secretary Fall was found guilty in 1929 of accepting bribes from oil company executive Doheny.
    In 1930, Doheny was acquitted of paying bribes to Fall.
    Funny, isn’t it? Being convicted of accepting bribes that, legally speaking, never occurred. I guess that’s what happens when the prosecution can’t find concrete evidence of something that everyone knows happened.
    T* and his entire campaign were infested with Russian operatives and Russian-adjacent operatives, infested worse than the bedbugs at Trump Tower.
    They stonewalled Mueller’s investigation. The issue isn’t whether they did what they were accused of doing – everyone with an IQ higher than a houseplant knows they did – the issue is that they were successful at sabotaging the investigation before Barr simply shut it down.
    But, like Doheny, T* and his supporters can go out into the world and say T* was “fully exonerated.”
    Even though, like Doheny, they absolutely did what they were accused of doing.
    If you accept, and repeat, their claims of total exoneration, then:
    1. You have a lower IQ than a house plant.
    2. You have the intellectual integrity of a tapeworm.*
    3. Both
    *Apologies to tapeworms may be in order as, SFAIK, they don’t gaslight people.

  292. In the Teapot Dome scandal, Interior Secretary Fall was found guilty in 1929 of accepting bribes from oil company executive Doheny.
    In 1930, Doheny was acquitted of paying bribes to Fall.
    Funny, isn’t it? Being convicted of accepting bribes that, legally speaking, never occurred. I guess that’s what happens when the prosecution can’t find concrete evidence of something that everyone knows happened.
    T* and his entire campaign were infested with Russian operatives and Russian-adjacent operatives, infested worse than the bedbugs at Trump Tower.
    They stonewalled Mueller’s investigation. The issue isn’t whether they did what they were accused of doing – everyone with an IQ higher than a houseplant knows they did – the issue is that they were successful at sabotaging the investigation before Barr simply shut it down.
    But, like Doheny, T* and his supporters can go out into the world and say T* was “fully exonerated.”
    Even though, like Doheny, they absolutely did what they were accused of doing.
    If you accept, and repeat, their claims of total exoneration, then:
    1. You have a lower IQ than a house plant.
    2. You have the intellectual integrity of a tapeworm.*
    3. Both
    *Apologies to tapeworms may be in order as, SFAIK, they don’t gaslight people.

  293. If you accept, and repeat, their claims of total exoneration, then:
    1. You have a lower IQ than a house plant.
    2. You have the intellectual integrity of a tapeworm.*
    3. Both
    If this is directed at my comment, pls revisit the phrase *very, very hypothetically*. Whether your Bill of Particulars is correct or not, I was not referring to Trump, who I would vote to convict in a heartbeat, but rather I was addressing the legal proposition that, once convicted, the House and the Senate could not unconvict. I believe that to be an erroneous proposition of law for the reasons stated.

  294. If you accept, and repeat, their claims of total exoneration, then:
    1. You have a lower IQ than a house plant.
    2. You have the intellectual integrity of a tapeworm.*
    3. Both
    If this is directed at my comment, pls revisit the phrase *very, very hypothetically*. Whether your Bill of Particulars is correct or not, I was not referring to Trump, who I would vote to convict in a heartbeat, but rather I was addressing the legal proposition that, once convicted, the House and the Senate could not unconvict. I believe that to be an erroneous proposition of law for the reasons stated.

  299. seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done. also seems obvious that if this was possible in impeachment that impeachment would become as pointless as censure – if a future bare House majority can overturn it, what’s the point?

  300. seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done. also seems obvious that if this was possible in impeachment that impeachment would become as pointless as censure – if a future bare House majority can overturn it, what’s the point?

  301. if a future bare House majority can overturn it, what’s the point?
    Ok, to be clear, I’m making legal points based on how statutes and stuff are construed, not arguing a political point.
    To answer your question: just like laws and even constitutional amendments can be passed and repealed, or repealed by further amendment, e.g. prohibition and the 13th Amendment, an elected body can undo a past act. It doesn’t make the previous act pointless, and laws get repealed or amended all the time. Convictions get vacated. Past errors get fixed, sometimes.
    So far, there have been three impeachment trials and no convictions. If Clinton had been convicted, could a later Dem Congress not rehear the matter and undo the conviction? Is that clear on the face of the Constitution, either way?
    The question I would have in that *extremely unlikely, if not virtually impossible* circumstance is whether the Senate vote to reverse impeachment would require a 2/3’s majority.

  302. if a future bare House majority can overturn it, what’s the point?
    Ok, to be clear, I’m making legal points based on how statutes and stuff are construed, not arguing a political point.
    To answer your question: just like laws and even constitutional amendments can be passed and repealed, or repealed by further amendment, e.g. prohibition and the 13th Amendment, an elected body can undo a past act. It doesn’t make the previous act pointless, and laws get repealed or amended all the time. Convictions get vacated. Past errors get fixed, sometimes.
    So far, there have been three impeachment trials and no convictions. If Clinton had been convicted, could a later Dem Congress not rehear the matter and undo the conviction? Is that clear on the face of the Constitution, either way?
    The question I would have in that *extremely unlikely, if not virtually impossible* circumstance is whether the Senate vote to reverse impeachment would require a 2/3’s majority.

  303. What is the practical consequence of reversing an impeachment?
    Does the impeached person return to office? What happens to whoever took their place? What if the reversal occurs after the impeached person’s time in office would have ended?
    Assuming they have also been barred from holding federal office in the future, I guess there would be some value in reversing that.
    Other than that, I’m not sure I understand what the purpose of the reversal is.

  304. What is the practical consequence of reversing an impeachment?
    Does the impeached person return to office? What happens to whoever took their place? What if the reversal occurs after the impeached person’s time in office would have ended?
    Assuming they have also been barred from holding federal office in the future, I guess there would be some value in reversing that.
    Other than that, I’m not sure I understand what the purpose of the reversal is.

  305. russell – my guess would be, in the event of an impeachment (without conviction) being discovered later as unjustified, a reversal would be considered more of a vindication and reputation-cleanser. Not a whole lot of practical effect, IOW.

  306. russell – my guess would be, in the event of an impeachment (without conviction) being discovered later as unjustified, a reversal would be considered more of a vindication and reputation-cleanser. Not a whole lot of practical effect, IOW.

  307. seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done
    Actually, I don’t think it’s obvious at all. Or even correct.
    It seems to me that an impeachment by the House is somewhat like an indictment by a grand jury. Once the issue has gone to trial in the Senate, the House has no further ability to shape events. (Beyond, I suppose, having all it’s managers of the case decline to make the case to the Senate.)
    Now whether the Senate can reverse a conviction would be another story.

  308. seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done
    Actually, I don’t think it’s obvious at all. Or even correct.
    It seems to me that an impeachment by the House is somewhat like an indictment by a grand jury. Once the issue has gone to trial in the Senate, the House has no further ability to shape events. (Beyond, I suppose, having all it’s managers of the case decline to make the case to the Senate.)
    Now whether the Senate can reverse a conviction would be another story.

  309. Other than that, I’m not sure I understand what the purpose of the reversal is.
    Other than making someone re-eligible for office, the purpose would be rehabilitative. IOW, cosmetic.

  310. Other than that, I’m not sure I understand what the purpose of the reversal is.
    Other than making someone re-eligible for office, the purpose would be rehabilitative. IOW, cosmetic.

  313. Not that anyone in his or her right mind would do it but if a future president would like to put Jabbabonk on the Supreme Court, a lifetime ban on holding public office would be slightly inconvenient.
    But the second part of my question was, could a later president pardon an impeached and convicted predecessor? There seems to be a dispute whether the ‘not in case of impeachement’ clause only applies to the administration in office at the time of impeachment (so no pardoning of partners in impeached crime) or if it means that once impeached there can be no pardon at any later time. Or more concrete: had Nixon be convicted could e.g. Reagan have pardoned him (since he was not part of Nixon’s administration and thus uninvolved)?

  314. Not that anyone in his or her right mind would do it but if a future president would like to put Jabbabonk on the Supreme Court, a lifetime ban on holding public office would be slightly inconvenient.
    But the second part of my question was, could a later president pardon an impeached and convicted predecessor? There seems to be a dispute whether the ‘not in case of impeachement’ clause only applies to the administration in office at the time of impeachment (so no pardoning of partners in impeached crime) or if it means that once impeached there can be no pardon at any later time. Or more concrete: had Nixon be convicted could e.g. Reagan have pardoned him (since he was not part of Nixon’s administration and thus uninvolved)?

  315. seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done
    Actually, I don’t think it’s obvious at all. Or even correct.
    well… that bit was about normal House biz (legislation, rules, etc). ex: no House can make a law another House can’t overturn.
    Once the issue has gone to trial in the Senate, the House has no further ability to shape events.
    i’m thinking more like: what if the GOP gets the House in 2024 and the majority votes to repeal, rescind (or whatever you’d call it) Trump’s impeachments. (assume the he isn’t convicted for #2, to avoid the thornier question of undoing what the Senate has decided) the question is: can they do it?
    can a House say “those previous articles of impeachment were invalid” ?
    or, is impeachment forever – unfixable, unpardonable, indelible ?

  316. seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done
    Actually, I don’t think it’s obvious at all. Or even correct.
    well… that bit was about normal House biz (legislation, rules, etc). ex: no House can make a law another House can’t overturn.
    Once the issue has gone to trial in the Senate, the House has no further ability to shape events.
    i’m thinking more like: what if the GOP gets the House in 2024 and the majority votes to repeal, rescind (or whatever you’d call it) Trump’s impeachments. (assume the he isn’t convicted for #2, to avoid the thornier question of undoing what the Senate has decided) the question is: can they do it?
    can a House say “those previous articles of impeachment were invalid” ?
    or, is impeachment forever – unfixable, unpardonable, indelible ?

  317. One thing’s for sure: whatever norms would once have automatically excluded any of this, those norms (along with so many others) are now well and truly exploded. The next in the apostolic succession of deplorable GOPers, no doubt more competent and machiavellian than Trump, will feel unconstrained from doing anything that throws red meat to the base.
    That is, unless Biden and the Dems can bite the bullet and do e.g. much of what Ezra Klein prescribed, in order to make the people who voted for them believe in them and be prepared to go on voting for them.

  318. One thing’s for sure: whatever norms would once have automatically excluded any of this, those norms (along with so many others) are now well and truly exploded. The next in the apostolic succession of deplorable GOPers, no doubt more competent and machiavellian than Trump, will feel unconstrained from doing anything that throws red meat to the base.
    That is, unless Biden and the Dems can bite the bullet and do e.g. much of what Ezra Klein prescribed, in order to make the people who voted for them believe in them and be prepared to go on voting for them.

  319. IOW, if a conviction was based on evidence later found to be false, it is a certainty that the House and Senate could unring that bell and put everything back to the status quo ante.
    Okay, I’ll concede that technically this is possible. Sufficient willing majorities in Congress can replace a sitting President with an eligible person of their own choosing. But as you have mentioned consistently, the chances of such a situation arising politically is almost vanishingly small.

  320. IOW, if a conviction was based on evidence later found to be false, it is a certainty that the House and Senate could unring that bell and put everything back to the status quo ante.
    Okay, I’ll concede that technically this is possible. Sufficient willing majorities in Congress can replace a sitting President with an eligible person of their own choosing. But as you have mentioned consistently, the chances of such a situation arising politically is almost vanishingly small.

  321. But the second part of my question was, could a later president pardon an impeached and convicted predecessor?
    I don’t think so. Article 2, Section II, “he shall have the power grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
    what if the GOP gets the House in 2024 and the majority votes to repeal, rescind (or whatever you’d call it) Trump’s impeachments. (assume the he isn’t convicted for #2, to avoid the thornier question of undoing what the Senate has decided) the question is: can they do it?
    can a House say “those previous articles of impeachment were invalid” ?
    Highly unlikely, Article I, Section 3, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”
    This provision would almost certainly be construed as are other unconditional and exclusive grants of jurisdiction. When the plain language of an exclusive, unconditional grant of jurisdiction does not include the right to appeal, then the forum in question’s decision is final and unappealable.
    So, the House could–there is nothing preventing it–vote out Articles to Vacate Impeachment (or something of similar import) and the Senate could line its collective bird cage with those Articles or have a trial and decide the issue. That is what “the sole power to try all impeachments” means. The Senate can rehear a prior impeachment trial if it wishes or have the world’s shortest trial and vote down the Articles on arrival.

  322. But the second part of my question was, could a later president pardon an impeached and convicted predecessor?
    I don’t think so. Article 2, Section II, “he shall have the power grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
    what if the GOP gets the House in 2024 and the majority votes to repeal, rescind (or whatever you’d call it) Trump’s impeachments. (assume the he isn’t convicted for #2, to avoid the thornier question of undoing what the Senate has decided) the question is: can they do it?
    can a House say “those previous articles of impeachment were invalid” ?
    Highly unlikely, Article I, Section 3, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”
    This provision would almost certainly be construed as are other unconditional and exclusive grants of jurisdiction. When the plain language of an exclusive, unconditional grant of jurisdiction does not include the right to appeal, then the forum in question’s decision is final and unappealable.
    So, the House could–there is nothing preventing it–vote out Articles to Vacate Impeachment (or something of similar import) and the Senate could line its collective bird cage with those Articles or have a trial and decide the issue. That is what “the sole power to try all impeachments” means. The Senate can rehear a prior impeachment trial if it wishes or have the world’s shortest trial and vote down the Articles on arrival.

  323. But as you have mentioned consistently, the chances of such a situation arising politically is almost vanishingly small.
    Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I’ve always it was three. Cleek probably disagrees.

  324. But as you have mentioned consistently, the chances of such a situation arising politically is almost vanishingly small.
    Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I’ve always it was three. Cleek probably disagrees.

  325. Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I’ve always it was three.
    I’m inclined to the old joke about accountants with the punchline, “How many would you like it to be?”

  326. Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I’ve always it was three.
    I’m inclined to the old joke about accountants with the punchline, “How many would you like it to be?”

  327. Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I’ve always (claimed?-ed) it was three.
    The correct answer is zero as angels are terrible dancers.

  328. Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I’ve always (claimed?-ed) it was three.
    The correct answer is zero as angels are terrible dancers.

  329. If you read it, it quotes the Times and NBC News. It was an interesting read.
    I read it, and the NYT piece. It says that Hunter Biden acknowledges a federal probe into his taxes, which began in 2018. And that he has not commented on the authenticity of the files allegedly taken from his laptop. And, er, that’s it.
    Well, I suppose if the laptop were a complete lie, HB would have said so.
    And I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president’s son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father. I know Marty feels the same, because of his endless harangues on here about how much he dislikes the Trump family’s behaviour.
    Still, I don’t see anything very interesting in article by the NYP with no new evidence, agreeing with itself.

  330. If you read it, it quotes the Times and NBC News. It was an interesting read.
    I read it, and the NYT piece. It says that Hunter Biden acknowledges a federal probe into his taxes, which began in 2018. And that he has not commented on the authenticity of the files allegedly taken from his laptop. And, er, that’s it.
    Well, I suppose if the laptop were a complete lie, HB would have said so.
    And I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president’s son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father. I know Marty feels the same, because of his endless harangues on here about how much he dislikes the Trump family’s behaviour.
    Still, I don’t see anything very interesting in article by the NYP with no new evidence, agreeing with itself.

  331. Something else I want to comment on: our right-wing friends have decried the failure of the rest of us to condemn left-wing violence.
    In reality, with one exception, everyone who has commented has been firmly against it. Except that I realise, re-reading a post from months ago someone linked to, that violence, in the minds of our friends in the minority here, includes the tearing down of the statues of Confederate generals.
    I am strongly against unlawful violence against the person. I am usually against unlawful violence against property. But if there were a statue of a Nazi general in my town, I can well imagine tearing it down. If there were a sign in Marty’s town saying “fuck Marty and all his family”, I can even imagine Marty’s tearing it down.
    How is a statue of a Confederate general any different?

  332. Something else I want to comment on: our right-wing friends have decried the failure of the rest of us to condemn left-wing violence.
    In reality, with one exception, everyone who has commented has been firmly against it. Except that I realise, re-reading a post from months ago someone linked to, that violence, in the minds of our friends in the minority here, includes the tearing down of the statues of Confederate generals.
    I am strongly against unlawful violence against the person. I am usually against unlawful violence against property. But if there were a statue of a Nazi general in my town, I can well imagine tearing it down. If there were a sign in Marty’s town saying “fuck Marty and all his family”, I can even imagine Marty’s tearing it down.
    How is a statue of a Confederate general any different?

  333. I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president’s son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father.
    But there is not (that I am aware of) any indication that the attempt to buy access to Biden actually worked. Let alone that such access, presuming that it did work, resulted in any actions by the VP. In short, it amounts to guilt by association — with, perhaps, a caveat, depending on how responsible up think parents are for the failings of their adult children.
    No argument, what happened is to Hunter’s discredit. But I have yet to see anything that is explicitly to Joe’s discredit.

  334. I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president’s son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father.
    But there is not (that I am aware of) any indication that the attempt to buy access to Biden actually worked. Let alone that such access, presuming that it did work, resulted in any actions by the VP. In short, it amounts to guilt by association — with, perhaps, a caveat, depending on how responsible up think parents are for the failings of their adult children.
    No argument, what happened is to Hunter’s discredit. But I have yet to see anything that is explicitly to Joe’s discredit.

  335. And I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president’s son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father.
    It’s my understanding that Hunter’s father didn’t like it much either, but that he didn’t do much about it because 1) he couldn’t, 2) he was busy with Vice Presidenting, and 3) he was dealing with the difficult ordeal of his other son in the throws of terminal cancer. At a certain point, people aren’t responsible for the mistakes of their adult children.

  336. And I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president’s son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father.
    It’s my understanding that Hunter’s father didn’t like it much either, but that he didn’t do much about it because 1) he couldn’t, 2) he was busy with Vice Presidenting, and 3) he was dealing with the difficult ordeal of his other son in the throws of terminal cancer. At a certain point, people aren’t responsible for the mistakes of their adult children.

  341. So, the House could–there is nothing preventing it–vote out Articles to Vacate Impeachment (or something of similar import) and the Senate could line its collective bird cage with those Articles or have a trial and decide the issue.
    but my question is: if the House has impeached and the Senate voted to not punish (either by removal or barring further office), and then a later House votes to overturn the previous impeachment… what does that mean for the impeachment?
    the Senate decided the case wasn’t made, so a House vote to overturn the impeachment wouldn’t be contradicting the Senate in any way. and it wouldn’t be an impeachment, so the Senate wouldn’t be obligated to take up the bill. but the House has sole power of impeachment anyway, so…

  342. So, the House could–there is nothing preventing it–vote out Articles to Vacate Impeachment (or something of similar import) and the Senate could line its collective bird cage with those Articles or have a trial and decide the issue.
    but my question is: if the House has impeached and the Senate voted to not punish (either by removal or barring further office), and then a later House votes to overturn the previous impeachment… what does that mean for the impeachment?
    the Senate decided the case wasn’t made, so a House vote to overturn the impeachment wouldn’t be contradicting the Senate in any way. and it wouldn’t be an impeachment, so the Senate wouldn’t be obligated to take up the bill. but the House has sole power of impeachment anyway, so…

  345. If there were a sign in Marty’s town saying “fuck Marty and all his family”, I can even imagine Marty’s tearing it down.
    but that would be ereasing the history of the proud anti-Marty faction!
    they would literally cease to exist!

  346. If there were a sign in Marty’s town saying “fuck Marty and all his family”, I can even imagine Marty’s tearing it down.
    but that would be ereasing the history of the proud anti-Marty faction!
    they would literally cease to exist!

  347. I can even imagine Marty’s tearing it down.
    And he might be arrested. While there are no laws against being insulted, there are laws against trespass and damaging property.

  348. I can even imagine Marty’s tearing it down.
    And he might be arrested. While there are no laws against being insulted, there are laws against trespass and damaging property.

  349. So, imagine that your favorite (American) football team loses to their hated rivals by ONE point.
    A week later, AFTER the “hated rivals” have advanced to, and played, the championship game, the league reviews the game tapes, and decides that the one of the touchdowns/field goals/etc of the “hated rivals” in the game against your favorite team was invalid.
    How is it handled? Removed from the record books? Result overturned? Championship game invalidated and re-run? League officials hauled out and lynched?

  350. So, imagine that your favorite (American) football team loses to their hated rivals by ONE point.
    A week later, AFTER the “hated rivals” have advanced to, and played, the championship game, the league reviews the game tapes, and decides that the one of the touchdowns/field goals/etc of the “hated rivals” in the game against your favorite team was invalid.
    How is it handled? Removed from the record books? Result overturned? Championship game invalidated and re-run? League officials hauled out and lynched?

  353. Once again, an excellent bulletin from Ian Leslie at the Ruffian. In it he talks about Biden’s speech:
    Biden believes that America needs to heal, that he is the leader to help it do so, and that’s it. That’s why he’s here. He didn’t try and lay out his policy agenda. You never felt like he was going through a list of messages put together by his political staff. He aimed high above normal politics – indeed, the speech might have evaporated into the freezing air were it not for the fact it was so profoundly felt. His language wasn’t flowery or elaborate; it was direct and it was urgent, pressing his audience to feel what he feels. That Lincoln quote, about putting his whole soul into this, was the keystone of a soulful address. Conviction lifted his delivery too. Some passages he declaimed, others he spoke as if to a friend who needs to be put straight. At points he slowed down and let silences in, allowing his sentences to breathe. He took a prayer. The heavy blinking and the fumbled words – traces of his stutter – only served as reminders of what can be achieved through force of will. Now, I think it’s very possible that we will look back in a few years’ time on Biden’s presidency and deem it a failure. Washington is screwed up, America’s political culture is poisoned, and it’s almost certainly beyond the powers of any president to solve these problems. And yes, he’s old. But whatever happens next, I will always find the story of Biden’s wayward progress to that podium a moving one. Half a century in politics, a two-time presidential loser, a reliable source of ridicule, a life battered by death – almost a Quixote-like figure, a man out of time. Yet there he was on Wednesday, this aged knight, slightly wobbly in the saddle, calling for a truce, having gathered up every ounce of himself to vanquish the greatest threat to American democracy since – well I’m not sure when. And I think George Bush is right: nobody else could have done it. Perhaps it took someone who had experienced all of that failure to succeed in that mission. I don’t know how the next four years will go, but as far as I’m concerned, Biden became a great president the moment he took the oath.
    As well as a piece on Prince and the making of Kiss, the bulletin also had this link, to what they call “One of the most memorable stories in talk radio history”:
    https://twitter.com/SECNetwork/status/1351183016455008258

  354. Once again, an excellent bulletin from Ian Leslie at the Ruffian. In it he talks about Biden’s speech:
    Biden believes that America needs to heal, that he is the leader to help it do so, and that’s it. That’s why he’s here. He didn’t try and lay out his policy agenda. You never felt like he was going through a list of messages put together by his political staff. He aimed high above normal politics – indeed, the speech might have evaporated into the freezing air were it not for the fact it was so profoundly felt. His language wasn’t flowery or elaborate; it was direct and it was urgent, pressing his audience to feel what he feels. That Lincoln quote, about putting his whole soul into this, was the keystone of a soulful address. Conviction lifted his delivery too. Some passages he declaimed, others he spoke as if to a friend who needs to be put straight. At points he slowed down and let silences in, allowing his sentences to breathe. He took a prayer. The heavy blinking and the fumbled words – traces of his stutter – only served as reminders of what can be achieved through force of will. Now, I think it’s very possible that we will look back in a few years’ time on Biden’s presidency and deem it a failure. Washington is screwed up, America’s political culture is poisoned, and it’s almost certainly beyond the powers of any president to solve these problems. And yes, he’s old. But whatever happens next, I will always find the story of Biden’s wayward progress to that podium a moving one. Half a century in politics, a two-time presidential loser, a reliable source of ridicule, a life battered by death – almost a Quixote-like figure, a man out of time. Yet there he was on Wednesday, this aged knight, slightly wobbly in the saddle, calling for a truce, having gathered up every ounce of himself to vanquish the greatest threat to American democracy since – well I’m not sure when. And I think George Bush is right: nobody else could have done it. Perhaps it took someone who had experienced all of that failure to succeed in that mission. I don’t know how the next four years will go, but as far as I’m concerned, Biden became a great president the moment he took the oath.
    As well as a piece on Prince and the making of Kiss, the bulletin also had this link, to what they call “One of the most memorable stories in talk radio history”:
    https://twitter.com/SECNetwork/status/1351183016455008258

  357. As well as a piece on Prince and the making of Kiss,
    the Strong Songs podcast i’ve been listening to has an episode about that song. interesting origin story!

  358. As well as a piece on Prince and the making of Kiss,
    the Strong Songs podcast i’ve been listening to has an episode about that song. interesting origin story!

  359. GftNC, that talk radio story is the kind of thing that gives me hope for this country.
    And all praise for the Marine Gunnery Sergeant who gave those two guys the smack up side the head that started them down a different path.

  360. GftNC, that talk radio story is the kind of thing that gives me hope for this country.
    And all praise for the Marine Gunnery Sergeant who gave those two guys the smack up side the head that started them down a different path.

  361. I know this has been commented on before, but it still astounds me how the US Military became the most integrated, most racially equitous, institution in the United States.
    Thanks go, first and foremost, to Harry Truman, whose directive to integrate the armed forces started things off.
    But a weird kind of thanks must also go to the Vietnam War.
    So many white boys evaded the draft one way or another, while young men of color just didn’t have the same opportunities to evade service.
    Young black men went into that meatgrinder, and those who survived wound up learning a wide range of skills (not the least being managerial, logistical, along with the battlefield/military stuff), and rose up in the commander ranks in a way that I think would not have been available to them otherwise.
    History can be mighty strange.

  362. I know this has been commented on before, but it still astounds me how the US Military became the most integrated, most racially equitous, institution in the United States.
    Thanks go, first and foremost, to Harry Truman, whose directive to integrate the armed forces started things off.
    But a weird kind of thanks must also go to the Vietnam War.
    So many white boys evaded the draft one way or another, while young men of color just didn’t have the same opportunities to evade service.
    Young black men went into that meatgrinder, and those who survived wound up learning a wide range of skills (not the least being managerial, logistical, along with the battlefield/military stuff), and rose up in the commander ranks in a way that I think would not have been available to them otherwise.
    History can be mighty strange.

  365. I know this has been commented on before, but it still astounds me how the US Military became the most integrated, most racially equitous, institution in the United States.
    It has been a tremendous engine for greater integration and opportunity, but it still has some serious structural problems to solve on that count as well:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/politics/military-minorities-leadership.html
    The upper echelons of every institution in America seem incredibly resistant to integration, and no top-down system is likely to alter this.

  366. I know this has been commented on before, but it still astounds me how the US Military became the most integrated, most racially equitous, institution in the United States.
    It has been a tremendous engine for greater integration and opportunity, but it still has some serious structural problems to solve on that count as well:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/politics/military-minorities-leadership.html
    The upper echelons of every institution in America seem incredibly resistant to integration, and no top-down system is likely to alter this.

  371. russell:
    I call bullshit.
    How many FISA warrants? How many were found deficient, let alone ‘illegal’? What were the deficiencies or illegalities?

    I’ll delurk for just a bit. Maybe I’m missing something, but the DOJ admitted two of the Carter Page FISA warrants were, shall we say, “deficient” and said they won’t use any of the evidence obtained from all four. YMMV on what that means.
    And the IG report identified numerous issues with the FISA process with respect to Crossfire Hurricane.
    One of those issues, of course, was the alteration of an email by an FBI attorney, Clinesmith, regarding Carter Page to make it look like Page was not a CIA asset with respect to Russia. Clinesmith forwarded an email from a CIA liaison altering the words in the forwarded email to say Page was “not a source” when in fact he had been. You know, all in line with the “Fidelity Bravery Integrity” motto. Clinesmith pleaded guilty but argues for no jail time. Go figure.
    All the more problematic, the CIA had already indicated to the FBI in a memo before the FISA applications that Page was an operational contact for the CIA. And that wasn’t shared with the FISA court.
    But, according to Schiff, all the FISA actions were just fine and the FBI did not omit material information or subvert the FISA process. Oops.
    The connection between the FISA process in this instance and the Steele Dossier and its connection to the DNC and Clinton campaign magnifies the above issues IMHO. For some reason I find hard to understand, they do not for many.

  372. russell:
    I call bullshit.
    How many FISA warrants? How many were found deficient, let alone ‘illegal’? What were the deficiencies or illegalities?

    I’ll delurk for just a bit. Maybe I’m missing something, but the DOJ admitted two of the Carter Page FISA warrants were, shall we say, “deficient” and said they won’t use any of the evidence obtained from all four. YMMV on what that means.
    And the IG report identified numerous issues with the FISA process with respect to Crossfire Hurricane.
    One of those issues, of course, was the alteration of an email by an FBI attorney, Clinesmith, regarding Carter Page to make it look like Page was not a CIA asset with respect to Russia. Clinesmith forwarded an email from a CIA liaison altering the words in the forwarded email to say Page was “not a source” when in fact he had been. You know, all in line with the “Fidelity Bravery Integrity” motto. Clinesmith pleaded guilty but argues for no jail time. Go figure.
    All the more problematic, the CIA had already indicated to the FBI in a memo before the FISA applications that Page was an operational contact for the CIA. And that wasn’t shared with the FISA court.
    But, according to Schiff, all the FISA actions were just fine and the FBI did not omit material information or subvert the FISA process. Oops.
    The connection between the FISA process in this instance and the Steele Dossier and its connection to the DNC and Clinton campaign magnifies the above issues IMHO. For some reason I find hard to understand, they do not for many.

  373. bc,
    Do you think “the Trump-Russia thing” was a hoax?
    Was it fabricated by the Deep State to bring down He, Trump?
    The same Deep State that made Comey throw shade on Hillary (twice)?
    Just curious.
    –TP

  374. bc,
    Do you think “the Trump-Russia thing” was a hoax?
    Was it fabricated by the Deep State to bring down He, Trump?
    The same Deep State that made Comey throw shade on Hillary (twice)?
    Just curious.
    –TP

  375. Allow me to note that it is entirely possible to agree that unacceptable (not to mention possibly illegal) cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign occurred. While also accepting that there were serious irregularities in the legal processes which were followed (or not followed). Which means that prosecution, for whatever parts of such cooperation were illegal, becomes problematic. Even though they occurred.
    In short, there is a difference between unable to prosecute successfully and innocent.

  376. Allow me to note that it is entirely possible to agree that unacceptable (not to mention possibly illegal) cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign occurred. While also accepting that there were serious irregularities in the legal processes which were followed (or not followed). Which means that prosecution, for whatever parts of such cooperation were illegal, becomes problematic. Even though they occurred.
    In short, there is a difference between unable to prosecute successfully and innocent.

  377. The investigation into possible co-operation between the Trump campaign and Russian actors began in May 2016, when Pappadopoulos got drunk and told Alexander Downer about all the dirt the Russians had offered him on Clinton.
    And proceeded from there. Before Carter Page, before the Steele dossier, before all of that.
    Two of the four FISA warrants for surveillance of Page were invalid. Two were not. If you want Clinesmith to do jail time for lying in the FISA application, fine with me. If you want to tighten up the FISA application process to make it more transparent and accountable, that is beyond fine with me. If you think this is the first or last time the feds submitted a squirrelly FISA warrant application, I have news for you. It’s not.
    Carter Page was neither the beginning of, nor the main substance of, the investigation. This stuff has been gone over with several fine-toothed combs, by people hostile to Trump, friendly to Trump, and with no particular opinion about Trump. It has consistently been found to be justifiable and well-founded.
    If you want to talk about things that ‘seem suspicious’ and about which it is hard to understand why there is not greater concern, start with Roger Stone and Assange. Or Manafort sharing polling data with Klimnik. Or really any of 100 other things. We could be here all night.
    Trump is a profoundly dishonest and dishonorable human being. There is no corner of his life, in or out of office, which is not a cesspit of corruption.
    Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.

  378. The investigation into possible co-operation between the Trump campaign and Russian actors began in May 2016, when Pappadopoulos got drunk and told Alexander Downer about all the dirt the Russians had offered him on Clinton.
    And proceeded from there. Before Carter Page, before the Steele dossier, before all of that.
    Two of the four FISA warrants for surveillance of Page were invalid. Two were not. If you want Clinesmith to do jail time for lying in the FISA application, fine with me. If you want to tighten up the FISA application process to make it more transparent and accountable, that is beyond fine with me. If you think this is the first or last time the feds submitted a squirrelly FISA warrant application, I have news for you. It’s not.
    Carter Page was neither the beginning of, nor the main substance of, the investigation. This stuff has been gone over with several fine-toothed combs, by people hostile to Trump, friendly to Trump, and with no particular opinion about Trump. It has consistently been found to be justifiable and well-founded.
    If you want to talk about things that ‘seem suspicious’ and about which it is hard to understand why there is not greater concern, start with Roger Stone and Assange. Or Manafort sharing polling data with Klimnik. Or really any of 100 other things. We could be here all night.
    Trump is a profoundly dishonest and dishonorable human being. There is no corner of his life, in or out of office, which is not a cesspit of corruption.
    Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.

  381. Meanwhile, Joe Biden has a Peloton trainer and a Rolex. And so the farce begins again.
    I guess I’ll be grateful to be living with the usual BS, instead of the extraordinary kind we’ve all been treated to for the last 4 years.
    I don’t know if conservatives understand the damage Trump has done to their brand. Along with W before him, for that matter. Your party may not survive this, and if it doesn’t, it will be a fate that is richly deserved.
    Get your own sh*t together and then come talk to us about what’s ‘questionable’.

  382. Meanwhile, Joe Biden has a Peloton trainer and a Rolex. And so the farce begins again.
    I guess I’ll be grateful to be living with the usual BS, instead of the extraordinary kind we’ve all been treated to for the last 4 years.
    I don’t know if conservatives understand the damage Trump has done to their brand. Along with W before him, for that matter. Your party may not survive this, and if it doesn’t, it will be a fate that is richly deserved.
    Get your own sh*t together and then come talk to us about what’s ‘questionable’.

  385. russell, there is a difference between defending Trump and pointing out the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election. The list of people in the DOJ and Congress that were complicit is not short.
    Trump is profoundly dishonest and dishonorable. That doesn’t make their actions honorable or honest.

  386. russell, there is a difference between defending Trump and pointing out the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election. The list of people in the DOJ and Congress that were complicit is not short.
    Trump is profoundly dishonest and dishonorable. That doesn’t make their actions honorable or honest.

  387. the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election.
    I’d say that ‘send Clinesmith to jail, fine with me’ falls short of hand waving.
    Feel free to share the list of people in the DOJ and Congress who ere ‘complicit’. And then explain exactly what they were complicit in.
    The investigation into Trump’s campaign was, amply, justified, as was his first impeachment, as is his current impeachment. The ‘trying to nullify an election’ thing is a lie. Quit dragging it in here.

  388. the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election.
    I’d say that ‘send Clinesmith to jail, fine with me’ falls short of hand waving.
    Feel free to share the list of people in the DOJ and Congress who ere ‘complicit’. And then explain exactly what they were complicit in.
    The investigation into Trump’s campaign was, amply, justified, as was his first impeachment, as is his current impeachment. The ‘trying to nullify an election’ thing is a lie. Quit dragging it in here.

  391. The ‘trying to nullify an election’ thing is a lie. Quit dragging it in here.
    It’s a lie (with subtle differences) also propagated by that reptile, McConnell. As the current piece in the New Yorker headlined Why McConnell Dumped Trump has it:
    “Let’s not have any lectures about how the President should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election,” McConnell said. As he surely knew, it was a false equivalence: Democratic politicians had raised many questions about the effects of Russian interference on the 2016 election results, but Hillary Clinton had conceded the race the morning after the vote.
    The”>https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/01/why-mcconnell-dumped-trump?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_012321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5db81f707e553f7098036138&cndid=59054774&hasha=19519b54b2d38cc2866059c7720835d2&hashb=f73e01651a4802f91758c31e965770ddb4388d80&hashc=8085170f8066ca86199747c8efc1877e994ccb710bd9e1c579c3f21e14fcf5b5&esrc=Auto_Subs&mbid=mbid%3DCRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Daily”>The whole piece is worth reading, for more analysis of McConnell and his tactics so far:

  392. The ‘trying to nullify an election’ thing is a lie. Quit dragging it in here.
    It’s a lie (with subtle differences) also propagated by that reptile, McConnell. As the current piece in the New Yorker headlined Why McConnell Dumped Trump has it:
    “Let’s not have any lectures about how the President should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election,” McConnell said. As he surely knew, it was a false equivalence: Democratic politicians had raised many questions about the effects of Russian interference on the 2016 election results, but Hillary Clinton had conceded the race the morning after the vote.
    The”>https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/01/why-mcconnell-dumped-trump?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_012321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5db81f707e553f7098036138&cndid=59054774&hasha=19519b54b2d38cc2866059c7720835d2&hashb=f73e01651a4802f91758c31e965770ddb4388d80&hashc=8085170f8066ca86199747c8efc1877e994ccb710bd9e1c579c3f21e14fcf5b5&esrc=Auto_Subs&mbid=mbid%3DCRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Daily”>The whole piece is worth reading, for more analysis of McConnell and his tactics so far:

  393. Sorry, I must have done something wrong with a href!
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/01/why-mcconnell-dumped-trump?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_012321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5db81f707e553f7098036138&cndid=59054774&hasha=19519b54b2d38cc2866059c7720835d2&hashb=f73e01651a4802f91758c31e965770ddb4388d80&hashc=8085170f8066ca86199747c8efc1877e994ccb710bd9e1c579c3f21e14fcf5b5&esrc=Auto_Subs&mbid=mbid%3DCRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Daily

  394. Sorry, I must have done something wrong with a href!
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/01/why-mcconnell-dumped-trump?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_012321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5db81f707e553f7098036138&cndid=59054774&hasha=19519b54b2d38cc2866059c7720835d2&hashb=f73e01651a4802f91758c31e965770ddb4388d80&hashc=8085170f8066ca86199747c8efc1877e994ccb710bd9e1c579c3f21e14fcf5b5&esrc=Auto_Subs&mbid=mbid%3DCRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Daily

  395. Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.
    must oppose Democrats, in all things, at all times.

  396. Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.
    must oppose Democrats, in all things, at all times.

  397. the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election
    call Bellemore! someone is doing violence to the language!

  398. the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election
    call Bellemore! someone is doing violence to the language!

  401. DOJ Inspector General’s report on the Carter Page FISA warrants. This report is highly critical of the Crossfire Hurricane team in their applications for the FISA warrant applications for surveillance on Page. They clearly omitted information that was material to the application, and in the case of Clinesmith, plainly lied.
    It’s a long document, but the executive summary is less than 20 pages, and does a very good job of covering the relevant points.
    What you will not find here is evidence that the Steele dossier was the initiating event for the investigation. Because it wasn’t.
    What you will not find here is evidence that errors or fabrications in the FISA warrant applications were politically motivated. There is no such evidence.
    As an aside, I’ll add that anyone who is shocked that a FISA warrant application might contain material misrepresentations needs to get out more. Sadly.
    The FISA warrant applications for surveillance of Page misrepresented the material facts, and in the case of Clinesmith’s contributions, crossed the line into illegality. Clinesmith has pled guilty, and will receive whatever sentence the feds care to give him. And so be it.
    Carter Page was not, remotely, the whole or even the primary focus of the investigation.
    The investigation was prompted by Alexander Downer’s disclosure to the feds that a Trump campaign staffer was blabbing away about being approached by Russians with offers of dirt on Clinton. The investigation began by looking into, not just Page, but Papadopoulos, Flynn, and Manafort. Page is the only one they requested a FISA warrant for, and the reason for it was their suspicion that he might actually be a Russian asset.
    Manafort had actually been the subject of FISA surveillance a couple of years earlier, due to his work for Ukrainian president Yanukovych. Some might see hiring somebody who had been under investigation for failing to register as a foreign agent as your campaign manager as worthy of investigation in and of itself. YMMV.
    For a fuller picture:

    Read all of that, and if you want to come back and discuss any of the factual information that is in the public record and is readily and easily obtainable, then fine. Trust me when I say that there is so, so much more.
    I’m sick of debating bullshit garbage Fox News talking points. Because they are (a) bullshit and (b) garbage.
    There was no effort to “nullify an election”. There was an investigation, amply justified, into behavior on the part of members of Trump’s campaign that was plainly suspicious. There was an impeachment of Trump for trying to use his position as POTUS to get a foreign head of state to investigate his political rival. And now, an impeachment of Trump for inciting a mob to attack the Capitol while the counting of the electoral vote was underway.
    And all of that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    I’m sick of arguing about lies. It’s a waste of everybody’s time and attention. There actually are important things to be concerned with, real things, consequential things.
    Attempts by nefarious actors to “nullify Trump’s election” are not among those things. That’s bullshit QAnon paranoid crap. There are venues for that, I’m not interested in this becoming one of them.
    Kindly take that garbage elsewhere.
    I’m sorry that Trump supporters elevated a corrupt vainglorious vulgar narcissistic bastard into the office of POTUS. It ought to be cause for reflection on their part, perhaps it will be for some. But Trump was a crap president, so much worse than merely incompetent, and any negative attention that he and his crew attracted, from the intelligence community and/or LEO, was and is richly deserved.
    Find better candidates. Stop looking for evil conspiracies and deal with the obvious corruption that is right in front of your face. Clean your damned house.
    And in the meantime, take that Fox bullshit somewhere else. Please.

  402. DOJ Inspector General’s report on the Carter Page FISA warrants. This report is highly critical of the Crossfire Hurricane team in their applications for the FISA warrant applications for surveillance on Page. They clearly omitted information that was material to the application, and in the case of Clinesmith, plainly lied.
    It’s a long document, but the executive summary is less than 20 pages, and does a very good job of covering the relevant points.
    What you will not find here is evidence that the Steele dossier was the initiating event for the investigation. Because it wasn’t.
    What you will not find here is evidence that errors or fabrications in the FISA warrant applications were politically motivated. There is no such evidence.
    As an aside, I’ll add that anyone who is shocked that a FISA warrant application might contain material misrepresentations needs to get out more. Sadly.
    The FISA warrant applications for surveillance of Page misrepresented the material facts, and in the case of Clinesmith’s contributions, crossed the line into illegality. Clinesmith has pled guilty, and will receive whatever sentence the feds care to give him. And so be it.
    Carter Page was not, remotely, the whole or even the primary focus of the investigation.
    The investigation was prompted by Alexander Downer’s disclosure to the feds that a Trump campaign staffer was blabbing away about being approached by Russians with offers of dirt on Clinton. The investigation began by looking into, not just Page, but Papadopoulos, Flynn, and Manafort. Page is the only one they requested a FISA warrant for, and the reason for it was their suspicion that he might actually be a Russian asset.
    Manafort had actually been the subject of FISA surveillance a couple of years earlier, due to his work for Ukrainian president Yanukovych. Some might see hiring somebody who had been under investigation for failing to register as a foreign agent as your campaign manager as worthy of investigation in and of itself. YMMV.
    For a fuller picture:

    Read all of that, and if you want to come back and discuss any of the factual information that is in the public record and is readily and easily obtainable, then fine. Trust me when I say that there is so, so much more.
    I’m sick of debating bullshit garbage Fox News talking points. Because they are (a) bullshit and (b) garbage.
    There was no effort to “nullify an election”. There was an investigation, amply justified, into behavior on the part of members of Trump’s campaign that was plainly suspicious. There was an impeachment of Trump for trying to use his position as POTUS to get a foreign head of state to investigate his political rival. And now, an impeachment of Trump for inciting a mob to attack the Capitol while the counting of the electoral vote was underway.
    And all of that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    I’m sick of arguing about lies. It’s a waste of everybody’s time and attention. There actually are important things to be concerned with, real things, consequential things.
    Attempts by nefarious actors to “nullify Trump’s election” are not among those things. That’s bullshit QAnon paranoid crap. There are venues for that, I’m not interested in this becoming one of them.
    Kindly take that garbage elsewhere.
    I’m sorry that Trump supporters elevated a corrupt vainglorious vulgar narcissistic bastard into the office of POTUS. It ought to be cause for reflection on their part, perhaps it will be for some. But Trump was a crap president, so much worse than merely incompetent, and any negative attention that he and his crew attracted, from the intelligence community and/or LEO, was and is richly deserved.
    Find better candidates. Stop looking for evil conspiracies and deal with the obvious corruption that is right in front of your face. Clean your damned house.
    And in the meantime, take that Fox bullshit somewhere else. Please.

  405. It will be interesting to see if bc chooses to delurk to deal with this answer to their question.
    Other than that: excellent 2021 resolution. No more lies, and words go back to meaning what they actually mean.

  406. It will be interesting to see if bc chooses to delurk to deal with this answer to their question.
    Other than that: excellent 2021 resolution. No more lies, and words go back to meaning what they actually mean.

  409. russell, that summary took a lot of patience and care, and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, the people you are addressing probably won’t.
    I looked at the report last night when I first saw bc’s comment, but didn’t have the wherewithal to do what you just did. It’s exhausting.
    These folks should remember too that Obama bent over backwards to prevent the Trump-
    Russia investigation from being used as a political ploy (of course, because McConnell behaved as a traitor – well representing so many in the Republican Party). IMO, that was a mistake on Obama’s part because Americans should have known this story prior to voting (not that it would have dissuaded the fascists who prefer him).
    And lj is correct. Your painstaking factual summary probably won’t leave a mark. These folks want to believe lies. “Gullible” is too kind a word.

  410. russell, that summary took a lot of patience and care, and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, the people you are addressing probably won’t.
    I looked at the report last night when I first saw bc’s comment, but didn’t have the wherewithal to do what you just did. It’s exhausting.
    These folks should remember too that Obama bent over backwards to prevent the Trump-
    Russia investigation from being used as a political ploy (of course, because McConnell behaved as a traitor – well representing so many in the Republican Party). IMO, that was a mistake on Obama’s part because Americans should have known this story prior to voting (not that it would have dissuaded the fascists who prefer him).
    And lj is correct. Your painstaking factual summary probably won’t leave a mark. These folks want to believe lies. “Gullible” is too kind a word.

  411. Yes, thank you, russell. That comment should be on speed dial to reference when needed. I imagine the same BS will return.

  412. Yes, thank you, russell. That comment should be on speed dial to reference when needed. I imagine the same BS will return.

  417. It appears that McConnell has decided to stick with playing hardball.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-gridlock-threatens-biden-agenda/2021/01/23/6119e512-5cf3-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html
    I suspect he may find he has miscalculated. By refusing to agree to even basic decisions on how to operate the 50-50 Senate unless Democrats promise to preserve the filibuster, he may get worse tgan nothing. Consider.
    Senate rules can be changed by simple majority. If McConnell won’t agree to rules that are becessary to get business done (e.g. appointments), Democrats may just force thru rules without his input. At the moment, some Democratic Senators, for example Manchin, opposed dumping the filibuster. But if nothing is getting done, he might relent.
    I confess that the sight of Mr “Power-is-all-that-matters” blowing up his own power has great attraction.

  418. It appears that McConnell has decided to stick with playing hardball.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-gridlock-threatens-biden-agenda/2021/01/23/6119e512-5cf3-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html
    I suspect he may find he has miscalculated. By refusing to agree to even basic decisions on how to operate the 50-50 Senate unless Democrats promise to preserve the filibuster, he may get worse tgan nothing. Consider.
    Senate rules can be changed by simple majority. If McConnell won’t agree to rules that are becessary to get business done (e.g. appointments), Democrats may just force thru rules without his input. At the moment, some Democratic Senators, for example Manchin, opposed dumping the filibuster. But if nothing is getting done, he might relent.
    I confess that the sight of Mr “Power-is-all-that-matters” blowing up his own power has great attraction.

  419. It also occurs to me to wonder: how different are the rules being proposed (by the Democrats or the Republicans) from the ones which were agreed to last time the Senate was evenly divided like this? If the Democrats proposed something similar, wouldn’t their members who oppose changes (like eliminating the filibuster) feel like they were justified in ramming those rules thru, regardless of McConnell’s objections?

  420. It also occurs to me to wonder: how different are the rules being proposed (by the Democrats or the Republicans) from the ones which were agreed to last time the Senate was evenly divided like this? If the Democrats proposed something similar, wouldn’t their members who oppose changes (like eliminating the filibuster) feel like they were justified in ramming those rules thru, regardless of McConnell’s objections?

  423. McConnell is a reptile. I too hope (but do not necessarily trust) that he has miscalculated. I just hope that whatever the Dems do, they make sure that the American public fully understand what McConnell is trying to do, and what its effect is likely to be on Biden’s program to actually help them – with the stimulus, with Covid, with everything else.

  424. McConnell is a reptile. I too hope (but do not necessarily trust) that he has miscalculated. I just hope that whatever the Dems do, they make sure that the American public fully understand what McConnell is trying to do, and what its effect is likely to be on Biden’s program to actually help them – with the stimulus, with Covid, with everything else.

  425. They wanna play dirty again? Give them some of their own medicine. Announce the vote on the filibuster in advance, stop the GOPsters carrying guns from entering the chamber and ban them for the day. THEN get the vote through quickly. No need to formally go nuclear.

  426. They wanna play dirty again? Give them some of their own medicine. Announce the vote on the filibuster in advance, stop the GOPsters carrying guns from entering the chamber and ban them for the day. THEN get the vote through quickly. No need to formally go nuclear.

  427. It also occurs to me to wonder: how different are the rules being proposed (by the Democrats or the Republicans) from the ones which were agreed to last time the Senate was evenly divided like this?
    I have been told that Schumer agreed to the same rules as that time: the Dems get the committee chairs but there will be an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the committees, and Republicans could still bring bills to the floor in the case of a partisan tie in committee. McConnell is insisting that the Democrats also agree to do nothing about the legislative filibuster, no matter what, which is new. Of course, the last time we had this situation was before the filibuster had been tossed for nominations.
    Just personal opinion, but I expect that if push comes to shove, Manchin and the rest of that bunch will agree to killing the filibuster for organization rules if McConnell really threatens that. Manchin’s been waiting six years to get the chair in the committee on energy and resources, and I don’t think he’ll accept “Just go home for two years, nothing is going to happen.”

  428. It also occurs to me to wonder: how different are the rules being proposed (by the Democrats or the Republicans) from the ones which were agreed to last time the Senate was evenly divided like this?
    I have been told that Schumer agreed to the same rules as that time: the Dems get the committee chairs but there will be an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the committees, and Republicans could still bring bills to the floor in the case of a partisan tie in committee. McConnell is insisting that the Democrats also agree to do nothing about the legislative filibuster, no matter what, which is new. Of course, the last time we had this situation was before the filibuster had been tossed for nominations.
    Just personal opinion, but I expect that if push comes to shove, Manchin and the rest of that bunch will agree to killing the filibuster for organization rules if McConnell really threatens that. Manchin’s been waiting six years to get the chair in the committee on energy and resources, and I don’t think he’ll accept “Just go home for two years, nothing is going to happen.”

  431. I expect that if push comes to shove, Manchin and the rest of that bunch will agree to killing the filibuster for organization rules if McConnell really threatens that.
    My understanding is that the filibuster already doesn’t apply to decisions on the rules. That’s straight majority, period. Which is why McConnell could lose outright.

  432. I expect that if push comes to shove, Manchin and the rest of that bunch will agree to killing the filibuster for organization rules if McConnell really threatens that.
    My understanding is that the filibuster already doesn’t apply to decisions on the rules. That’s straight majority, period. Which is why McConnell could lose outright.

  433. To block the gun runners from particpating in the rules vote would still serve as a check on the GOP moles in thin Dem disguise since then a single one could not derail it by himself (one of them ‘conscience’ votes).

  434. To block the gun runners from particpating in the rules vote would still serve as a check on the GOP moles in thin Dem disguise since then a single one could not derail it by himself (one of them ‘conscience’ votes).

  435. My understanding is that the filibuster already doesn’t apply to decisions on the rules. That’s straight majority, period. Which is why McConnell could lose outright.
    If it could already be done by simple majority, we wouldn’t be reading stories about McConnell blocking things, we’d be reading about Manchin or Simena or whoever defecting from Schumer’s majority.

  436. My understanding is that the filibuster already doesn’t apply to decisions on the rules. That’s straight majority, period. Which is why McConnell could lose outright.
    If it could already be done by simple majority, we wouldn’t be reading stories about McConnell blocking things, we’d be reading about Manchin or Simena or whoever defecting from Schumer’s majority.

  439. Manchin’s been waiting six years to get the chair in the committee on energy and resources, and I don’t think he’ll accept “Just go home for two years, nothing is going to happen.”
    Yes. He wants to go big on infrastructure. Manchin may not be the big problem here as the filibuster and gridlock provides political cover for “moderates”.

  440. Manchin’s been waiting six years to get the chair in the committee on energy and resources, and I don’t think he’ll accept “Just go home for two years, nothing is going to happen.”
    Yes. He wants to go big on infrastructure. Manchin may not be the big problem here as the filibuster and gridlock provides political cover for “moderates”.

  441. If it could already be done by simple majority, we wouldn’t be reading stories about McConnell blocking things
    Couldn’t the Dems get around this using Senate Rule 20? Perhaps Schumer does not have his entire caucus on board.

  442. If it could already be done by simple majority, we wouldn’t be reading stories about McConnell blocking things
    Couldn’t the Dems get around this using Senate Rule 20? Perhaps Schumer does not have his entire caucus on board.

  443. From here

    A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.
    The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.
    In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.

    Recent commentary.
    From the reptile himself. I would note that he quotes, among others, Angus King, I-Maine, who has consistently spoken against getting rid of the filibuster, although I haven’t heard whether he might have changed his mind in light of recent events.

  444. From here

    A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.
    The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.
    In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.

    Recent commentary.
    From the reptile himself. I would note that he quotes, among others, Angus King, I-Maine, who has consistently spoken against getting rid of the filibuster, although I haven’t heard whether he might have changed his mind in light of recent events.

  445. Perhaps Schumer does not have his entire caucus on board.
    Entirely possible. Or he may have told Biden that he would at least make a show of trying for bipartisanship. But go big if bipartisanship turns out not to be on offer. (Which is probably the safe bet.)
    Which is my guess at where Biden is going overall, too. Be able to got to those suburban voters and say “We really, really tried to be cooperative, see? But they just wouldn’t.” Something like that could be important in 2022.

  446. Perhaps Schumer does not have his entire caucus on board.
    Entirely possible. Or he may have told Biden that he would at least make a show of trying for bipartisanship. But go big if bipartisanship turns out not to be on offer. (Which is probably the safe bet.)
    Which is my guess at where Biden is going overall, too. Be able to got to those suburban voters and say “We really, really tried to be cooperative, see? But they just wouldn’t.” Something like that could be important in 2022.

  447. Which is my guess at where Biden is going overall, too. Be able to got to those suburban voters and say “We really, really tried to be cooperative, see? But they just wouldn’t.”
    I hope that is the plan, rather than the usual hopeless effort to achieve bipartisanship-for-its-own-sake, which results in nothing of value getting done.
    We’ll see, I guess. Biden wants/believes the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time; i.e., work on his legislative agenda while also engaged in an impeachment trial.
    I’d like to know more about timing. How long will the Senate Democrats keep hanging fire on a Continuing Resolution to even get started on the new session? Anything new since Schumer told McConnell to pound sand on preserving the filibuster?

  448. Which is my guess at where Biden is going overall, too. Be able to got to those suburban voters and say “We really, really tried to be cooperative, see? But they just wouldn’t.”
    I hope that is the plan, rather than the usual hopeless effort to achieve bipartisanship-for-its-own-sake, which results in nothing of value getting done.
    We’ll see, I guess. Biden wants/believes the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time; i.e., work on his legislative agenda while also engaged in an impeachment trial.
    I’d like to know more about timing. How long will the Senate Democrats keep hanging fire on a Continuing Resolution to even get started on the new session? Anything new since Schumer told McConnell to pound sand on preserving the filibuster?

  451. Electoral dynamics suggest that the Republicans, without Trump and his extremism, will control the Senate more often than not. So the continued existence of the filibuster is in the Democrats’ interest.
    Of course, the Ds need a threat to able to get any sort of co-operation, so they should not promise to keep the filibuster. And of course, the Rs may blow it up anyway when they next have a majority.

  452. Electoral dynamics suggest that the Republicans, without Trump and his extremism, will control the Senate more often than not. So the continued existence of the filibuster is in the Democrats’ interest.
    Of course, the Ds need a threat to able to get any sort of co-operation, so they should not promise to keep the filibuster. And of course, the Rs may blow it up anyway when they next have a majority.

  455. “The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

    Mann and Ornstein, 2012.
    (linked article includes a link to a classic Jen Rubin article from her days as a True Republican Believer)

  456. “The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

    Mann and Ornstein, 2012.
    (linked article includes a link to a classic Jen Rubin article from her days as a True Republican Believer)

  457. So the continued existence of the filibuster is in the Democrats’ interest.
    Absolutely not. Democrats (generally speaking) desire to do stuff. Getting denied makes them look ineffectual and feckless. Knuckling under to GOP obstructionism is bad politics.
    The real ‘threat’ the Dems need is the ability to pass good legislation. With that ability, you might, just might, see some GOP moderation to have influence on those policies.

  458. So the continued existence of the filibuster is in the Democrats’ interest.
    Absolutely not. Democrats (generally speaking) desire to do stuff. Getting denied makes them look ineffectual and feckless. Knuckling under to GOP obstructionism is bad politics.
    The real ‘threat’ the Dems need is the ability to pass good legislation. With that ability, you might, just might, see some GOP moderation to have influence on those policies.

  459. if the Dems can pass legislation on their own, the GOP will be cut out of the legislative process. they won’t need to moderate at all. in fact, they’ll probably radicalize even more, since howling but toothless opposition will be the only thing they can bring to the table.

  460. if the Dems can pass legislation on their own, the GOP will be cut out of the legislative process. they won’t need to moderate at all. in fact, they’ll probably radicalize even more, since howling but toothless opposition will be the only thing they can bring to the table.

  463. if the Dems can pass legislation on their own, the GOP will be cut out of the legislative process. they won’t need to moderate at all.
    That would definitely be a concern. But only IF there was any reason to believe they would moderate if they were involved. The last 4 years suggests that wouldn’t happen.

  464. if the Dems can pass legislation on their own, the GOP will be cut out of the legislative process. they won’t need to moderate at all.
    That would definitely be a concern. But only IF there was any reason to believe they would moderate if they were involved. The last 4 years suggests that wouldn’t happen.

  465. if the Dems can pass legislation on their own, the GOP will be cut out of the legislative process. they won’t need to moderate at all.
    Then the moderating would take place within the Dem caucus, and ……just a minute, I have to take a call from Kyrsten Sienema.

  466. if the Dems can pass legislation on their own, the GOP will be cut out of the legislative process. they won’t need to moderate at all.
    Then the moderating would take place within the Dem caucus, and ……just a minute, I have to take a call from Kyrsten Sienema.

  467. Then the moderating would take place within the Dem caucus, and ……just a minute, I have to take a call from Kyrsten Sienema.
    it wouldn’t pull right-leaning to the left. the rightmost Dems would suddenly have all the power in the room.
    ex. Lieberman and the ACA

  468. Then the moderating would take place within the Dem caucus, and ……just a minute, I have to take a call from Kyrsten Sienema.
    it wouldn’t pull right-leaning to the left. the rightmost Dems would suddenly have all the power in the room.
    ex. Lieberman and the ACA

  469. …it wouldn’t pull right-leaning Dems to the left…
    that is.
    i guess it wouldn’t pull leftmost Dems to the right, either. so, fun times no matter what.

  470. …it wouldn’t pull right-leaning Dems to the left…
    that is.
    i guess it wouldn’t pull leftmost Dems to the right, either. so, fun times no matter what.

  471. So the continued existence of the filibuster is in the Democrats’ interest.
    Absolutely not. Democrats (generally speaking) desire to do stuff. Getting denied makes them look ineffectual and feckless. Knuckling under to GOP obstructionism is bad politics.
    bobbyp, I’m pretty sure Pro Bono meant in the long-term interest of the Dems, i.e. when they are next in the minority and can work the filibuster in their favour. But given the way McConnell changed the rules at will to achieve e.g. nominations, I’m not sure that’s true either.

  472. So the continued existence of the filibuster is in the Democrats’ interest.
    Absolutely not. Democrats (generally speaking) desire to do stuff. Getting denied makes them look ineffectual and feckless. Knuckling under to GOP obstructionism is bad politics.
    bobbyp, I’m pretty sure Pro Bono meant in the long-term interest of the Dems, i.e. when they are next in the minority and can work the filibuster in their favour. But given the way McConnell changed the rules at will to achieve e.g. nominations, I’m not sure that’s true either.

  473. cleek, I’m not sure how many Lieberman types are in the Senate right now. Lieberman was a spiteful POS who kneecapped the Democrats out of malice.
    The other conservaDems, like Baucus, danced to their major donors’ tunes.
    Most of our more moderate Senators are motivated by the conservatism of their voters (Manchin), or are captive to memories of an illusory collegial past (DiFi).
    IOW, their votes might be gettable if the right persuasion is used.

  474. cleek, I’m not sure how many Lieberman types are in the Senate right now. Lieberman was a spiteful POS who kneecapped the Democrats out of malice.
    The other conservaDems, like Baucus, danced to their major donors’ tunes.
    Most of our more moderate Senators are motivated by the conservatism of their voters (Manchin), or are captive to memories of an illusory collegial past (DiFi).
    IOW, their votes might be gettable if the right persuasion is used.

  477. I’m pretty sure Pro Bono meant in the long-term interest of the Dems, i.e. when they are next in the minority and can work the filibuster in their favour.
    On the evidence, McConnell (and probably whoever eventually replaces him) aren’t interested in doing much besides cutting taxes. So the benefit of the filibuster in stopping him doing things is pretty limited.

  478. I’m pretty sure Pro Bono meant in the long-term interest of the Dems, i.e. when they are next in the minority and can work the filibuster in their favour.
    On the evidence, McConnell (and probably whoever eventually replaces him) aren’t interested in doing much besides cutting taxes. So the benefit of the filibuster in stopping him doing things is pretty limited.

  481. $1.3 billion ought to get his attention.
    my favorite bit (from Yahoo’s writeup):

    In an interview with the Times, Dominion lawyer Thomas A. Clare promised to bring additional lawsuits in the future.
    “There will certainly be others,” Clare said. “There are other individuals who have spoken the big lie and have put forward these defamatory statements about Dominion, but then there are also players in the media that have amplified it.”
    Clare also suggested to the Times the company could even sue Trump himself, saying, “We’re not ruling anybody out. Obviously, this lawsuit against the president’s lawyer moves one step closer to the former president and understanding what his role was and wasn’t.”

    spread the consequences far and wide! thick and deep!

  482. $1.3 billion ought to get his attention.
    my favorite bit (from Yahoo’s writeup):

    In an interview with the Times, Dominion lawyer Thomas A. Clare promised to bring additional lawsuits in the future.
    “There will certainly be others,” Clare said. “There are other individuals who have spoken the big lie and have put forward these defamatory statements about Dominion, but then there are also players in the media that have amplified it.”
    Clare also suggested to the Times the company could even sue Trump himself, saying, “We’re not ruling anybody out. Obviously, this lawsuit against the president’s lawyer moves one step closer to the former president and understanding what his role was and wasn’t.”

    spread the consequences far and wide! thick and deep!

  483. Once upon a time, a filibuster meant you had to actually stand up and talk. I’m not sure when the Senate decided to just drop discussion of anything that didn’t have 60 votes in favor. But even without officially dropping the filibuster (my first choice), forcing opponents to stand and talk would at least extract a price for recalcitrance. Especially if it meant having to talk 24/7 — which is my memory of filibusters in the early 60s.

  484. Once upon a time, a filibuster meant you had to actually stand up and talk. I’m not sure when the Senate decided to just drop discussion of anything that didn’t have 60 votes in favor. But even without officially dropping the filibuster (my first choice), forcing opponents to stand and talk would at least extract a price for recalcitrance. Especially if it meant having to talk 24/7 — which is my memory of filibusters in the early 60s.

  485. Dominion is headquartered in Denver.
    Their employees and managers have had to hunker down now for months because of death threats to themselves and their families from the subhuman domestic terrorist conservative movement republican party.
    Who, what still functioning institution, do they petition for retributive, vengeful justice?
    Maybe move to Baghdad, where they can at least hire savagely violent thugs to protect themselves from conservative fanatically religious enemies.

  486. Dominion is headquartered in Denver.
    Their employees and managers have had to hunker down now for months because of death threats to themselves and their families from the subhuman domestic terrorist conservative movement republican party.
    Who, what still functioning institution, do they petition for retributive, vengeful justice?
    Maybe move to Baghdad, where they can at least hire savagely violent thugs to protect themselves from conservative fanatically religious enemies.

  487. Once upon a time, a filibuster meant you had to actually stand up and talk. I’m not sure when the Senate decided to just drop discussion of anything that didn’t have 60 votes in favor.
    Mid-1960s. Up until then, the Senate used a single-track rule: there could be only one major motion open on the floor at a time. This is a reasonably common parliamentary procedure. The real power of the filibuster was that it brought all other business in the Senate to a halt. The Dixiecrats demonstrated that they were capable and willing to bring the Senate to a halt for months in order to keep civil rights legislation from coming to a vote. The Senate leaders’ compromise was the current two-track system: two major motions open, so it was always possible to leave the filibustered track and handle other business on the second track. Since it was unlikely that leadership would ever go back to the filibustered track unless they had 60 votes, no one had to talk. And to avoid having both tracks filibustered, members had to indicate that they were going to filibuster a bill in advance. The polarization is different these days, but in most cases the minority party would bring the Senate to a halt indefinitely in order to block bills.
    Tl;dr version — Senate leadership traded needing a 60-vote majority on major legislation in exchange for remaining a functioning body.

  488. Once upon a time, a filibuster meant you had to actually stand up and talk. I’m not sure when the Senate decided to just drop discussion of anything that didn’t have 60 votes in favor.
    Mid-1960s. Up until then, the Senate used a single-track rule: there could be only one major motion open on the floor at a time. This is a reasonably common parliamentary procedure. The real power of the filibuster was that it brought all other business in the Senate to a halt. The Dixiecrats demonstrated that they were capable and willing to bring the Senate to a halt for months in order to keep civil rights legislation from coming to a vote. The Senate leaders’ compromise was the current two-track system: two major motions open, so it was always possible to leave the filibustered track and handle other business on the second track. Since it was unlikely that leadership would ever go back to the filibustered track unless they had 60 votes, no one had to talk. And to avoid having both tracks filibustered, members had to indicate that they were going to filibuster a bill in advance. The polarization is different these days, but in most cases the minority party would bring the Senate to a halt indefinitely in order to block bills.
    Tl;dr version — Senate leadership traded needing a 60-vote majority on major legislation in exchange for remaining a functioning body.

  489. Originally reported in the NYT:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/capitol-riot-puts-spotlight-apocalyptically-131001346.html

    Adherents of racist far-right movements around the world share more than a common cause. German extremists have traveled to the United States for sniper competitions. American neo-Nazis have visited counterparts in Europe. Militants from different countries bond in training camps from Russia and Ukraine to South Africa.
    For years far-right extremists traded ideology and inspiration on societies’ fringes and in the deepest realms of the internet. Now the events of Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol have laid bare their violent potential.
    (…)
    A recent report commissioned by the German foreign ministry describes “a new leaderless transnational apocalyptically minded, violent far-right extremist movement” that has emerged over the past decade.
    Extremists are animated by the same conspiracy theories and narratives of “white genocide” and “the great replacement” of European populations by immigrants, the report concluded. They roam the same online spaces and also meet at far-right music festivals, mixed martial arts events and far-right rallies.
    “The neo-Nazi scenes are well-connected,” said Kramer, the German intelligence official. “We’re not just talking about likes on Facebook. We’re talking about neo-Nazis traveling, meeting each other, celebrating together.”
    (…)
    In 2019, the FBI director, Christopher Wray, warned that American white supremacists were traveling overseas for training with foreign nationalist groups. A report that year by the Soufan Center, a nonpartisan think tank, found that as many as 17,000 foreigners, many of them white nationalists, had traveled to Ukraine to fight on both sides of the separatist conflict there. Most were Russians, but among them were several dozen Americans.
    Sometimes they inspire one another to kill.
    The hate-filled manifestos of Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011, and Dylann Roof, an American white supremacist who killed nine Black parishioners in South Carolina four years later, influenced Brenton Harrison Tarrant, who in 2019 livestreamed his murder of more than 50 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Tarrant’s manifesto, titled “The Great Replacement,” in turn inspired Patrick Crusius, who killed 22 people in El Paso, Texas, as well as a Norwegian gunman who was overpowered as he tried to shoot people at a mosque in Oslo, Norway.

    Of course, the real problem is “The Left.”

  490. Originally reported in the NYT:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/capitol-riot-puts-spotlight-apocalyptically-131001346.html

    Adherents of racist far-right movements around the world share more than a common cause. German extremists have traveled to the United States for sniper competitions. American neo-Nazis have visited counterparts in Europe. Militants from different countries bond in training camps from Russia and Ukraine to South Africa.
    For years far-right extremists traded ideology and inspiration on societies’ fringes and in the deepest realms of the internet. Now the events of Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol have laid bare their violent potential.
    (…)
    A recent report commissioned by the German foreign ministry describes “a new leaderless transnational apocalyptically minded, violent far-right extremist movement” that has emerged over the past decade.
    Extremists are animated by the same conspiracy theories and narratives of “white genocide” and “the great replacement” of European populations by immigrants, the report concluded. They roam the same online spaces and also meet at far-right music festivals, mixed martial arts events and far-right rallies.
    “The neo-Nazi scenes are well-connected,” said Kramer, the German intelligence official. “We’re not just talking about likes on Facebook. We’re talking about neo-Nazis traveling, meeting each other, celebrating together.”
    (…)
    In 2019, the FBI director, Christopher Wray, warned that American white supremacists were traveling overseas for training with foreign nationalist groups. A report that year by the Soufan Center, a nonpartisan think tank, found that as many as 17,000 foreigners, many of them white nationalists, had traveled to Ukraine to fight on both sides of the separatist conflict there. Most were Russians, but among them were several dozen Americans.
    Sometimes they inspire one another to kill.
    The hate-filled manifestos of Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011, and Dylann Roof, an American white supremacist who killed nine Black parishioners in South Carolina four years later, influenced Brenton Harrison Tarrant, who in 2019 livestreamed his murder of more than 50 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Tarrant’s manifesto, titled “The Great Replacement,” in turn inspired Patrick Crusius, who killed 22 people in El Paso, Texas, as well as a Norwegian gunman who was overpowered as he tried to shoot people at a mosque in Oslo, Norway.

    Of course, the real problem is “The Left.”

  491. The revelation that the Capitol mob — covered in emblems of extremist groups — included off-duty law enforcement officers possibly assisted by working police is escalating pressure on sheriffs and police chiefs nationwide to root out staff with ties to white supremacist and far-right armed groups.
    Law enforcement leaders have faced criticism in the past for failing to police their own officers’ involvement with extremist groups. However, the selfie photos that off-duty officers took inside the Capitol during the violent siege, which left one police officer dead and dozens of others injured, were a wake-up call for many who have long denied the extent of the problem within policing.
    National Sheriffs’ Association President David Mahoney said many police leaders have treated officers with extremist beliefs as outliers and have underestimated the damage they can inflict on the profession and the nation.

    defund the extremist cops, completely.

  492. The revelation that the Capitol mob — covered in emblems of extremist groups — included off-duty law enforcement officers possibly assisted by working police is escalating pressure on sheriffs and police chiefs nationwide to root out staff with ties to white supremacist and far-right armed groups.
    Law enforcement leaders have faced criticism in the past for failing to police their own officers’ involvement with extremist groups. However, the selfie photos that off-duty officers took inside the Capitol during the violent siege, which left one police officer dead and dozens of others injured, were a wake-up call for many who have long denied the extent of the problem within policing.
    National Sheriffs’ Association President David Mahoney said many police leaders have treated officers with extremist beliefs as outliers and have underestimated the damage they can inflict on the profession and the nation.

    defund the extremist cops, completely.

  493. The revelation that the Capitol mob — covered in emblems of extremist groups — included off-duty law enforcement officers possibly assisted by working police is escalating pressure on sheriffs and police chiefs nationwide to root out staff with ties to white supremacist and far-right armed groups.
    There’s one good thing coming out of the mess, anyway.

  494. The revelation that the Capitol mob — covered in emblems of extremist groups — included off-duty law enforcement officers possibly assisted by working police is escalating pressure on sheriffs and police chiefs nationwide to root out staff with ties to white supremacist and far-right armed groups.
    There’s one good thing coming out of the mess, anyway.

  495. hsh, enumerating extensive RW stochastic terrorism, then
    Of course, the real problem is “The Left.”
    Because of “disrepecting”, and “looking down on” the delicate snowflakes on the right, clearly.
    Snowflake, meet blowtorch.

  496. hsh, enumerating extensive RW stochastic terrorism, then
    Of course, the real problem is “The Left.”
    Because of “disrepecting”, and “looking down on” the delicate snowflakes on the right, clearly.
    Snowflake, meet blowtorch.

  497. lookit Joe Biden gettin it done:

    The U.S. Treasury Department is taking steps to resume efforts to put escaped slave and abolitionist Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday.

  498. lookit Joe Biden gettin it done:

    The U.S. Treasury Department is taking steps to resume efforts to put escaped slave and abolitionist Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday.

  499. More Biden here.
    When will Marty, McKinney, or bc show up to mount an honorable and energetic defense of this crap Trump policy? I’m willing to lay odds the answer will turn out to be “never” because it does not comport with their urgent need to paint libruls as “elitists” who despise the “common folk.”

  500. More Biden here.
    When will Marty, McKinney, or bc show up to mount an honorable and energetic defense of this crap Trump policy? I’m willing to lay odds the answer will turn out to be “never” because it does not comport with their urgent need to paint libruls as “elitists” who despise the “common folk.”

  503. Well that’s that for the next couple of years.
    Sinema too. I have no idea what to offer Manchin. For Sinema, I’d start with $2B in fire fighting and fire mitigation moneys. Last year was ugly, and almost the entire West is in serious drought conditions.

  504. Well that’s that for the next couple of years.
    Sinema too. I have no idea what to offer Manchin. For Sinema, I’d start with $2B in fire fighting and fire mitigation moneys. Last year was ugly, and almost the entire West is in serious drought conditions.

  505. Just to clarify, that’s $2B for Arizona alone. They could offer more for neighboring western states, since the fires don’t pay any attention to those arbitrary straight lines. And if that’s not enough, a billion for solar PV generation and pumped hydro storage that benefits the Navajo Nation to compensate for the big (originally federally backed) coal plants that have shut down.

  506. Just to clarify, that’s $2B for Arizona alone. They could offer more for neighboring western states, since the fires don’t pay any attention to those arbitrary straight lines. And if that’s not enough, a billion for solar PV generation and pumped hydro storage that benefits the Navajo Nation to compensate for the big (originally federally backed) coal plants that have shut down.

  507. The Manchin guarantee: “And I hope with that guarantee (a solemn promise to not vote to condemn the filibuster to the dustbin of history) in place he (McConnell) will work in a much more amicable way.”
    Looks like Schumer cannot herd the caucus into the necessary uniformity required on this matter, so give Mitch what he wants, and let’s grab those committee chairmanships, load them up with Dem majorities in all instances (i.e., take that 50-50 offer back) and get on with it.
    And then renege on it when deemed necessary (Biden’s COVID package, for just one example).
    I hope I am wrong, but it’s going to be a bloodbath, a tsunami of GOP filibusters, because they will concede NOTHING. The idea that the filibuster engenders “compromise” under our current polarized politics is so far fetched as to leave me speechless. It only encourages obstruction and minority rule.
    I hope Schumer remembers that revenge is a dish best served cold.

  508. The Manchin guarantee: “And I hope with that guarantee (a solemn promise to not vote to condemn the filibuster to the dustbin of history) in place he (McConnell) will work in a much more amicable way.”
    Looks like Schumer cannot herd the caucus into the necessary uniformity required on this matter, so give Mitch what he wants, and let’s grab those committee chairmanships, load them up with Dem majorities in all instances (i.e., take that 50-50 offer back) and get on with it.
    And then renege on it when deemed necessary (Biden’s COVID package, for just one example).
    I hope I am wrong, but it’s going to be a bloodbath, a tsunami of GOP filibusters, because they will concede NOTHING. The idea that the filibuster engenders “compromise” under our current polarized politics is so far fetched as to leave me speechless. It only encourages obstruction and minority rule.
    I hope Schumer remembers that revenge is a dish best served cold.

  509. bobbyp, I’m pretty sure Pro Bono meant in the long-term interest of the Dems, i.e. when they are next in the minority and can work the filibuster in their favour.
    With all due respect to you and Pro Bono both, I disagree with all the vigour (heh) I can muster. Maintaining the filibuster is not some kind of 11th dimensional chess, it is political malpractice.
    You have to remember what we are dealing with here.

  510. bobbyp, I’m pretty sure Pro Bono meant in the long-term interest of the Dems, i.e. when they are next in the minority and can work the filibuster in their favour.
    With all due respect to you and Pro Bono both, I disagree with all the vigour (heh) I can muster. Maintaining the filibuster is not some kind of 11th dimensional chess, it is political malpractice.
    You have to remember what we are dealing with here.

  511. For clarification, I pretty much agree with you under current (and likely future) circs. I was just saying what I thought Pro Bono had meant, but I (and I think he too) allowed as how McConnell’s likely behaviour changed the calculation. Because of what we are dealing with, I desperately hope the Dems can come up with something dastardly, failing which I hope McConnell’s likely behaviour will change Manchin’s and Sinema’s minds.

  512. For clarification, I pretty much agree with you under current (and likely future) circs. I was just saying what I thought Pro Bono had meant, but I (and I think he too) allowed as how McConnell’s likely behaviour changed the calculation. Because of what we are dealing with, I desperately hope the Dems can come up with something dastardly, failing which I hope McConnell’s likely behaviour will change Manchin’s and Sinema’s minds.

  515. “And I hope with that guarantee (a solemn promise to not vote to condemn the filibuster to the dustbin of history) in place he (McConnell) will work in a much more amicable way.”
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
    That is all.

  516. “And I hope with that guarantee (a solemn promise to not vote to condemn the filibuster to the dustbin of history) in place he (McConnell) will work in a much more amicable way.”
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
    That is all.

  519. Well, McConnell tried to see if Schumer would cave easily. He didn’t.
    The next time will likely be the same. McConnell will push hard, to see what he can get with bluster. Sometimes, he’ll keep going; sometimes, after an initial push, he’ll back off — and claim he’s being cooperative.
    The only way forward is to make clear, every time, that blackmail won’t work. Over, and over, and over.

  520. Well, McConnell tried to see if Schumer would cave easily. He didn’t.
    The next time will likely be the same. McConnell will push hard, to see what he can get with bluster. Sometimes, he’ll keep going; sometimes, after an initial push, he’ll back off — and claim he’s being cooperative.
    The only way forward is to make clear, every time, that blackmail won’t work. Over, and over, and over.

  531. The problem with the Emoluments Clause (along with stuff like ‘Prez and VP not from same state’ in 12th Amendment) is that they don’t have any built in enforcement mechanism. (At least the 14th and 15th Amend. did, but still requires Congress not to wimp out)
    Yeah, those naive old Founder-dudes, expecting that politicians would just ‘follow the rules’ & stuff.
    Good time to pass some really harsh punitive laws to keep the Prez on the straight and narrow. AND allow enforcement by private citizen civil suit/special prosecutor/state AG so it’s not all on the DOJ or Congress. Making sure that subpoenas get complied with would be a good start.

  532. The problem with the Emoluments Clause (along with stuff like ‘Prez and VP not from same state’ in 12th Amendment) is that they don’t have any built in enforcement mechanism. (At least the 14th and 15th Amend. did, but still requires Congress not to wimp out)
    Yeah, those naive old Founder-dudes, expecting that politicians would just ‘follow the rules’ & stuff.
    Good time to pass some really harsh punitive laws to keep the Prez on the straight and narrow. AND allow enforcement by private citizen civil suit/special prosecutor/state AG so it’s not all on the DOJ or Congress. Making sure that subpoenas get complied with would be a good start.

  533. Making sure that subpoenas get complied with would be a good start.
    Give the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate the power to go over and take people (including, if necessary, the Attorney General or the President) into custody. There must be a committee room or something which could be repurposed as a cell.
    We’ve learned from this past administration that relying on the Justice Department for enforcement has flaws.

  534. Making sure that subpoenas get complied with would be a good start.
    Give the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate the power to go over and take people (including, if necessary, the Attorney General or the President) into custody. There must be a committee room or something which could be repurposed as a cell.
    We’ve learned from this past administration that relying on the Justice Department for enforcement has flaws.

  535. russell:
    I don’t see it that way regarding the FISA applications. The FISA court is the backstop to one of the most sensitive issues in the law when it comes to the 4th Amendment. When it is used in general against any U.S. citizen it should receive extremely strict scrutiny. When aimed at a candidate or sitting president, all the more so. And by “all the more” I mean a really lot. I don’t care who occupies the office for the purposes of this point. It has its own court, for heaven’s sake.
    So when you say that anyone who is shocked that a FISA warrant application might contain material misrepresentations, especially in this situation, “needs to get out more,” I find that an uncharacteristically callous comment from you. We should all be shocked. Especially when aimed at a campaign or sitting president. I can only surmise it is your antipathy for Trump that blinds you to the seriousness of what happened.
    You state:
    What you will not find here is evidence that the Steele dossier was the initiating event for the investigation. Because it wasn’t.
    I never said it was, although it is a related issue. I think with the DNC hack alone there was a huge counterintelligence concern. But the Steele dossier WAS received and evaluated before the first FISA application. In fact, the IG report finds that “We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBIs and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.”
    The IG report also notes that the Steele Dossier played an essential role despite the FBI knowing it was “obvious to him [Steele’s handling agent] that the request for the research was politically motivated.” By itself, not that remarkable, as the report notes that the FBI receives info from even terrorists. But one would hope that oppo research from the oppo political candidate would be treated with more than a grain of salt, especially when the FBI knew that Page had already been vetted by the CIA and was in fact a source. He was on our side. As the report also says, the FBI obtained info that raised “significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting” and failed to reassess the dossier or press Steele for the source of the actual funding for his work or his role in the news leak on 9/23/16. Hmmm.
    What you will not find here is evidence that errors or fabrications in the FISA warrant applications were politically motivated. There is no such evidence.
    There is ample evidence that the FISA applications were politically motivated. Without going into all the evidence (we would, as you said on a different topic, be here all night), but consider: (1) Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Their hostility to Trump and sympathy to Clinton is well known. On THE DAY the investigation opened, they texted about how their role in the Clinton email issue was “to ensure we didn’t F something up” but Crossfire Hurricane mattered “because this MATTERS.” That was followed not too many days later with the infamous “We’ll stop it [Trump becoming president]” text. Both Strzok and Lisa Page were involved in the discussions to open the investigation (Page less so). The IG report gives the FBI a pass because Strzok was not the highest-level decision maker and reported to Priestap and there were others involved (general counsel, frex). Given the obvious bias of Strzok and Page and their involvement in any way with the discussion, reasonable minds can differ on whether it had “any” influence. I have my own issues with Priestap and how he handled Flynn, as I noted way back when, but I don’t have an issue with whether an investigation was appropriate, per se, especially given the DNC hack as stated above. (2) Clinesmith. Look at footnote 400 in the IG report. FBI Attorney 2 is Clinesmith. The day after the 2016 elections, Clinesmith sent the following instant message OVER THE FBI SYSTEM to another FBI employee:
    I am so stressed about what I could have done differently .. .! just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.
    Two weeks later, in another exchange with another employee, Clinesmith was asked “Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration.? Clinesmith replied: “hell no,” and then added “Viva le resistance.” This, IMHO, is much more than “no evidence” that the FISA process was seriously tainted with politics and is a reasonable motive for Clinesmith’s falsification of the CIA email.
    All:
    The reasons I went into lurk mode still, sadly, exist. I don’t mean the reasonable push back on my point of view. TP’s typical snarky but reasonable question aside (which I address below), I find it telling that if a conservative simply points out a factual inaccuracy, all of a sudden said conservative is magically transformed into the defender of all things conservative, a Fox News addict and personal defender of Donald Trump. It is surprising that it started with russell’s response to me, as normally I don’t raise his ire, but it wasn’t so much that as the reaction to russell’s response. I’ll explain.
    I noted the problems in the FISA warrants and pointed that out to russell, who had called “bs” on Mary’s assertion that:
    All the investigations before that were basically baseless built on fraudulent FISA warrants by people who refused to accept him as President. The facts support that statement.
    russell asked Marty:
    How many FISA warrants? How many were found deficient, let alone ‘illegal’? What were the deficiencies or illegalities?
    I responded by pointing out that the FISA warrants were, in fact, “deficient.” And posted hyperlinks. Russell to his credit read at least some of the hyperlinks. And acknowledged my point. Then he commented:
    Carter Page was neither the beginning of, nor the main substance of, the investigation. This stuff has been gone over with several fine-toothed combs . . . . It has consistently been found to be justifiable and well-founded.
    If you want to talk about things that ‘seem suspicious’ and about which it is hard to understand why there is not greater concern, start with Roger Stone and Assange. Or Manafort sharing polling data with Klimnik. Or really any of 100 other things. We could be here all night.
    Trump is a profoundly dishonest and dishonorable human being. There is no corner of his life, in or out of office, which is not a cesspit of corruption.
    Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.
    I consider most of that comment a gratuitous diversion from the original issue. I never set out to defend Trump. Yes, we could spend all night on a hundred different topics but the one at hand was the FISA applications. And I’m not sure what “it” is that has been “justifiable and well-founded.” The FISA applications? Certainly not those. And how is pointing out facts about the FISA applications defending Trump? I think russell meant the investigation into Trump’s campaign in general, as he indicates in his 1/23 at 10:36 comment.
    Then russell’s summary of the DOJ Inspector General’s Report (which I had linked to earlier):
    What you will not find here is evidence that the Steele dossier was the initiating event for the investigation. Because it wasn’t.
    What you will not find here is evidence that errors or fabrications in the FISA warrant applications were politically motivated. There is no such evidence.
    As an aside, I’ll add that anyone who is shocked that a FISA warrant application might contain material misrepresentations needs to get out more. Sadly.
    I didn’t raise the first assertion, although I addressed it above here. While I didn’t raise the political question in my original comment, I addressed that above. And I agree that one of us needs to get out more on this issue, and that someone is not me.
    Because it’s russell, not because anyone actually read anything, the reviews come in for russell’s comments: “oughta leave a mark.” “Well done.” “Impressive.” Me? “Gullible” is too kind a word.” To look at what I cited? “Too exhausting.” But “I see that bc has resumed the lurking posture. Profile in chops? The guy’s got nothing.” Those last two by the same person. As if they would know. Great. So if you make a general comment, “where are your cites???” When you cite something? “Too exhausting.” Got it. Forget dialogue. Just share your mental projections!!
    I was reminded of my 11-year-old’s response to one of Trump’s ridiculous put downs in the Trump-Biden debate (“Get Wrecked!!!”). That led to a teaching moment of what I expect in terms of decorum in a President.
    I read from a variety of sources, including the NYT, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret news and the Sacramento Bee. I listen to NPR. I never listened to Rush. When I got free Sirius for six months, I frequented the Urban View channel much more than the conservative channels. And for the record, I don’t watch Fox News. I don’t even have cable. You see, I like to know what others think and I think for myself. I don’t need to be told what I think.
    Before I go back to lurking, I do appreciate the posters and commenters here. I find some gems amongst the chatter. I listened to every song/version on russell’s MLK post and lj’s insight into the east always interest me etc. This comment took way too much time, time I don’t really have, and hence the lurking, not because I have nothing to share.
    TP: You asked if I think “the Trump-Russia thing” was a hoax, fabricated by the Deep State ™ to bring down Trump, the same Deep State that made Comey throw shade at Hillary. No not a hoax at the outset. There were legit concerns at the outset, but the above plus the leaks show government behaving very badly. Some of that appears politically motivated. I think the DNC and Hillary knew that feeding the Steele dossier would detract from the email scandal (it did) and that it might gain traction given that they know the political thought of some of the players. Maybe they intended it to have the legs it did. Maybe not. The extent that the media played the leaks into something real despite the problems with Steele does, IMHO, constitute a hoax.
    I don’t buy into the Deep State, per se (and it means different things to different people). I subscribe to a philosophy that the administrative state is way too big, has way too much power (because Congress likes to have plausible deniability come election time) and has self-interest. I don’t pretend to understand Comey and I find his actions contradictory (although I can see a theory that reconciles them). I lean towards Comey thinking he was helping (as he thought Hillary would undoubtedly win) when he obviously wasn’t.

  536. russell:
    I don’t see it that way regarding the FISA applications. The FISA court is the backstop to one of the most sensitive issues in the law when it comes to the 4th Amendment. When it is used in general against any U.S. citizen it should receive extremely strict scrutiny. When aimed at a candidate or sitting president, all the more so. And by “all the more” I mean a really lot. I don’t care who occupies the office for the purposes of this point. It has its own court, for heaven’s sake.
    So when you say that anyone who is shocked that a FISA warrant application might contain material misrepresentations, especially in this situation, “needs to get out more,” I find that an uncharacteristically callous comment from you. We should all be shocked. Especially when aimed at a campaign or sitting president. I can only surmise it is your antipathy for Trump that blinds you to the seriousness of what happened.
    You state:
    What you will not find here is evidence that the Steele dossier was the initiating event for the investigation. Because it wasn’t.
    I never said it was, although it is a related issue. I think with the DNC hack alone there was a huge counterintelligence concern. But the Steele dossier WAS received and evaluated before the first FISA application. In fact, the IG report finds that “We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBIs and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.”
    The IG report also notes that the Steele Dossier played an essential role despite the FBI knowing it was “obvious to him [Steele’s handling agent] that the request for the research was politically motivated.” By itself, not that remarkable, as the report notes that the FBI receives info from even terrorists. But one would hope that oppo research from the oppo political candidate would be treated with more than a grain of salt, especially when the FBI knew that Page had already been vetted by the CIA and was in fact a source. He was on our side. As the report also says, the FBI obtained info that raised “significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting” and failed to reassess the dossier or press Steele for the source of the actual funding for his work or his role in the news leak on 9/23/16. Hmmm.
    What you will not find here is evidence that errors or fabrications in the FISA warrant applications were politically motivated. There is no such evidence.
    There is ample evidence that the FISA applications were politically motivated. Without going into all the evidence (we would, as you said on a different topic, be here all night), but consider: (1) Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Their hostility to Trump and sympathy to Clinton is well known. On THE DAY the investigation opened, they texted about how their role in the Clinton email issue was “to ensure we didn’t F something up” but Crossfire Hurricane mattered “because this MATTERS.” That was followed not too many days later with the infamous “We’ll stop it [Trump becoming president]” text. Both Strzok and Lisa Page were involved in the discussions to open the investigation (Page less so). The IG report gives the FBI a pass because Strzok was not the highest-level decision maker and reported to Priestap and there were others involved (general counsel, frex). Given the obvious bias of Strzok and Page and their involvement in any way with the discussion, reasonable minds can differ on whether it had “any” influence. I have my own issues with Priestap and how he handled Flynn, as I noted way back when, but I don’t have an issue with whether an investigation was appropriate, per se, especially given the DNC hack as stated above. (2) Clinesmith. Look at footnote 400 in the IG report. FBI Attorney 2 is Clinesmith. The day after the 2016 elections, Clinesmith sent the following instant message OVER THE FBI SYSTEM to another FBI employee:
    I am so stressed about what I could have done differently .. .! just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.
    Two weeks later, in another exchange with another employee, Clinesmith was asked “Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration.? Clinesmith replied: “hell no,” and then added “Viva le resistance.” This, IMHO, is much more than “no evidence” that the FISA process was seriously tainted with politics and is a reasonable motive for Clinesmith’s falsification of the CIA email.
    All:
    The reasons I went into lurk mode still, sadly, exist. I don’t mean the reasonable push back on my point of view. TP’s typical snarky but reasonable question aside (which I address below), I find it telling that if a conservative simply points out a factual inaccuracy, all of a sudden said conservative is magically transformed into the defender of all things conservative, a Fox News addict and personal defender of Donald Trump. It is surprising that it started with russell’s response to me, as normally I don’t raise his ire, but it wasn’t so much that as the reaction to russell’s response. I’ll explain.
    I noted the problems in the FISA warrants and pointed that out to russell, who had called “bs” on Mary’s assertion that:
    All the investigations before that were basically baseless built on fraudulent FISA warrants by people who refused to accept him as President. The facts support that statement.
    russell asked Marty:
    How many FISA warrants? How many were found deficient, let alone ‘illegal’? What were the deficiencies or illegalities?
    I responded by pointing out that the FISA warrants were, in fact, “deficient.” And posted hyperlinks. Russell to his credit read at least some of the hyperlinks. And acknowledged my point. Then he commented:
    Carter Page was neither the beginning of, nor the main substance of, the investigation. This stuff has been gone over with several fine-toothed combs . . . . It has consistently been found to be justifiable and well-founded.
    If you want to talk about things that ‘seem suspicious’ and about which it is hard to understand why there is not greater concern, start with Roger Stone and Assange. Or Manafort sharing polling data with Klimnik. Or really any of 100 other things. We could be here all night.
    Trump is a profoundly dishonest and dishonorable human being. There is no corner of his life, in or out of office, which is not a cesspit of corruption.
    Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.
    I consider most of that comment a gratuitous diversion from the original issue. I never set out to defend Trump. Yes, we could spend all night on a hundred different topics but the one at hand was the FISA applications. And I’m not sure what “it” is that has been “justifiable and well-founded.” The FISA applications? Certainly not those. And how is pointing out facts about the FISA applications defending Trump? I think russell meant the investigation into Trump’s campaign in general, as he indicates in his 1/23 at 10:36 comment.
    Then russell’s summary of the DOJ Inspector General’s Report (which I had linked to earlier):
    What you will not find here is evidence that the Steele dossier was the initiating event for the investigation. Because it wasn’t.
    What you will not find here is evidence that errors or fabrications in the FISA warrant applications were politically motivated. There is no such evidence.
    As an aside, I’ll add that anyone who is shocked that a FISA warrant application might contain material misrepresentations needs to get out more. Sadly.
    I didn’t raise the first assertion, although I addressed it above here. While I didn’t raise the political question in my original comment, I addressed that above. And I agree that one of us needs to get out more on this issue, and that someone is not me.
    Because it’s russell, not because anyone actually read anything, the reviews come in for russell’s comments: “oughta leave a mark.” “Well done.” “Impressive.” Me? “Gullible” is too kind a word.” To look at what I cited? “Too exhausting.” But “I see that bc has resumed the lurking posture. Profile in chops? The guy’s got nothing.” Those last two by the same person. As if they would know. Great. So if you make a general comment, “where are your cites???” When you cite something? “Too exhausting.” Got it. Forget dialogue. Just share your mental projections!!
    I was reminded of my 11-year-old’s response to one of Trump’s ridiculous put downs in the Trump-Biden debate (“Get Wrecked!!!”). That led to a teaching moment of what I expect in terms of decorum in a President.
    I read from a variety of sources, including the NYT, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret news and the Sacramento Bee. I listen to NPR. I never listened to Rush. When I got free Sirius for six months, I frequented the Urban View channel much more than the conservative channels. And for the record, I don’t watch Fox News. I don’t even have cable. You see, I like to know what others think and I think for myself. I don’t need to be told what I think.
    Before I go back to lurking, I do appreciate the posters and commenters here. I find some gems amongst the chatter. I listened to every song/version on russell’s MLK post and lj’s insight into the east always interest me etc. This comment took way too much time, time I don’t really have, and hence the lurking, not because I have nothing to share.
    TP: You asked if I think “the Trump-Russia thing” was a hoax, fabricated by the Deep State ™ to bring down Trump, the same Deep State that made Comey throw shade at Hillary. No not a hoax at the outset. There were legit concerns at the outset, but the above plus the leaks show government behaving very badly. Some of that appears politically motivated. I think the DNC and Hillary knew that feeding the Steele dossier would detract from the email scandal (it did) and that it might gain traction given that they know the political thought of some of the players. Maybe they intended it to have the legs it did. Maybe not. The extent that the media played the leaks into something real despite the problems with Steele does, IMHO, constitute a hoax.
    I don’t buy into the Deep State, per se (and it means different things to different people). I subscribe to a philosophy that the administrative state is way too big, has way too much power (because Congress likes to have plausible deniability come election time) and has self-interest. I don’t pretend to understand Comey and I find his actions contradictory (although I can see a theory that reconciles them). I lean towards Comey thinking he was helping (as he thought Hillary would undoubtedly win) when he obviously wasn’t.

  537. I don’t see it that way regarding the FISA applications.
    all good.
    I appreciate your lengthy and thoughtful reply here. Here are my own thoughts.
    Nearly all of my comments on this topic, in this thread, are directed toward Marty’s insistence that the investigation into possible collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian actors, as well as the impeachment(s) of Trump, were an attempt by people to “nullify” an election whose outcome they simply could not abide.
    That is bullshit, and in fact is noxious and corrupting bullshit, because it is an attempt to delegitimize lawful and correct attempts to discover and demand accountability for corrupt actions on the part of public officials and would-be public officials.
    There were ample grounds to investigate Trump’s campaign, and ample grounds for his impeachment. Full stop.
    I have no particular argument with your claims that the warrant applications for surveillance of Page were not well founded. I would hope that is clear from my citation of analysis that is highly critical of them. My comment about “how many warrants? which ones were illegal?” was basically a challenge to Marty to show his work.
    I’m sorry to say I do not share what appears to be your confidence in the integrity of the FISA court. Integrity is perhaps the wrong word – the FISA process is profoundly opaque and unaccountable, and federal intelligence and LEO agencies have a mixed history for respecting the boundaries of constitutionally protected speech and action. IMO those agencies are prone to ‘coloring outside the lines’ when they think it’s justified, and also IMO the FISA process, including the FISA court, is prone to deferring to them.
    Perhaps that should shock us, but TBH I don’t think people pay all that much attention to it. There isn’t a way for people to get any insight into it, in any case.

  538. I don’t see it that way regarding the FISA applications.
    all good.
    I appreciate your lengthy and thoughtful reply here. Here are my own thoughts.
    Nearly all of my comments on this topic, in this thread, are directed toward Marty’s insistence that the investigation into possible collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian actors, as well as the impeachment(s) of Trump, were an attempt by people to “nullify” an election whose outcome they simply could not abide.
    That is bullshit, and in fact is noxious and corrupting bullshit, because it is an attempt to delegitimize lawful and correct attempts to discover and demand accountability for corrupt actions on the part of public officials and would-be public officials.
    There were ample grounds to investigate Trump’s campaign, and ample grounds for his impeachment. Full stop.
    I have no particular argument with your claims that the warrant applications for surveillance of Page were not well founded. I would hope that is clear from my citation of analysis that is highly critical of them. My comment about “how many warrants? which ones were illegal?” was basically a challenge to Marty to show his work.
    I’m sorry to say I do not share what appears to be your confidence in the integrity of the FISA court. Integrity is perhaps the wrong word – the FISA process is profoundly opaque and unaccountable, and federal intelligence and LEO agencies have a mixed history for respecting the boundaries of constitutionally protected speech and action. IMO those agencies are prone to ‘coloring outside the lines’ when they think it’s justified, and also IMO the FISA process, including the FISA court, is prone to deferring to them.
    Perhaps that should shock us, but TBH I don’t think people pay all that much attention to it. There isn’t a way for people to get any insight into it, in any case.

  539. I’m sorry to say I do not share what appears to be your confidence in the integrity of the FISA court.
    The rabble on “the left” have been deeply critical of the Security State and the FISA process since like forever, and are rather understandably convinced that it is, and has been, a process ripe for abuse. I hear some guy named Glenn Greenwald has made quite a stink about it over the years.
    So the idea that “when applied” against a US citizen, or by god, the Presidente, that “strict(er) scrutiny” should apply is something I find quite odious and a mockery of the rule of law.
    But the bottom line is this: Trump and his minions were playing footsies with Russian state actors. There can be no reasonable denial of this fact. Also, Trump acted to obstruct the investigation. This, too, is an undeniable fact.
    Yet he skated.
    That was a political decision made by political actors for purely partisan reasons.

  540. I’m sorry to say I do not share what appears to be your confidence in the integrity of the FISA court.
    The rabble on “the left” have been deeply critical of the Security State and the FISA process since like forever, and are rather understandably convinced that it is, and has been, a process ripe for abuse. I hear some guy named Glenn Greenwald has made quite a stink about it over the years.
    So the idea that “when applied” against a US citizen, or by god, the Presidente, that “strict(er) scrutiny” should apply is something I find quite odious and a mockery of the rule of law.
    But the bottom line is this: Trump and his minions were playing footsies with Russian state actors. There can be no reasonable denial of this fact. Also, Trump acted to obstruct the investigation. This, too, is an undeniable fact.
    Yet he skated.
    That was a political decision made by political actors for purely partisan reasons.

  541. Although I was interested to see if bc responded to russell on, specifically, Carter Page and the FISA stuff, it was very clear to me that russell’s comments on “lies” and “Fox bullshit” and ” bullshit QAnon paranoid crap” were about Marty and his ridiculous stuff about attempts “to nullify” the Trump election, and the Dems having therefore been guilty of sedition, and I imagine that most of the reactions that bc objects to here were similarly aware of this.
    It’s salutary that bc says all of a sudden said conservative is magically transformed into the defender of all things conservative, a Fox News addict and personal defender of Donald Trump because all of us lefties, liberals etc on here are frequently (though not, I think, by bc) transformed into defenders of all things “left”, from Stalin and Pol Pot (sic) to the UK Labour party. Interesting to be on the other side of that phenomenon.
    And finally, I find it truly fascinating that Marty and bc, and of course McKinney, all say they don’t watch Fox etc, and yet somehow many of the Fox talking points find their way into our rightwing commenters’ posts. Examples: that the Russia investigation was without merit or foundation, or in bc’s long post above (and also I think in the past) a curious preoccupation with Strzok and Page (I think bc once called them “the lovers”, just like Trump used to). I say truly fascinating because, although I am not doubting their word about their viewing and reading habits, this suggests that the Foxification of the conservative culture has spread very wide and deep roots. To some of us, the results are alarming. And, as a bit of textual analysis, I would just bring up bc’s last sentence:
    I lean towards Comey thinking he was helping (as he thought Hillary would undoubtedly win) when he obviously wasn’t.
    I wonder who bc thinks (and obviously thinks it obvious) Comey thought he was helping?

  542. Although I was interested to see if bc responded to russell on, specifically, Carter Page and the FISA stuff, it was very clear to me that russell’s comments on “lies” and “Fox bullshit” and ” bullshit QAnon paranoid crap” were about Marty and his ridiculous stuff about attempts “to nullify” the Trump election, and the Dems having therefore been guilty of sedition, and I imagine that most of the reactions that bc objects to here were similarly aware of this.
    It’s salutary that bc says all of a sudden said conservative is magically transformed into the defender of all things conservative, a Fox News addict and personal defender of Donald Trump because all of us lefties, liberals etc on here are frequently (though not, I think, by bc) transformed into defenders of all things “left”, from Stalin and Pol Pot (sic) to the UK Labour party. Interesting to be on the other side of that phenomenon.
    And finally, I find it truly fascinating that Marty and bc, and of course McKinney, all say they don’t watch Fox etc, and yet somehow many of the Fox talking points find their way into our rightwing commenters’ posts. Examples: that the Russia investigation was without merit or foundation, or in bc’s long post above (and also I think in the past) a curious preoccupation with Strzok and Page (I think bc once called them “the lovers”, just like Trump used to). I say truly fascinating because, although I am not doubting their word about their viewing and reading habits, this suggests that the Foxification of the conservative culture has spread very wide and deep roots. To some of us, the results are alarming. And, as a bit of textual analysis, I would just bring up bc’s last sentence:
    I lean towards Comey thinking he was helping (as he thought Hillary would undoubtedly win) when he obviously wasn’t.
    I wonder who bc thinks (and obviously thinks it obvious) Comey thought he was helping?

  543. I’ll drop in here with my usual sideways take on this, though GftNC beat me to the textual analysis. First of all, bc, thanks for dropping back by, I appreciate the time you spent to reply. However, this
    This comment took way too much time, time I don’t really have, and hence the lurking, not because I have nothing to share.
    is a bit off. If you want to discuss something, that’s cool, but it is the writer’s responsibility to create the conditions that match with your level of committment. Maybe you misread the room, but given that you’ve been here a while, that seems rather dismissive of your ability to figure things out. People get busy, sure, but if you want to treat people here as conversation partners, you would probably be better served by picking your spots a little more carefully.
    The problem is that dropping those kinds of lines is rhetorically functions as a way of tossing bombs without taking any responsibility. Obviously, I can’t force you to take responsibility for what you say and when you say it, but by pointing this out, I hope we can all consider how much responsibility we all can take for discussion here. I am also well aware that sealioning is a problem. But that can only be dealt with when people are transparent with their motivations.
    It is also off to claim that no one is going to actually read what russell said, specifically this
    Because it’s russell, not because anyone actually read anything, the reviews come in for russell’s comments:
    Surely, you realize that your claim is that we just agree with it because russell’s a nice guy and we all hate Trump, which therefore validates your opinion and makes ours mental projection. Do you really think that argumentation works? Because when examined closely, that logic is pretty threadbare.
    Russell’s summary points to the fact that it was only 2 specific FISA warrants and ignores a huge amount of related information. I don’t believe your first comment sufficiently acknowledges that, but if the only reason that you addressed Russell is because you got hammered by a lot of other commentators, ‘mental projection’ is not really be best explanation.
    I get that people have their own hobbyhorses, and we all need to rant every now and then. I’m pretty relaxed about rants here. But when you drop in after Marty repeatedly raises the lie of election nullification, what precisely did you expect? Anyway, that’s probably too much about rhetoric, so moving on.
    I will comment on the substance a bit. It doesn’t surprise me that we have this instance where political desires outweight proper conduct, which I think is what happened in this case. What is surprising is that this seems to be, unless you are drinking the Deep State koolaid, an outlier rather than a trend. And given that those 2 FISA warrants were problematic seems to be something overdetermined because of the opaque nature of the process. Not accusing anyone here of this, but to repeat what bobbyp pointed out, it’s all fun and games when it’s non-citizens who are the target, but when it is citizens, that’s when we should look at it closely? I say this as a citizen (for the time being) residing abroad, which means any protections I have are quite limited. So apologies for this observation, but the concern about the Carter Page warrants seems a lot like crocodile tears.
    At any rate, if you got to the bottom of this congrats and I’d appreciate it if you would consider this in the future.

  544. I’ll drop in here with my usual sideways take on this, though GftNC beat me to the textual analysis. First of all, bc, thanks for dropping back by, I appreciate the time you spent to reply. However, this
    This comment took way too much time, time I don’t really have, and hence the lurking, not because I have nothing to share.
    is a bit off. If you want to discuss something, that’s cool, but it is the writer’s responsibility to create the conditions that match with your level of committment. Maybe you misread the room, but given that you’ve been here a while, that seems rather dismissive of your ability to figure things out. People get busy, sure, but if you want to treat people here as conversation partners, you would probably be better served by picking your spots a little more carefully.
    The problem is that dropping those kinds of lines is rhetorically functions as a way of tossing bombs without taking any responsibility. Obviously, I can’t force you to take responsibility for what you say and when you say it, but by pointing this out, I hope we can all consider how much responsibility we all can take for discussion here. I am also well aware that sealioning is a problem. But that can only be dealt with when people are transparent with their motivations.
    It is also off to claim that no one is going to actually read what russell said, specifically this
    Because it’s russell, not because anyone actually read anything, the reviews come in for russell’s comments:
    Surely, you realize that your claim is that we just agree with it because russell’s a nice guy and we all hate Trump, which therefore validates your opinion and makes ours mental projection. Do you really think that argumentation works? Because when examined closely, that logic is pretty threadbare.
    Russell’s summary points to the fact that it was only 2 specific FISA warrants and ignores a huge amount of related information. I don’t believe your first comment sufficiently acknowledges that, but if the only reason that you addressed Russell is because you got hammered by a lot of other commentators, ‘mental projection’ is not really be best explanation.
    I get that people have their own hobbyhorses, and we all need to rant every now and then. I’m pretty relaxed about rants here. But when you drop in after Marty repeatedly raises the lie of election nullification, what precisely did you expect? Anyway, that’s probably too much about rhetoric, so moving on.
    I will comment on the substance a bit. It doesn’t surprise me that we have this instance where political desires outweight proper conduct, which I think is what happened in this case. What is surprising is that this seems to be, unless you are drinking the Deep State koolaid, an outlier rather than a trend. And given that those 2 FISA warrants were problematic seems to be something overdetermined because of the opaque nature of the process. Not accusing anyone here of this, but to repeat what bobbyp pointed out, it’s all fun and games when it’s non-citizens who are the target, but when it is citizens, that’s when we should look at it closely? I say this as a citizen (for the time being) residing abroad, which means any protections I have are quite limited. So apologies for this observation, but the concern about the Carter Page warrants seems a lot like crocodile tears.
    At any rate, if you got to the bottom of this congrats and I’d appreciate it if you would consider this in the future.

  545. I wonder who bc thinks (and obviously thinks it obvious) Comey thought he was helping?
    I’m not speaking for bc here, just making an observation about Comey and who he thought he was helping.
    Comey’s story, apparently, is that the NY FBI office was all over the Clinton email business, because a lot of them freaking hated Clinton, and he felt he needed to get out in front of it.
    So yeah, individual feds often have political and social biases, because they’re people. The question is whether those biases compromise their ability to do their jobs fairly and well.
    Strzok and Page obviously held some animus toward Trump, and discussed it, with each other, in private conversation. When that bias was discovered, they were off the investigation, period. At least Strzok, I don’t know what happened with Page. And that’s appropriate.
    The origins and evolution of the investigation into Trump’s campaign have in turn been the subject of several subsequent investigations, by people hostile to Trump, friendly to Trump, explicitly working for Trump, and with no stated opinion about Trump. To my knowledge, there is no credible account that shows political bias in the initiation or conduct of the investigations into Trump or his campaign.
    I don’t know if any similar investigation has ever been made into the dynamics of the NY FBI office and their possible influence on Comey’s 11th hour public statements about investigations into Clinton.
    TBH, I’ve been living in an IOKIYAR world for quite a while now, and I’m getting freaking sick of it. Clean up your messes and get the corrupt self-dealers, the maniacs, and the ignorant bozos out of your party and find some decent human beings to run for public office. You know, people who are interested in government and governing. Maybe then you wouldn’t have to expend so much energy gaming the Congressional district maps and trying to keep people from voting.
    Right?
    I look forward to the day when we can all have conversations about substantive issues of public interest.

  546. I wonder who bc thinks (and obviously thinks it obvious) Comey thought he was helping?
    I’m not speaking for bc here, just making an observation about Comey and who he thought he was helping.
    Comey’s story, apparently, is that the NY FBI office was all over the Clinton email business, because a lot of them freaking hated Clinton, and he felt he needed to get out in front of it.
    So yeah, individual feds often have political and social biases, because they’re people. The question is whether those biases compromise their ability to do their jobs fairly and well.
    Strzok and Page obviously held some animus toward Trump, and discussed it, with each other, in private conversation. When that bias was discovered, they were off the investigation, period. At least Strzok, I don’t know what happened with Page. And that’s appropriate.
    The origins and evolution of the investigation into Trump’s campaign have in turn been the subject of several subsequent investigations, by people hostile to Trump, friendly to Trump, explicitly working for Trump, and with no stated opinion about Trump. To my knowledge, there is no credible account that shows political bias in the initiation or conduct of the investigations into Trump or his campaign.
    I don’t know if any similar investigation has ever been made into the dynamics of the NY FBI office and their possible influence on Comey’s 11th hour public statements about investigations into Clinton.
    TBH, I’ve been living in an IOKIYAR world for quite a while now, and I’m getting freaking sick of it. Clean up your messes and get the corrupt self-dealers, the maniacs, and the ignorant bozos out of your party and find some decent human beings to run for public office. You know, people who are interested in government and governing. Maybe then you wouldn’t have to expend so much energy gaming the Congressional district maps and trying to keep people from voting.
    Right?
    I look forward to the day when we can all have conversations about substantive issues of public interest.

  547. So the idea that “when applied” against a US citizen, or by god, the Presidente, that “strict(er) scrutiny” should apply is something I find quite odious and a mockery of the rule of law.
    Agreed. What I wrote isn’t really how I feel. Thanks for calling me out on that. Every application should be held to the highest standard. It doesn’t boggle my mind that applications are fudged and such given human nature, even though that offends me, but given the unique constitutional angle (involvement of staff of a candidate/elected official) I do find the conduct here shocking. I guess I still somewhat have the rose colored glasses on from my internship with a U.S. Attorney, who was honorable, a patriot and happened to be a Democrat, not that that should matter.
    the Foxification of the conservative culture has spread very wide and deep roots
    I agree to some degree. I’m sure observations get around and certain thoughts are recirculated in like-minded news sources. It goes both ways. But “talking points” implies to me “lack of independent thought.” And I reject that as it implies to what I said. I may be wrong, but I’m not just repeating what I’ve heard.
    but if you want to treat people here as conversation partners, you would probably be better served by picking your spots a little more carefully.
    And I thought I had, lol. Shows what I know. And that is somewhat my point. I should be able to simply point out a fact without a broadside in return.
    BTW, it’s not just the 2 FISA applications, lj. All were tainted. DOJ only admitted to 2, but told the FISA court it would sequester all info relate to all four.
    . . .the concern about the Carter Page warrants seems a lot like crocodile tears.
    At the risk of opening up a conversation I’m not prepared to undertake, let me simply observe this: IMHO what we have largely lost in our modern political dialogue is the desire to understand and acknowledge the views of others. Trump didn’t help. I get that. However, to disagree with opinions–even strongly disagree–is one thing. To completely delegitimize an opinion (e.g. “how could any sane person think that way”) is often the norm and no real conversation takes place. Seek to understand and then seek understanding.
    I have, I would say, “nuanced” opinions on many matters that appear very “clear” to my friends on the left and on the right. I am familiar with nous’? observation re cognitive dissonance. Count me afflicted.
    I look forward to the day when we can all have conversations about substantive issues of public interest.
    Amen and Amen.

  548. So the idea that “when applied” against a US citizen, or by god, the Presidente, that “strict(er) scrutiny” should apply is something I find quite odious and a mockery of the rule of law.
    Agreed. What I wrote isn’t really how I feel. Thanks for calling me out on that. Every application should be held to the highest standard. It doesn’t boggle my mind that applications are fudged and such given human nature, even though that offends me, but given the unique constitutional angle (involvement of staff of a candidate/elected official) I do find the conduct here shocking. I guess I still somewhat have the rose colored glasses on from my internship with a U.S. Attorney, who was honorable, a patriot and happened to be a Democrat, not that that should matter.
    the Foxification of the conservative culture has spread very wide and deep roots
    I agree to some degree. I’m sure observations get around and certain thoughts are recirculated in like-minded news sources. It goes both ways. But “talking points” implies to me “lack of independent thought.” And I reject that as it implies to what I said. I may be wrong, but I’m not just repeating what I’ve heard.
    but if you want to treat people here as conversation partners, you would probably be better served by picking your spots a little more carefully.
    And I thought I had, lol. Shows what I know. And that is somewhat my point. I should be able to simply point out a fact without a broadside in return.
    BTW, it’s not just the 2 FISA applications, lj. All were tainted. DOJ only admitted to 2, but told the FISA court it would sequester all info relate to all four.
    . . .the concern about the Carter Page warrants seems a lot like crocodile tears.
    At the risk of opening up a conversation I’m not prepared to undertake, let me simply observe this: IMHO what we have largely lost in our modern political dialogue is the desire to understand and acknowledge the views of others. Trump didn’t help. I get that. However, to disagree with opinions–even strongly disagree–is one thing. To completely delegitimize an opinion (e.g. “how could any sane person think that way”) is often the norm and no real conversation takes place. Seek to understand and then seek understanding.
    I have, I would say, “nuanced” opinions on many matters that appear very “clear” to my friends on the left and on the right. I am familiar with nous’? observation re cognitive dissonance. Count me afflicted.
    I look forward to the day when we can all have conversations about substantive issues of public interest.
    Amen and Amen.

  549. this obsession with Carter Page looks a lot like the right desperately trying to discredit the entire Russia investigation by nipping it off at the stem. “see, the whole thing was a set up!”
    but the problem is, the investigation is not the problem. Trump et al really did interact with Russians and Russian cut-outs in order to help the Trump campaign. the investigation didn’t cause that. you can’t un-collude TrumpCo by saying people should have been looking for possible collusion.
    it looks every bit like a bad-faith effort to change the subject. which is why people tend to scoff when Carter Page comes up.

  550. this obsession with Carter Page looks a lot like the right desperately trying to discredit the entire Russia investigation by nipping it off at the stem. “see, the whole thing was a set up!”
    but the problem is, the investigation is not the problem. Trump et al really did interact with Russians and Russian cut-outs in order to help the Trump campaign. the investigation didn’t cause that. you can’t un-collude TrumpCo by saying people should have been looking for possible collusion.
    it looks every bit like a bad-faith effort to change the subject. which is why people tend to scoff when Carter Page comes up.

  551. you can’t un-collude TrumpCo by saying people should have been looking for possible collusion.
    you can’t un-collude TrumpCo by saying people should not have been looking for possible collusion.

  552. you can’t un-collude TrumpCo by saying people should have been looking for possible collusion.
    you can’t un-collude TrumpCo by saying people should not have been looking for possible collusion.

  555. bc, sorry for not acknowledging your reply, there was a cleanup on aisle 4 and after that, I took a break.
    I’m glad that you said you didn’t post this in bad faith, and I would just note that I said:
    . . .the concern about the Carter Page warrants seems a lot like crocodile tears.
    If you say that it wasn’t bad faith, I accept that, but the reasoning for saying it _seemed_ like bad faith was as cleek points out. As I said before, I know the basic facts about FISA and I also know that as an American citizen living abroad, I am probably subject to them because I reside overseas and followed that discussion earlier, but have little interest in sorting out ones related to Carter Page. I do think that Russell did provide a rather detailed rebuttal and whether it is 2, 4 6 or whatever, well, to quote someone, it’s not really a conversation I wish to undertake…
    As to the other things, I’m not going to go back over what was being discussed, I’ve not been following this closely, and if my comment about leaving a mark was too harsh, my apologies. I’d just point out that if someone is behaving badly and another person chimes in to way ‘wait a minute, they have a point’, that will likely be seen as supporting the poor behavior. You are concerned with delegitimizing opinion, I tend to be more concerned that opinion be exchanged. This may require holding one’s tongue on occasion and letting points pass that one might feel strongly about.
    In what should be a separate comment, but I tag it on here, the joke about amen is a cute bit of wordplay, but the word derives from Semitic root a-m-n ‘to confirm or support’ and as such, has no relationship to gender.
    This reminds me that there was a campaign on a similarly misapprended word at the U of Oregon which was to change the school motto, which was Mens agitat molem (“Minds move the mass”)

  556. bc, sorry for not acknowledging your reply, there was a cleanup on aisle 4 and after that, I took a break.
    I’m glad that you said you didn’t post this in bad faith, and I would just note that I said:
    . . .the concern about the Carter Page warrants seems a lot like crocodile tears.
    If you say that it wasn’t bad faith, I accept that, but the reasoning for saying it _seemed_ like bad faith was as cleek points out. As I said before, I know the basic facts about FISA and I also know that as an American citizen living abroad, I am probably subject to them because I reside overseas and followed that discussion earlier, but have little interest in sorting out ones related to Carter Page. I do think that Russell did provide a rather detailed rebuttal and whether it is 2, 4 6 or whatever, well, to quote someone, it’s not really a conversation I wish to undertake…
    As to the other things, I’m not going to go back over what was being discussed, I’ve not been following this closely, and if my comment about leaving a mark was too harsh, my apologies. I’d just point out that if someone is behaving badly and another person chimes in to way ‘wait a minute, they have a point’, that will likely be seen as supporting the poor behavior. You are concerned with delegitimizing opinion, I tend to be more concerned that opinion be exchanged. This may require holding one’s tongue on occasion and letting points pass that one might feel strongly about.
    In what should be a separate comment, but I tag it on here, the joke about amen is a cute bit of wordplay, but the word derives from Semitic root a-m-n ‘to confirm or support’ and as such, has no relationship to gender.
    This reminds me that there was a campaign on a similarly misapprended word at the U of Oregon which was to change the school motto, which was Mens agitat molem (“Minds move the mass”)

  557. This reminds me that there was a campaign on a similarly misapprended word at the U of Oregon which was to change the school motto, which was Mens agitat molem (“Minds move the mass”)
    I give you niggardly, formerly a perfectly good word, now verbum non gratum.
    And on the subject of words and pedantry (were we talking about that?), I went to our local library book group via Zoom on Monday night, and a guy I don’t know well, but whom I have always liked a lot as a casual acquaintance, further endeared himself to me by not only using the word “machinations,” but pronouncing it correctly. I’m pretty sure that’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone do that.
    I’ll keep waiting for “forte” in its “strength” meaning.
    Though I suppose with the latter, it’s used commonly enough, and mispronounced so universally, that a descriptive approach would suggest that the “mis”pronounciation is by now perfectly acceptable.
    lj can rule on that one, he’s the linguist.
    Back to bed for me……

  558. This reminds me that there was a campaign on a similarly misapprended word at the U of Oregon which was to change the school motto, which was Mens agitat molem (“Minds move the mass”)
    I give you niggardly, formerly a perfectly good word, now verbum non gratum.
    And on the subject of words and pedantry (were we talking about that?), I went to our local library book group via Zoom on Monday night, and a guy I don’t know well, but whom I have always liked a lot as a casual acquaintance, further endeared himself to me by not only using the word “machinations,” but pronouncing it correctly. I’m pretty sure that’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone do that.
    I’ll keep waiting for “forte” in its “strength” meaning.
    Though I suppose with the latter, it’s used commonly enough, and mispronounced so universally, that a descriptive approach would suggest that the “mis”pronounciation is by now perfectly acceptable.
    lj can rule on that one, he’s the linguist.
    Back to bed for me……

  559. I mentioned my kooky sister-in-law recently and her desire to go to DC on 1/6. In one of her online rants, she mentioned that Democrats were going to force people to say “amen and awomen.” I had no idea what she was on about and didn’t bother to look into it at the time. Leave it to ObWi commentary to make it worth my while and set me straight!

  560. I mentioned my kooky sister-in-law recently and her desire to go to DC on 1/6. In one of her online rants, she mentioned that Democrats were going to force people to say “amen and awomen.” I had no idea what she was on about and didn’t bother to look into it at the time. Leave it to ObWi commentary to make it worth my while and set me straight!

  561. I should be able to simply point out a fact without a broadside in return.
    You makes your picks, you take your licks. It’s an opinion board. I know, I’ve taken a lot of licks…like where do I start? That time I defended the Weathermen? My rants about “defund the police”? LOL. Well, live and learn I say. I value the exchange, not the win/loss ratio (mine is below the Mendoza line).
    For example, now I will have to look up the pronunciation of “forte”. I’ve always thought it to be two distinct syllables. We’ll see.
    Live and learn.
    Have a good day.

  562. I should be able to simply point out a fact without a broadside in return.
    You makes your picks, you take your licks. It’s an opinion board. I know, I’ve taken a lot of licks…like where do I start? That time I defended the Weathermen? My rants about “defund the police”? LOL. Well, live and learn I say. I value the exchange, not the win/loss ratio (mine is below the Mendoza line).
    For example, now I will have to look up the pronunciation of “forte”. I’ve always thought it to be two distinct syllables. We’ll see.
    Live and learn.
    Have a good day.

  563. “forte” came to English from French, and, in musical notation, from Italian. The French pronounciation has one syllable, the Italian has two. I suppose that “forte”, in the sense of the thing one’s best at, used to be pronounced as one syllable as JanieM suggests, but I don’t recall ever hearing it said that way.

  564. “forte” came to English from French, and, in musical notation, from Italian. The French pronounciation has one syllable, the Italian has two. I suppose that “forte”, in the sense of the thing one’s best at, used to be pronounced as one syllable as JanieM suggests, but I don’t recall ever hearing it said that way.

  565. The ability if English to scramble words while borrowing them cannot be overstated. And we borrow a lot. Which is, to my mind, a strength. We definitely don’t need something like the Académie Française attempting to enforce the “purity of the language” on such things — that’s my libertarian side coming out.

  566. The ability if English to scramble words while borrowing them cannot be overstated. And we borrow a lot. Which is, to my mind, a strength. We definitely don’t need something like the Académie Française attempting to enforce the “purity of the language” on such things — that’s my libertarian side coming out.

  567. BTW, it’s not just the 2 FISA applications, lj. All were tainted.
    Correct.
    If I’m not mistaken (no guarantees of that) Clinesmith’s statement about Page not being a CIA source was made in one of the later applications, for renewal of surveillance.
    But all of the applications, including the first one, contain misleading omissions of fact material to the application.
    It doesn’t boggle my mind that applications are fudged and such given human nature, even though that offends me
    That is pretty much all I was trying to say with my “need to get out more” comment. Sorry if the snark got in the way of the message.
    And in case it’s not clear, I appreciate the fact-based discussion of all of this. Thanks for de-lurking and chiming in.
    she mentioned that Democrats were going to force people to say “amen and awomen.”
    To quote the great Burt Lahr, “if I were king”, I think I would buddy up every Trump supporter with a dreaded coastal elitist liberal and make them spend every waking moment together, for like a month.
    It would no doubt be eye-opening, hopefully in a mostly good way, in both directions.
    Not gonna happen, not least because I am not and should not and never will be king nor want to be. But enemies up close often turn out to be more like you than not.
    Onward and upward. Stay safe everyone.

  568. BTW, it’s not just the 2 FISA applications, lj. All were tainted.
    Correct.
    If I’m not mistaken (no guarantees of that) Clinesmith’s statement about Page not being a CIA source was made in one of the later applications, for renewal of surveillance.
    But all of the applications, including the first one, contain misleading omissions of fact material to the application.
    It doesn’t boggle my mind that applications are fudged and such given human nature, even though that offends me
    That is pretty much all I was trying to say with my “need to get out more” comment. Sorry if the snark got in the way of the message.
    And in case it’s not clear, I appreciate the fact-based discussion of all of this. Thanks for de-lurking and chiming in.
    she mentioned that Democrats were going to force people to say “amen and awomen.”
    To quote the great Burt Lahr, “if I were king”, I think I would buddy up every Trump supporter with a dreaded coastal elitist liberal and make them spend every waking moment together, for like a month.
    It would no doubt be eye-opening, hopefully in a mostly good way, in both directions.
    Not gonna happen, not least because I am not and should not and never will be king nor want to be. But enemies up close often turn out to be more like you than not.
    Onward and upward. Stay safe everyone.

  569. I am not and should not and never will be king nor want to be.
    Can’t blame you. It’s a hard and tedious job (if one takes one’s responsibilities seriously, as you do). But I think you’d do it well, if ill fortune dropped the job in your lap.

  570. I am not and should not and never will be king nor want to be.
    Can’t blame you. It’s a hard and tedious job (if one takes one’s responsibilities seriously, as you do). But I think you’d do it well, if ill fortune dropped the job in your lap.

  577. In German forte is definitely two syllables and we take it to be Italian. It’s used far more often in the context of music than in the meaning of someone’s strength.
    I assume the opposite is never used since it will be misunderstood 100% of the time as about the possession of a keyboard instrument, although that may be a weakness in itself 😉

  578. In German forte is definitely two syllables and we take it to be Italian. It’s used far more often in the context of music than in the meaning of someone’s strength.
    I assume the opposite is never used since it will be misunderstood 100% of the time as about the possession of a keyboard instrument, although that may be a weakness in itself 😉

  579. To quote the great Burt Lahr, “if I were king”, I think I would buddy up every Trump supporter with a dreaded coastal elitist liberal and make them spend every waking moment together, for like a month.
    I know a few married couples who fit the bill. I don’t know how they do it.

  580. To quote the great Burt Lahr, “if I were king”, I think I would buddy up every Trump supporter with a dreaded coastal elitist liberal and make them spend every waking moment together, for like a month.
    I know a few married couples who fit the bill. I don’t know how they do it.

  581. Teething problems:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-eu-johnson/uks-johnson-lots-of-brexit-teething-problems-but-fishing-will-gain-idUSS8N2J401J
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Eg7nzBPqw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR6KOHZySUg
    And this is nothing, what isn’t, but I love how people’s names grow into their job descriptions or other life roles:
    “The Biden transition team also announced a number of other additional White House staff, including campaign national press secretary TJ Ducklo as deputy White House press secretary. Ducklo is currently a spokesman for the Biden-Harris transition.”

  582. Teething problems:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-eu-johnson/uks-johnson-lots-of-brexit-teething-problems-but-fishing-will-gain-idUSS8N2J401J
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Eg7nzBPqw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR6KOHZySUg
    And this is nothing, what isn’t, but I love how people’s names grow into their job descriptions or other life roles:
    “The Biden transition team also announced a number of other additional White House staff, including campaign national press secretary TJ Ducklo as deputy White House press secretary. Ducklo is currently a spokesman for the Biden-Harris transition.”

  583. Further to the reuters link about the fishing situation, here is the honourable member for the 18th Century in the Commons with his comment on this matter, after Scottish fishermen demonstrated about the changes, saying they had been sold down the river after voting for Brexit, and expressing surprise (!) that Farage had not joined them in their protest.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiKmqY_RNME

  584. Further to the reuters link about the fishing situation, here is the honourable member for the 18th Century in the Commons with his comment on this matter, after Scottish fishermen demonstrated about the changes, saying they had been sold down the river after voting for Brexit, and expressing surprise (!) that Farage had not joined them in their protest.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiKmqY_RNME

  585. Teething problems
    How the hell does somebody who is apparently living in 1st world conditions in the 21st C go 20 years without brushing their teeth?
    I stand amazed.
    Also, too, the thing with the bluefish is legit. My grandfather’s buddy Henry lost an index finger from the last knuckle down to a bluefish.
    Some fish fight back.

  586. Teething problems
    How the hell does somebody who is apparently living in 1st world conditions in the 21st C go 20 years without brushing their teeth?
    I stand amazed.
    Also, too, the thing with the bluefish is legit. My grandfather’s buddy Henry lost an index finger from the last knuckle down to a bluefish.
    Some fish fight back.

  587. On phone so cannot link, but look up (I think) spike milligna, that well-known typing error, and his “English teeth, happy teeth, three cheers for the brown, white and black!” (done from memory)

  588. On phone so cannot link, but look up (I think) spike milligna, that well-known typing error, and his “English teeth, happy teeth, three cheers for the brown, white and black!” (done from memory)

  589. Just keep playing that old pianoforte (it.: soft-strong).
    Got schooled once by an italian…I think we were in France at the time?..
    French: Café coffee, one syllable
    Italian: Caffe (Caf-fe, you pronounce BOTH f’s separately).
    and besides those French baristas make their espresso too weak.

  590. Just keep playing that old pianoforte (it.: soft-strong).
    Got schooled once by an italian…I think we were in France at the time?..
    French: Café coffee, one syllable
    Italian: Caffe (Caf-fe, you pronounce BOTH f’s separately).
    and besides those French baristas make their espresso too weak.

  593. Got schooled once by an italian…I think we were in France at the time?..
    French: Café coffee, one syllable…
    Obviously not, but there is an English word “caff”, with one syllable, roughly equivalent to an American diner, but with worse teeth.

  594. Got schooled once by an italian…I think we were in France at the time?..
    French: Café coffee, one syllable…
    Obviously not, but there is an English word “caff”, with one syllable, roughly equivalent to an American diner, but with worse teeth.

  595. Herewith
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/28/joe-biden-liberal-crusader/
    a suggestion that, when it comes to actual results, Biden may prove to be the most liberal president in a long time.
    If Congressional (or other) Republicans want to know why, they need only look in a mirror. If you refuse all compromise when others try to work with you, it can be no surprise that they eventually give up and just start doing what they want without any regard for your views. You’ve made your bed. Now you get to lie in it.

  596. Herewith
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/28/joe-biden-liberal-crusader/
    a suggestion that, when it comes to actual results, Biden may prove to be the most liberal president in a long time.
    If Congressional (or other) Republicans want to know why, they need only look in a mirror. If you refuse all compromise when others try to work with you, it can be no surprise that they eventually give up and just start doing what they want without any regard for your views. You’ve made your bed. Now you get to lie in it.

  597. Well, I expect to get nothing but crumbs from eating ham sandwiches in my made bed, but that’s OK, after the past four years.

  598. Well, I expect to get nothing but crumbs from eating ham sandwiches in my made bed, but that’s OK, after the past four years.

  599. And, for the sake of completeness:
    Teeth by Spike Millgan
    English Teeth, English Teeth!
    Shining in the sun
    A part of British heritage
    Aye, each and every one.
    English Teeth, Happy Teeth!
    Always having fun
    Clamping down on bits of fish
    And sausages half done.
    English Teeth! HEROES’ Teeth!
    Hear them click! and clack!
    Let’s sing a song of praise to them –
    Three Cheers for the Brown Grey and Black.

  600. And, for the sake of completeness:
    Teeth by Spike Millgan
    English Teeth, English Teeth!
    Shining in the sun
    A part of British heritage
    Aye, each and every one.
    English Teeth, Happy Teeth!
    Always having fun
    Clamping down on bits of fish
    And sausages half done.
    English Teeth! HEROES’ Teeth!
    Hear them click! and clack!
    Let’s sing a song of praise to them –
    Three Cheers for the Brown Grey and Black.

  601. You’ve made your bed. Now you get to lie in it.
    thing is, they’re writing a new version the same song they sold so many copies of during Obama’s first term: slap his hand away and then, in unison, chant “the other guy’s fault! the other guy’s fault!” the rubes already know the words and the melody is pretty much the same. they’ll keep singing that tune at least until the next midterms, by which time enough of the media will be humming along to make the it a #1 smash at the voting booth. it’ll just be in a somewhat lighter key this time.
    flip the record over if you want to hear the B side, “He’s A Commie”.

  602. You’ve made your bed. Now you get to lie in it.
    thing is, they’re writing a new version the same song they sold so many copies of during Obama’s first term: slap his hand away and then, in unison, chant “the other guy’s fault! the other guy’s fault!” the rubes already know the words and the melody is pretty much the same. they’ll keep singing that tune at least until the next midterms, by which time enough of the media will be humming along to make the it a #1 smash at the voting booth. it’ll just be in a somewhat lighter key this time.
    flip the record over if you want to hear the B side, “He’s A Commie”.

  605. They’ll sing the same song. The thing is, it’s looking like the Democrats have (finally) decided that the only viable response is to just ignore them and get on with what they think should be done.
    If you believe the polls, most of the population (including a plurality of Republican voters in many cases) want those things done, too. And getting them done rather takes the punch out of the “Washington is broken, so vote for us” campaign theme.

  606. They’ll sing the same song. The thing is, it’s looking like the Democrats have (finally) decided that the only viable response is to just ignore them and get on with what they think should be done.
    If you believe the polls, most of the population (including a plurality of Republican voters in many cases) want those things done, too. And getting them done rather takes the punch out of the “Washington is broken, so vote for us” campaign theme.

Comments are closed.