Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, April 16, 2018

OTP 2018 Apr 16: Beto strikes out but is a hit at baseball fundraiser

“I guarantee you he didn’t just get three pitches and three strikes like his old man,” said O’Rourke.

He can afford a laugh, since he has dusted Cruz in fundraising by taking in an eye-popping $6.7 million in the first three months of this year. That’s more than twice the $3.2 million gathered by Cruz, whose tally counted money from multiple campaign entities including a political action committee.

O’Rourke won’t take PAC money, a stand that’s expected to put him at a fundraising disadvantage as the general election nears. He said Saturday that he and his supporters are “doing this 100 percent the right way. There are no political action committees, no corporations.

 

“It’s just the people, the people of Texas, and you all look awesome,” O’Rourke told supporters who filled The Long Time grounds with a laid-back vibe as they sipped beer, wine, lemonade or water, sitting on blankets, a small stand of bleachers and scattered chairs; children and amiable dogs milling around.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 08:18 AM | 1328 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics, strikeouts, texas

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 9 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
   801. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:12 PM (#5656753)
Times The Yankee Clapper used 'blatantly' on the previous page: four. Can he top that on page nine? Or will he first drown in the pool of nervous sweat in which he floats?
   802. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:14 PM (#5656754)
Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment was explicitly tied to the constitutional principle of hc & m. In the hypo, and under your fanatical suggestions, it isn't.


I love how you (and Clapper) keep pretending that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has some sort of specific and explicit definition in the criminal code... I don't think coining shorthand makes it any more compelling, but you do have your little ploys.

I will, of course, defer to Greg K's universally acknowledged expertise on the subject -

But my understanding - to the limits of my certainly novice legal legal and historical knowledge -

Is that we're essentially talking common law here... and the phrase was essentially borrowed from English common law.

So... again - I'll accept corrections as necessary -

I believe Francis Bacon's impeachment was on loose grounds of "corruption" - namely, that he accepted the same sort of tributes as Chancellor that had long been customary... but due to being in debt (to the wrong) people, lost his position over Edward Coke's (long-standing) enmity who brought forth official charges. In effect, a political enemy simply turned a longstanding and accepted practice into a "High crime and misdemeanor". Despite this - I think Coke is still regarded as a rather legendary jurist and legal mind of the era.

Cranefield, I'm less familiar with, but I think his impeachment was even less well defined - basically, "corruption", but mostly because he opposed going to war with Spain.

Villiers (damn the English and their hereditary titles that force you to forego more unique naming conventions), IIRC, was just sheer incompetence. Greg, again, can correct me - but I don't think he actually got removed (didn't the king just dissolve parliament? I vaguely recall there were rumors of a love that certainly did not speak its name in the period).
   803. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:28 PM (#5656756)
tl;dr Clapper, take your pick:

Nothing to see here!

or

All is well!
   804. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:34 PM (#5656759)
Zonk doesn't seem to realize that arguing that Congress almost impeached Andrew Johnson (but for a single vote!) on improper grounds, isn't really a good argument for impeaching Donald Trump on improper grounds. The Tenure In Office Act was blatantly unconstitutional, and, as previously discussed, the other claims were bogus. Most observers think acquitting Andrew Johnson was the correct decision, and it has nothing to do with Zonk's absurd claim that everyone was conned by Dunning. Just for clarification, would that include Jack Kennedy (OK, Arthur Schlesinger), who was pretty clear about the matter when handing out profiles in courage.


Ha!

I couldn't have parodied this any better if I had stole Clapper's PW.

I argue he's lost in antiquated Dunning School theory and Clapper's response is "OH yeah! What about Profiles in Courage!!!!!" (published: 1955).
   805. Srul Itza Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:34 PM (#5656760)
Supposedly, Rudy Giuliani’s "joining the legal team defending the president against special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential Russian collusion."

“I’m doing it because I hope we can negotiate an end to this for the good of the country and because I have high regard for the president and for Bob Mueller,” Giuliani told The Washington Post.


For Trump's sake, I hope he is negotiating and not litigating. Rudy is good at screaming across a table. Not so hot in the Courtroom.
   806. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:43 PM (#5656767)
If McCabe committed crimes, he should be prosecuted. Nothing McCabe did, in my mind, would obviate anything Mueller finds worthy of prosecution. Are you thinking it should?


This is getting surreal.

I mean, it's been mentioned several times by several people before, but it's probably important that it be continually pointed out every time the Trumpanzees go another round of DEEP STATE! DEEP STATE!...

The "less than candid" charges about McCabe's leaking were wholly and entirely related to leaks that formed of the foundation of WSJ stories were damaging to Hillary Clinton.

By all means, charge him, whatever... let's just not start revising history and pretend that ultimately, his lack of candor wholly and totally didn't involve lying/being less than complete regarding leaks that hurt Clinton.

Surreal.
   807. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5656769)
Rudy is good at screaming across a table. Not so hot in the Courtroom.

Is this really his rep? He was pretty famous as a prosecutor, especially on the Mob. I am not a lawyer, so don't know his legal skill.
   808. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:50 PM (#5656771)
I love how you (and Clapper) keep pretending that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has some sort of specific and explicit definition in the criminal code... I don't think coining shorthand makes it any more compelling, but you do have your little ploys.

I will, of course, defer to Greg K's universally acknowledged expertise on the subject -

But my understanding - to the limits of my certainly novice legal legal and historical knowledge - Is that we're essentially talking common law here... and the phrase was essentially borrowed from English common law. So... again - I'll accept corrections as necessary -

Trying to put everything through an anti-Trump spin leads to some serious self-beclowning. Zonk has it pretty much backwards. The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the English "Anything Goes" impeachment excesses, and deliberately chose not to go down that path, opting for the more rigorous Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors standard. Zonk's response is essentially "ha-ha, there's no way to enforce that if Congress is sufficiently motivated to disregard the Constitutional requirements". I continue to be surprised that he thinks that is an appropriate argument. Congress, as much as the courts, is supposed to remain faithful to the Constitution.
   809. Srul Itza Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:56 PM (#5656772)
He was pretty famous as a prosecutor, especially on the Mob.


Going after the Mob was a matter of turning people, wiretaps, etc. Not a hard as all that, and there are career prosecutors and federal agents who specialize in organized crime to help.

Financial crimes are far more complicated, and more relevant to Trump's situation (Comey's "mob boss" comment notwithstanding). Rudy tried to make a name for himself here, going after "Wall Street Criminals". His flashy arrests and perp walks usually ended badly, though, with acquittals and dismissals.

Oh, and he was "famous as a prosecutor" because he was the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (i.e., Manhattan). That position breeds fame. It also comes with some of the best and the brightest and the most ambitious lawyers in the Country as AUSA's, doing the real work.
   810. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 06:58 PM (#5656774)
FBI Inspector General recommends McCabe be criminally prosecuted for his myriad of lies under oath.

It was the Department of Justice Inspector General, an appointee of President Obama.
   811. Greg K Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:00 PM (#5656775)
First, thank you for your insight. You are very knowledgeable, and I'm just shooting out the most obvious of objections.

As for the present, yes, impeaching DJT and driving him from office would be less destabilizing than a bullet to the head, but would not signal progress, or a return to normal. Far better to hem him in politically with the threat of personal and political destruction rather than actually try to accomplish it.

Yeah I largely refrain from opining too much about current events, as it is pretty far outside my area of knowledge. When it comes to 21st century American politics I'm here to learn more than anything else.

That being said, it's my sense that a nakedly political impeachment of Trump is a cure worse than the disease.
   812. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:01 PM (#5656776)
Trying to put everything through an anti-Trump spin leads to some serious self-beclowning. Zonk has it pretty much backwards. The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the English "Anything Goes" impeachment excesses, and deliberately chose not to go down that path, opting for the more rigorous Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors standard. Zonk's response is essentially "ha-ha there's no way to enforce that if Congress is sufficiently motivated to disregard the Constitutional requirements". I continue to be surprised that he thinks that is an appropriate aregument. Congress, as much as the courts, is supposed to remain faithful to the Constitution.


Clearly.

That's obviously why they chose the vague "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" phrase... rather than "Crimes as defined as duly enacted legislation"... or "REAL 'high crimes and misdemeanors' including X, Y, and Z.

But, I guess I'll just keep beclowning myself...

Despite the fact that Clapper keeps citing only himself (oh, and JFK's 1955 book).
Because, you know...


James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.

With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.

But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.

Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
   813. Srul Itza Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:08 PM (#5656777)
That being said, it's my sense that a nakedly political impeachment of Trump is a cure worse than the disease.


Agreed. Most of the extreme Anti-Trump stuff relates to his being a bully and crude and racist/misogynist/etceraist, and to an existential fear that he is someday going to either try to usurp power or do something so bad and so stupid, that there are terrible consequences.

Yawn. He is been in office a year now. His incompetence and his mercurial nature have worked to keep him from doing much of anything. The filibuster still exists, and I think the Senate Republicans will never vote to do away with it because they WANT the Dems to keep them from doing something stupid.

In terms of passing bad laws (ie., laws I disagree with strongly) and following bad policies (ie., polices I disagree with strongly), well, I remember Ronald Reagan's first years in office, and he got a lot more done that I was vehemently against. And yet the Republic survived.

We survived the venality of Nixon. We survived the extremism of Reagan. We survived the stupidity of Bush II. We will survive the insanity of Trump.
   814. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:10 PM (#5656778)
Those arguing that Trumo can be impeached for maladministratin, or anything else Congress chooses, are not well-served by citing sources that make clear that the Constitutional Convention rejected that standard.
   815. Greg K Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:13 PM (#5656780)
Villiers (damn the English and their hereditary titles that force you to forego more unique naming conventions), IIRC, was just sheer incompetence. Greg, again, can correct me - but I don't think he actually got removed (didn't the king just dissolve parliament? I vaguely recall there were rumors of a love that certainly did not speak its name in the period).

Yes, Charles dissolved parliament before the impeachment proceedings could be completed.

And yes there were rumours of a certain nameless love. Though that was between Buckingham* and James. It's one of the great political achievements of the age that Buckingham managed to survive the transition between monarchs. Usually royal favourite boy-toys tend to be discarded by the son.

It's still a matter of some conjecture as to whether the relationship between James and Buckingham was sexual. I'm inclined to think it was. Though perhaps more politically relevant, contemporaries certainly assumed it was a sexual relationship. There's no hint or suggestion of any sexual relationship with Charles. They appear to have thought of each other as brothers. Buckingham was assassinated when Charles was 28, and I don't think he ever had as close a personal friendship with anyone for the rest of his life. Only Henrietta Maria really compares, as she and Charles had perhaps the most loving royal marriage in history.

*"Villiers" indeed. You'd best be careful what you call him. After John Eliot presented the articles of impeachment against Buckingham, Charles placed him under arrest. Apparently Eliot had referred to Buckingham as "this man" several times, which Charles took as a shocking affront to his dignity. Eliot famously replied later "I took him not for a God".

In sum, I think you paint a fairly accurate picture. Bacon and Cranfield got nailed on charges of corruption which were probably technically legitimate. But the "crimes" they committed were ones that every government official at the time did too. Cranfield (or, Middlesex as we should be calling him), got busted, as you note, for being the lone opposition to war with Spain. Bacon was kind of a sacrificial lamb. In 1621 James needed to prove he was running a tight ship, so the Commons demanded some examples be made. Coke (again as you note) had a lifelong rivalry with Bacon, so he nominated the poor bastard. Ironically, Bacon was the one who convinced James to adopt the "clean house" strategy.

For Buckingham the Commons used the shotgun approach. They charged with everything from incompetent management of the war, to nepotism, to poisoning James I. Some were crimes, some were just "this guy...we don't like this guy" charges. They ultimately didn't get tested out as the impeachment was never completed. But both contemporaries and historians saw the outcome as purely political.

Strafford's impeachment in 1641 is a bit more interesting on that score, because there actually was a conversation in parliament about "is it really legal to impeach someone just because we don't like him?" But again, that impeachment was never completed either.
   816. Greg K Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:15 PM (#5656781)
Trying to put everything through an anti-Trump spin leads to some serious self-beclowning. Zonk has it pretty much backwards. The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the English "Anything Goes" impeachment excesses, and deliberately chose not to go down that path, opting for the more rigorous Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors standard. Zonk's response is essentially "ha-ha, there's no way to enforce that if Congress is sufficiently motivated to disregard the Constitutional requirements". I continue to be surprised that he thinks that is an appropriate argument. Congress, as much as the courts, is supposed to remain faithful to the Constitution.

Again, my knowledge of the Founding Fathers or American law is limited. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a term that was used in English impeachments dating back to the beginning in the 14th century, and encompassed all sorts of general incompetence that falls short of what we would conventional think of as criminal acts.
   817. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:27 PM (#5656783)
Those arguing that Trumo can be impeached for maladministratin, or anything else Congress chooses, are not well-served by citing sources that make clear that the Constitutional Convention rejected that standard.


Adopting the standard used by English parliament... which, of course, covers a lot of ground.

George Mason - while it's not quite as simple/cut-and-dry - was actually on the other side of the aisle from the Federalists.... Indeed, a big chunk of the Federalist papers were actually directly written as responses to Mason's objections - and Mason's objections (not wholly or even mostly bound around the definition of impeachment, but generally) were basically the foundations of the anti-federalist papers.

So go ahead, keep citing yourself. Or hell - cite SBB... he likes you when you do that.

Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

This is made entirely clear that only one of us has bothered to cite any actual contemporaneous writings on the subject.... and indeed, I've cited both the anti-federalists (who feared a too powerful Chief Executive and - specific to impeachment - wanted an even looser standard for impeachment than what was ultimately enshrined... and the Federalists, who felt that strong chief executive was essential.

This is why you lose.

It's not like you can even cite anyone... because I'm actually the one citing even the more authoritarian/centralized/discretionary framers.

You've got nowhere further to go.

I'm not actually even citing the opponents of impeachments as written (at least as my foundation)... I'm just citing the compromisers from the other damn direction who clearly and obviously agreed.

FFS, you really can't go any further than the Federalists... at least, not without staying within the bounds of the blessed framers.

You want to pretend that there were magic pixie authoritarians. There weren't.

You're beyond the poles.

Go ahead and reformat, re-word, twist, or do whatever you please. The exact words are the exact words. And the exact words disagree with you.
   818. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:40 PM (#5656788)
maladministratin


Heh ... is that you, Pappy O'Daniel?
   819. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:45 PM (#5656789)
Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Every successful American impeachment has been for an actual crime. It is a little late in the game to argue that a President, or any other federal official, can be impeached for anything less. Zonk is not only arguing against the acquittal of Andrew Johnson, but that of Samuel Chase in 1805. That's a lot of history to toss aside just to get Donald Trump.
   820. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 07:57 PM (#5656797)
Again, my knowledge of the Founding Fathers or American law is limited. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a term that was used in English impeachments dating back to the beginning in the 14th century, and encompassed all sorts of general incompetence that falls short of what we would conventional think of as criminal acts.


I probably shouldn't risk my gentleman's C --

But my (again, hazy and perhaps inaccurate) recollection of courses long ago is that a lot of the turmoil of the early 17th century had somewhat abated by the 18th (last of the Jabobites about a generation before the American Revolution, no?)... so, too, had parliamentary use of impeachment to throttle the crown/depose political enemies. I.e., it was used far less often in the 18th/particularly latter 18th century.

Did have to look it up - but in fact, Warren Hasting was ultimately acquitted (though, years after the American constitution was settled, signed, and implemented).

Strictly for purposes of interpreting the framers of the US Constitution - I think this is the germane point.

The framers - all of them, on both sides of the centralized/decentralized divide - all accepted the same exact phrasing they inherited from English parliament. They were, I'm sure, quite well aware of the historical precedents (and problems)... but also certainly aware that its usage - under the vague definition - had waned.

This, actually, is why I think the question of simple majority vs 2/3 super-majority is so important.

The US constitutional framers quite often used math to create the necessary compromises... 3/5... 2/3... three coequal branches... etc.

However, they still used the same "high crimes and misdemeanors" language.

I'm perfectly comfortable leaning on the things actually written by the framers - Clapper can dance all he likes, it won't change the fact he won't be able to cite any Hamiltons, Masons, Madisons, etc who agree with him.

The framers clearly wanted to enshrine the ability of congress to remove an unfit chief executive and quite clearly didn't want it limited to actual treachery... but some of them feared its use as partisan cudgel.

Hence, you up the bar to 2/3 - and voila... done.
   821. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 19, 2018 at 08:15 PM (#5656800)

A big part of the problem - particularly with people of Clapper's age - is that they grew up with history books written under the guise of the Dunning School claptrap... War of Northern Aggression... it wasn't about slavery... Reconstruction was a crime... blahblahblah.
This is not only a bullshit strawman, but a circular bullshit strawman. "Oh yeah? But Johnson was a terrible president" is not a rebuttal to "Johnson's impeachment, being blatantly political, was highly improper." Yes, Johnson was a lousy president. But that's irrelevant to the issue, which is a legal one, not a historical one. People do not argue that Johnson's impeachment was improper because of the Dunning school; they argue that Johnson's impeachment was improper because it's a misuse of the impeachment process to remove a president because you don't like his lawful decisions. (Which even the Republicans of the era knew, which is why they had to come up with the Tenure of Office pretext.)
   822. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 08:33 PM (#5656809)
Every successful American impeachment has been for an actual crime. It is a little late in the game to argue that a President, or any other federal official, can be impeached for anything less. Zonk is not only arguing against the acquittal of Andrew Johnson, but that of Samuel Chase in 1805. That's a lot of history to toss aside just to get Donald Trump.


Trying to put words in my mouth isn't any more effective than citing yourself.

First, you have to do an awful lot of 'historical adjustment' to defend Chase... FFS, a Supreme Court justice actively hitting the campaign trail for a party? You want to defend that?

Second, if you want to defend Chase's actions in the Callender trial - which made up the bulk of his impeachment - go right ahead... Hard for me to see how any alleged JD would be rather discomforted by it, but whatever - your morality and ethics tend to rather... malleable.

Third, context counts. The ink on Marbury was barely dry.

Ultimately, in 1805 - when the blessed founders themselves were still coloring in the details on separation of powers... to say nothing of the fact that it was ultimately the flawed Alien & Sedition Acts that led to Chase acting as he did? That probably would have been a tough vote for me. Chase on the merits probably deserved to go. Chase in the context of a still-fledging judiciary that hadn't yet cemented itself as a coequal branch? Maybe I'd have let him slide for the greater good.

However, transport Chase and the articles a generation or two later? He gone.

James Callender was no peach himself - but he got charged under a highly dubious law that I presume nobody here will defend, and what's more - Chase's actions in his conviction likewise don't follow any norms that I think anyone here would also be too eager to defend.

I'll withhold any opinions on his death- Seth Rich stuff is kind of your people's cup of tea - except to note that by the time of his death, he managed to have enemies all over the place.

Regardless, you sure can pick 'em...

One of the worst Supreme Court justices and one of the worst Presidents... though, neither of whom come within spitting distance of Trump.

   823. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 08:47 PM (#5656813)
This is not only a bullshit strawman, but a circular bullshit strawman. "Oh yeah? But Johnson was a terrible president" is not a rebuttal to "Johnson's impeachment, being blatantly political, was highly improper." Yes, Johnson was a lousy president. But that's irrelevant to the issue, which is a legal one, not a historical one. People do not argue that Johnson's impeachment was improper because of the Dunning school; they argue that Johnson's impeachment was improper because it's a misuse of the impeachment process to remove a president because you don't like his lawful decisions. (Which even the Republicans of the era knew, which is why they had to come up with the Tenure of Office pretext.)


If you're not going to read the whole thing, I can't help.

But, in any case, you're wrong... Far beyond the "Lost Cause" nonsense, Dunning is most certainly responsible for the prevailing (again, thankfully lapsing) opinion regarding Johnson and especially, his impeachment.

Go ahead and cite 'Profiles in Courage'... Clapper already did.

More modern analysis, shorn of a century of bad historical analysis, does not agree. You'll find anything written about it in the last 40 years to take a decidedly different view.

In any case, my point remains that his 'decisions' weren't lawful prior to the Tenure Act... they just happened to be ion grounds that even the Radical Republicans were too queasy to fight.

But it's all moot anyway... because it doesn't matter... because had he been convicted, he'd have been removed. Even if the sole count he was convicted on was "bringing disgrace and ridicule to the office of the Presidency".
   824. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 08:48 PM (#5656814)
First, you have to do an awful lot of 'historical adjustment' to defend Chase... FFS, a Supreme Court justice actively hitting the campaign trail for a party? You want to defend that?

Second, if you want to defend Chase's actions in the Callender trial - which made up the bulk of his impeachment - go right ahead... Hard for me to see how any alleged JD would be rather discomforted by it, but whatever - your morality and ethics tend to rather... malleable.

Zonk again misses the point. Chase was acquitted, on some counts by very large margins, because even the most anti-Federalist Senators thought impeaching him for bad judging or his opinions was a poor precedent. One doesn't have to agree with Chase's rulings or actions to believe, as most legal scholars do, that acquittal was the correct decision. Again, Zonk wants to toss aside centuries of precedent just to make it easier to remove Donald Trump.
   825. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:00 PM (#5656819)
haha nunes' plan to selectively censor and leak comey's memos was already preempted by a leaker at DOJ that gave them to the AP.

can't wait for Trump's next tweet about how leakers should be shot.

   826. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:07 PM (#5656823)
Zonk again misses the point. Chase was acquitted, on some counts by very large margins, because even the most anti-Federalist Senators thought impeaching him for bad judging or his opinions was a poor precedent. One doesn't have to agree with Chase's rulings or actions to believe, as most legal scholars do, that acquittal was the correct decision. Again, Zonk wants to toss aside centuries of precedent just to make it easier to remove Donald Trump.


It's odd how you keep "citing" this "most" without actually ever citing anything, but whatever...

The reality is that Chase probably survived because, by all accounts, Joseph Hopkinson - perhaps the most brilliant attorney of the day - delivered a spectacular argument not so much in defense of Chase, but more in defense of the not even two-year old Marbury decision and the dangers of impeaching a Supreme Court justice in light of it... while the impeachment manager was, also by most accounts, awful.

None of which changes the fact that the impeachment still happened... and he would have been removed had he been convicted.

See, you keep trying to play these moot court games... hey - like I said - I'm sure you need to practice for next year, when it matters... and I'm also quite sure this will be your line of defense at that time: Less Trump, more "Oh noes! A real impeachment of a President! What a terrible precedent to do something the constitution says Congress can do!"

I'd wish you luck in continuing to perfectly coif your toga with the pretend teary-eyed "Republic! Republic!" lies... but of course, it would be a lie if I did.
   827. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:24 PM (#5656839)
The reality is that Chase probably survived because, by all accounts, Joseph Hopkinson - perhaps the most brilliant attorney of the day - delivered a spectacular argument not so much in defense of Chase, but more in defense of the not even two-year old Marbury decision and the dangers of impeaching a Supreme Court justice in light of it... while the impeachment manager was, also by most accounts, awful.

Sure, it was all the lawyers - couldn't have had anything to do with the case they had, or the principles. If Zonk had been there, it would have been different, no doubt. Same for Andrew Johnson. Those guys really lucked out that Zonk wasn't there. Poor Trump won't be so lucky, eh?

EDIT:
It's odd how you keep "citing" this "most" without actually ever citing anything, but whatever.

You have anyone besides yourself cheerleading for Chase's impeachment? Most legal scholars think his acquittal was important for the continued independence of the judicial branch. Of course, I haven't checked lately, perhaps some of them are also willing to abandon long held views if they can think of an anti-Trump rationale.
   828. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:32 PM (#5656845)
@jeffzeleney:
Shadowing Comey: @CNN has learned the Republican campaign to discredit the former FBI director is now turning to lions, including this fury costumed creature who will be tailing Comey on his upcoming book tour. This gives new meaning to the role of tracker....
   829. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:32 PM (#5656846)
First, you have to do an awful lot of 'historical adjustment' to defend Chase... FFS, a Supreme Court justice actively hitting the campaign trail for a party? You want to defend that?

Second, if you want to defend Chase's actions in the Callender trial - which made up the bulk of his impeachment - go right ahead... Hard for me to see how any alleged JD would be rather discomforted by it, but whatever - your morality and ethics tend to rather... malleable.
There's no question that Chase's behavior doesn't meet current standards for the judiciary, although that was less clear at the time. (Indeed, current standards are somewhat recent; Justice Jackson's relationship with FDR, for example, would've transgressed current bounds of propriety.) But that's an entirely separate issue from whether his impeachment was proper. By both the standards of his time -- as evidenced by the fact that he was acquitted -- and by modern standards, his impeachment was seen as political, and hence wrong.

You're the first person in a very long time I've encountered who actually thinks that either his or Johnson's impeachment was actually an appropriate use of the impeachment process. (Maybe the first person I've ever encountered defending Chase's impeachment.)


(With respect to Johnson, I am not challenging the argument that the Dunning school was the cause of sympathy towards Johnson vs. the Republicans. But the Dunning school was well out of favor by the time I was learning history -- I encountered it only from the perspective of "This is what people used to think" -- and historians (let alone legal scholars) still weren't defending Johnson's impeachment. It was still widely seen as a highly improper political maneuver, independent of who was right on the issue of Reconstruction.)
   830. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:35 PM (#5656850)
None of which changes the fact that the impeachment still happened... and he would have been removed had he been convicted.
None of which is relevant to whether it would have been correct. Dred Scott "happened." Korematsu "happened." Hell, you might as well defend John Hinkley by saying that nothing about killing the president being illegal changes the fact that the assassination attempt happened, and that Reagan would've been replaced if he had been killed.

EDIT: Or perhaps slightly more analogously, defending the Confederacy by noting that secession "happened," and that if the Union army had surrendered, the Confederacy would have seceded. I mean, that's certainly true, but if it had happened it would not have retroactively made secession lawful.
   831. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:38 PM (#5656851)
Newsweek:

Roger Stone, a former adviser to President Donald Trump, responded to the death of former First Lady Barbara Bush by calling her a "nasty drunk" in an Instagram post.

“Barbara Bush was a nasty drunk. When it came to drinking she made Betty Ford look like Carrie Nation #blottoBabs,” Stone wrote, hours after the former first lady's death. “Barbara Bush drank so much booze, if they cremated her … her body would burn for three days.”

When asked about his divisive statements by TheWrap, Stone doubled down.

"She said far worse things about me,” Stone told TheWrap. “Barbara Bush was a vindictive, entitled, mean-spirited woman. May she rest in peace.”'
   832. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:45 PM (#5656857)
Sure, it was all the lawyers - couldn't have had anything to do with the case they had, or the principles. If Zonk had been there, it would have been different, no doubt. Same for Andrew Johnson, Those guys really lucked out that Zonk wasn't there. Poor Trump won't be so lucky, eh?


It wouldn't have been different for Chase - and like I said, while I think Chase should have been impeached on the merits, in the context of 1805 I might well have been persuaded that a shitty judge sitting on the high court was worth permanently enshrining the still nascent principle of the judiciary as independent and coequal. Regardless, even my vote wouldn't have changed the result.

For Johnson, yeah - he is lucky... because unless you just randomize me into the Senate - or replace one of the conviction votes with me - he would have been convicted and removed.

The vote to remove Johnson was 35-19 to convict, but needed 36-18. The votes were more dispersed on Chase on the various counts, but the most serious/closest (one of the articles on Callender) was 19-15, three votes short.

This is exactly why I continue to defend the framers against your spurious attempts to undermine their genius... the 2/3 bar is a high one, so while I would certainly have no problem convicting Trump on "Article 1. He's an ####### who really has no business being President so let's be done with this nonsense" - I suspect enough of my Senate brethren would hem and haw about whether he's REALLY enough of an #######.

Ironically, this is why I'm quite sure I'll never sit on a jury - but in the opposite direction... "reasonable doubt"? Define that - specifically... is reasonable doubt 1%? 10% 25%? My bar would probably too high for a criminal conviction (Indeed, the one I time actually got called for jury duty - it was a capital case and I got dismissed before I answered honestly on the form that no, I could not render a guilty verdict that resulted in an execution).

Fortunately, though - I'll say for the umpteenth time that an impeachment is not a criminal trial.... and Hamilton set my bar.

- the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust
- peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

Trump has long since cleared both those bars for me. Maybe it would be of comfort to you and him that on a criminal trial? My vote might well be different.

FTR - Bush II would not have met my impeachment bar either. Trump does.
   833. tshipman Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:47 PM (#5656858)
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." --Gerald Ford

If there is a vote to impeach Trump, there will almost certainly be a crime attached to it. Yankee Clapper will almost certainly complain that it's a historic break from whatever precedent--no matter what the crime is.

Impeachment is a political process, and the great defense that any president has is that it must be supported by a huge supermajority, not just of congress, but of the country. If Trump is impeached, and that conviction is upheld, it will be because the American people largely agree with that action, otherwise there will be hell to pay for the congresspeople who vote to impeach.
   834. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:54 PM (#5656860)
There's no question that Chase's behavior doesn't meet current standards for the judiciary, although that was less clear at the time. (Indeed, current standards are somewhat recent; Justice Jackson's relationship with FDR, for example, would've transgressed current bounds of propriety.) But that's an entirely separate issue from whether his impeachment was proper. By both the standards of his time -- as evidenced by the fact that he was acquitted -- and by modern standards, his impeachment was seen as political, and hence wrong.
You're the first person in a very long time I've encountered who actually thinks that either his or Johnson's impeachment was actually an appropriate use of the impeachment process. (Maybe the first person I've ever encountered defending Chase's impeachment.)


Which is precisely why I explicitly said that I might very well have made some manner of contextual adjustment... in fact, I probably lean towards the idea that I probably would have acquitted.

Winners write history (well, except Dunning, I guess!) -- both impeachment votes did get majorities... just majorities short of the necessary super-majorities.

I do think that, with the benefit of hindsight - the principle that the Chase acquittal affirmed was valuable enough to overcome Chase. I disagree on Johnson... and while I'm not going to google around, I do think you'll find a lot more varied and nuanced opinions on Johnson.

That said, thanks to Clapper's timely reference - I probably shouldn't blame it all on Dunning... JFK's book most certainly helped, too. But - if folks want to cite the hallowed wisdom and historical acumen of John Kennedy.... well... I'm not even a JFK hater, indeed (especially in context), I'm probably on the other side. But - I certainly wouldn't cite him as any kind of hallowed authority.
   835. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:03 PM (#5656864)
I think of an impeachment (and removal from office) that was locally well known when I was growing up, that of NC Governor William Holden. He was impeached for suspending habeas corpus and calling out the militia (and various things that go along with such actions). He did so in 1870 after a black county commissioner and a white state senator were lynched in Alamance County, something the county sheriff (an admitted member of a group called the White Brotherhood) was disinclined to do anything about. So Holden did his thing and there was pitched warfare on the ground between Pittsboro and Yanceyville with 25 or 30 deaths and a bunch of arrests. Then the Republicans lost the 1870 legislative elections, and Holden was impeached on what was essentially a party line vote.

On the one hand, Holden probably did some illegal things. On the other hand, he was fighting against organized paramilitary terrorists who had the support of local law enforcement, and was impeached by people who got elected thanks in part to a program of violent voter intimidation.

I used to think of this a lot, because when I was growing up Alamance County was still a stronghold of the Klan. There were even Klan billboards on the highways there in the 1980s.

I have no idea what this means in regard to Trump.
   836. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:09 PM (#5656866)
Hey, zonk, what do you think of The Dunning School: Historians, Race, and the Meaning of Reconstruction? I'd been looking for a book like this for some time, and I just found and bought a relatively cheap new copy on abebooks. I have a few earlier books that cover much of the same ground, but I'd never heard of this newer one until I started reading this discussion and did a little googling.
   837. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:09 PM (#5656867)
None of which is relevant to whether it would have been correct. Dred Scott "happened." Korematsu "happened." Hell, you might as well defend John Hinkley by saying that nothing about killing the president being illegal changes the fact that the assassination attempt happened, and that Reagan would've been replaced if he had been killed.
EDIT: Or perhaps slightly more analogously, defending the Confederacy by noting that secession "happened," and that if the Union army had surrendered, the Confederacy would have seceded. I mean, that's certainly true, but if it had happened it would not have retroactively made secession lawful.


History cleans up its own messes... and not always quickly, cleanly, easily, or in the most optimal manner.

The Hinkley analogy is a bad one because nobody would ever suggest - regardless of views on Reagan - that it was legal for Hinkley to kill Reagan.

It's clearly and undeniably legal to impeach Trump for whatever reason it may happen. All glibness aside, I think we all know that when it happens - it's probably not going to be over articles like any of the ones I've jokingly tossed out.

If you want me to lie - I'm not under oath after all - and pretend that "oh noes! I'll withhold judgment until I hear the case!"... that seems pretty pointless.

Though, for the record, were I actually in the Senate - I do think the Senate rules do actually require me to take an oath prior to the impeachment trial and swear to judge each charge on the merits/evidence... and if I were in the Senate, I would do that.... which means that sure, for articles regarding actual crimes, I'd hear the evidence and decide accordingly.... but if the House included an article as hazy and obviously non-criminal as "disgrace and humiliation to the Presidency"? I'd judge that one on its merits, too.... and I already know where I'd land.

If we were BOTH in the Senate - and you opted to vote against conviction on such an article - I would very much keep pounding my exact same drum, keep citing Hamilton, keep citing Franklin, keep citing etc - and insist it's an entirely valid Article of Impeachment and your job was solely and strictly to decide on the merits of the charge as written... even if you have an underlying belief that the House was wrong to bring such a charge.
   838. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:11 PM (#5656869)
That said, thanks to Clapper's timely reference - I probably shouldn't blame it all on Dunning... JFK's book most certainly helped, too. But - if folks want to cite the hallowed wisdom and historical acumen of John Kennedy.... well... I'm not even a JFK hater, indeed (especially in context), I'm probably on the other side. But - I certainly wouldn't cite him as any kind of hallowed authority.

Especially since Profiles in Courage was ghostwritten by Ted Sorensen.
   839. BDC Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:13 PM (#5656873)
"high crimes and misdemeanors" is a term that was used in English impeachments dating back to the beginning in the 14th century, and encompassed all sorts of general incompetence that falls short of what we would conventional think of as criminal acts

I guess when I think of a possible Trump impeachment, I'm thinking of that category of misdemeanor, and hence of a process that (while inevitably political) might not even be partisan. There does have to be some point where even a president's own party sees that s/he has to be removed, as most Republicans eventually saw with Nixon. (And as both parties would have seen with Woodrow Wilson, had he been incapacitated in a more media-intensive era.)

Such a point does not absolutely have to be a crime, or else "high misdemeanor" is pointless, and it does not necessarily have to be a coma, as the 25th Amendment foresees; but it's somewhere in between. It's a good-of-the-country scenario. I'm not at all saying "I don't like overturning DACA (or whatever), let's impeach the #######."

As we often note with Bill Clinton's impeachment, it's actually massively stupid for an opposition party to seek such a removal, if we're talking pure partisan advantage. (And as the leftish folk here who are happier with Trump in power than Pence seem to agree.) In fact, it's almost more likely that a really disastrous president would be removed by his/her own party to preserve some shred of political advantage: which would be a removal just as partisan as removal by the opposition. But in any case, a given Presidential election is no more a suicide pact than the entire Constitution is. Impeachment (and the 25th) are necessary political safety procedures.

I guess Srul's point is valid, though: the federal government may be to some extent idiot-proof. Then again, Trump has several years to get worse.
   840. BDC Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:22 PM (#5656875)
And incidentally, I do think that JFK's (or Sorensen's) argument in Profiles in Courage is out of the Dunning School. Kennedy was a Democrat when the party still had a strong segregationist wing, and he floated the old party line there.

Ironically, removal of Johnson would hardly have changed a hair's-breadth of American history. Senator Ben Wade would (very briefly) have become President, and then Grant would have been elected exactly as he historically was. The situation in 1868 – a politically inept President with a huge, aggressive opposition Congressional majority – would hardly have established much of a precedent for future impeachments, because it would be very hard to recreate.
   841. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:38 PM (#5656885)
Impeachment (and the 25th) are necessary political safety procedures.

Only crackpots and fiction writers believe that the first time the 25th Amendment is invoked, it will be for political reasons. It's not an impeachment variant. If the president has an incapacitating stroke, break the glass, but it is not going to be invoked because a president's political foes keep calling him crazy.
   842. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:58 PM (#5656896)
Missed the edit window for 841, but to be precise, I should have said it's unlikely that "the first time the 25th Amendment is invoked, other than for a minor medical procedure, it will be for political reasons".
   843. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 10:59 PM (#5656897)
Hey, zonk, what do you think of The Dunning School: Historians, Race, and the Meaning of Reconstruction? I'd been looking for a book like this for some time, and I just found and bought a relatively cheap new copy on abebooks. I have a few earlier books that cover much of the same ground, but I'd never heard of this newer one until I started reading this discussion and did a little googling.


Oooh! A book I've actually read some of!

I think it's certainly interesting - though, I will sheepishly admit that I never did finish it (Kindled it prior to some work travel, work travel ended roughly halfway through and my laziness/other options caused me not to get through the final five essays).

Some of the pieces - I remember some fairly visceral reactions to the 2nd essay, mainly on Dunning himself - I thought were a bit too apologetic/tried too hard to contextualize, but in fairness, I was hardly reading it form an objective/scholarly viewpoint.

Most of the pieces are grounded in highly specific reactions to pieces from individual Dunning acolytes/students - and while it's well-written enough that I was never lost in the individual chapters, I certainly felt like I was reading some of them a bit too "cold"... i.e., on most of them, I kind of felt like I would have benefited from more homework on the primary source they were examining.

IOW - to be clear, it's more of a historical analysis of the historians/the works of the historians...

But if it's actually a history of the historical school you're after - top-notch.
   844. BDC Posted: April 19, 2018 at 11:07 PM (#5656900)
If the president has an incapacitating stroke, break the glass, but it is not going to be invoked because a president's political foes keep calling him crazy

Yet as you keep pointing out, presidential candidates are on average 90+ years old these days :). The odds of a president someday behaving chronically erratically due to incipient dementia are going to increase. And frankly, a lot of Trump’s language is already indistiguishable from someone demented, or drunk. Where’s the point at which you take action? I don’t think it’s a bright medical line; I think it’s a tough political decision.
   845. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 19, 2018 at 11:14 PM (#5656902)
Hey, zonk, what do you think of The Dunning School: Historians, Race, and the Meaning of Reconstruction? I'd been looking for a book like this for some time, and I just found and bought a relatively cheap new copy on abebooks. I have a few earlier books that cover much of the same ground, but I'd never heard of this newer one until I started reading this discussion and did a little googling.

Oooh! A book I've actually read some of!

I think it's certainly interesting - though, I will sheepishly admit that I never did finish it (Kindled it prior to some work travel, work travel ended roughly halfway through and my laziness/other options caused me not to get through the final five essays).

Some of the pieces - I remember some fairly visceral reactions to the 2nd essay, mainly on Dunning himself - I thought were a bit too apologetic/tried too hard to contextualize, but in fairness, I was hardly reading it form an objective/scholarly viewpoint.

Most of the pieces are grounded in highly specific reactions to pieces from individual Dunning acolytes/students - and while it's well-written enough that I was never lost in the individual chapters, I certainly felt like I was reading some of them a bit too "cold"... i.e., on most of them, I kind of felt like I would have benefited from more homework on the primary source they were examining.

IOW - to be clear, it's more of a historical analysis of the historians/the works of the historians...

But if it's actually a history of the historical school you're after - top-notch.


Thanks, zonk, and that's exactly what I was looking for. It should arrive within a week or so and I'll give you my first impressions soon after that. Since it's apparently a collection of essays I'll probably cherry pick the ones that look most interesting rather than reading it straight through. When I really get ambitious I'm going to tackle DuBois's History of Reconstruction, which has been staring (or glaring) at me from one of my bookcases for the better part of 20 years.
   846. BDC Posted: April 19, 2018 at 11:17 PM (#5656903)
And just for the heck of it, from FOX News (can’t link well but the story’s easy to find):

Military officials announced disciplinary actions Wednesday against three Tennessee Air National Guard airmen after filming a re-enlistment ceremony in which an officer recited her oath using a dinosaur hand puppet.
   847. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2018 at 11:21 PM (#5656905)
Well, this should settle it. Nancy Pelosi at her News Conference Today:
Whether or not the President should be impeached is a matter that is being dealt with in the Justice Department. I don’t know that they are talking about impeachment, but whether they have the facts and the law to make a determination of how they go forward.

Hmmm.
   848. tshipman Posted: April 19, 2018 at 11:22 PM (#5656906)
Comey memos leaked:

The President said "the hookers thing" is nonsense but that Putin had told him "we have some of the most beautiful hookers in the world."
   849. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 11:27 PM (#5656909)
I guess when I think of a possible Trump impeachment, I'm thinking of that category of misdemeanor, and hence of a process that (while inevitably political) might not even be partisan. There does have to be some point where even a president's own party sees that s/he has to be removed, as most Republicans eventually saw with Nixon. (And as both parties would have seen with Woodrow Wilson, had he been incapacitated in a more media-intensive era.)

Such a point does not absolutely have to be a crime, or else "high misdemeanor" is pointless, and it does not necessarily have to be a coma, as the 25th Amendment foresees; but it's somewhere in between. It's a good-of-the-country scenario. I'm not at all saying "I don't like overturning DACA (or whatever), let's impeach the #######."

As we often note with Bill Clinton's impeachment, it's actually massively stupid for an opposition party to seek such a removal, if we're talking pure partisan advantage. (And as the leftish folk here who are happier with Trump in power than Pence seem to agree.) In fact, it's almost more likely that a really disastrous president would be removed by his/her own party to preserve some shred of political advantage: which would be a removal just as partisan as removal by the opposition. But in any case, a given Presidential election is no more a suicide pact than the entire Constitution is. Impeachment (and the 25th) are necessary political safety procedures.


I think that's why, again - I fall back on the genius of the framers using the 2/3 bar (and will continue to defend the hallowed founders against Clapper's attempts to undermine them!)

It's not a binary thing, especially/particularly at the Presidential level.

It's always going to require what amounts to a coalition.

Let's pretend we live in magic Trump fairy land... and upon his ascension to the throne, China said "golly, this tough, MAGA genius means business! The Chinese government hereby proclaims we will pay a $20K annual stipend to all the blue collar Americans we screwed! And we so solly!"... and then a world meeting of radical imams decides the same - "geez, we're in trouble now! Enough of this - we are now the Islamic branch of Episcopalians with Quaker-esque non-violent views!".... and then all the Mexicans go home form a line behind the wall they built for Trump... and gangster rappers pull up their pants... and woman universally wearing "Grab Me Here! It's OK! You have that right!" crotch-stenciled yoga pants.

You think Trump is gonna get impeached because he shot someone on 5th avenue?

Nonsense.

   850. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 19, 2018 at 11:35 PM (#5656911)
Well, this should settle it. Nancy Pelosi at her News Conference Today:


I'm sure you and Nancy will be very happy together.

Sadly, I don't feel nearly the compunction in disagreeing with Pelosi - or even rolling my eyes at what she says (Huh? The justice department? Is that a new state with Senators?) - as you do i/r/t Trump.

Some of us are weird that way.

Also sadly, but in a different way, I'm not so sure I'd be putting my eggs in Pelosi's basket to keep your boy in orange, presidential velour... but its a free country, so you're free to invest as much trust in her protection of Trump as you have in Paul Ryan's eternal speakerdom.
   851. tshipman Posted: April 19, 2018 at 11:46 PM (#5656918)
Well, this should settle it. Nancy Pelosi at her News Conference Today:
Whether or not the President should be impeached is a matter that is being dealt with in the Justice Department. I don’t know that they are talking about impeachment, but whether they have the facts and the law to make a determination of how they go forward.

Hmmm.


Pelosi is pretty clearly saying that the Ds will take their lead from the Mueller investigation's findings.
   852. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:01 AM (#5656921)
Full text of the Comey memos if you want to read them...

Truly surreal stuff.

Two thoughts.

#1 - For a guy who never ###### Russian hookers or never had Russian hookers pee on him... yeesh... he sure seems awfully interested in Russian hookers possibly captured peeing on him. Hmmmm....

#2 - and perhaps most importantly/the real breaking news from them - I see perhaps a spot of trouble for Reince. One of the memos concerns a conversation largely held with Priebus and seem to be things that Priebus was maybe a little eager about asking (Flynn, Russia, etc). The Trump stuff is more fun - but if there's a breaking news story here, I think it's about a new, and I think 'prebiusly' unknown memo about a discussion with Reincey. Might be worth watching, as some people like to say!
   853. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:17 AM (#5656922)
JFC!

It would seem that the Tennessee GOP has enough to concern themselves with this session to not get caught up in retaliation over the removal of Confederate statues in Memphis. Poverty, education, and health care are all pressing issues in the state. But instead of focusing on solving the challenges related to these constituent concerns, lawmakers filed multiple bills at the beginning of the session in January to provide additional protections to the statues. While the Tennessee House did not pass any bills in the first 3 weeks of their 15 week session (and the Senate passed only one), causing intraparty concern, House members did spend ample time debating the legality of the removal of these statues from Memphis. Their removal had been championed by black community leaders off-and-on for years in the majority-black city, which is also the largest in the state.

The harshest of these bills proposed making removal of confederate statues a felony, putting mayors and city leadership at risk for enacting the will of their residents. Had this bill been a law in late 2017, the statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest and Jefferson Davis would more than likely still be standing in Memphis. While the bill would not have applied retroactively, it would have a major impact on future decisions across Tennessee, especially in metro areas such as Nashville, where residents have also been calling for removal of Confederate monuments.

Fortunately, the bill wasn't passed, but can be resurrected in the next session. Unfortunately, the House found another way to "punish" Memphis -- by amending its budget to remove $250,000 earmarked for the city's upcoming bicentennial celebration in 2019. We can be sure the legislature will continue to find ways to get back at Memphis for removing two racist slave owners from our public parks.


I'd like to hear from Clapper, JE, et al, is this really what you want the the party you support to stand for? To enact legislation that prevents localities from removing monuments to traitors? Or punishes them if they do? Is this what the Republican Party is all about?
   854. Chicago Joe Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:28 AM (#5656924)
JE is otherwise occupied, and Clapper is having his code updated. Clapper's operator is just stealing money from Moscow at this point; probably the most uselesss bot ever.
   855. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:34 AM (#5656925)

Drop the attitude, Clapper. If Trump gets to get away with everything, fine, but this stuff isn't normal. Campaign managers getting indicted for money laundering and 'conspiracy against the United States' is not your everyday partisan squabbles. People are not deranged for pointing out how crazy this is.


Still waiting for Trump to be linked with Russia collusion.
   856. Chicago Joe Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:40 AM (#5656926)
Hell, I'm still waiting for something substantive to come out of Whitewater.
   857. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:51 AM (#5656928)
If [Trump] does submit to questioning, do you think he can possibly avoid perjuring himself, given his long history of lying at the rate of about 5 or 6 times a day?


You wouldn't think so, but Hillary was apparently able to, so, sure.
   858. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:55 AM (#5656929)
True. Comey testified that it was the tarmac meeting that moved him to decide to give his July speech about Hillary.

This seems to be leaving a little on the table here.
You can't really expect me to believe that James Comey thought Lynch was unbiased in this case. So - if there is no news story about a tarmac meeting, Lynch just says "no charges" and Comey -- just clams up?


I can't tell you what Comey would have done in a counterfactual. I can only tell you what he testified to. And what he said regarding Lynch's behavior was that both the "Call it a matter" and the tarmac meeting are what together moved him to make his public statement in July, with the tarmac meeting being the "deciding factor."

So he was revenging himself on Lynch/HRC for deferring to him?


He said he was trying to protect the reputation of the FBI.
   859. Chicago Joe Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:59 AM (#5656930)
I do find it amusing that you insist on putting HRC in the same category as DJT.
   860. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 01:07 AM (#5656931)
Just when you think Trump's scraped the bottom of the barrel with Michael Cohen, there's this.....

Giuliani says he is joining Trump’s legal team to ‘negotiate an end’ to Mueller probe


Would be a monumental blunder by Trump. Giuliani was a serious lawyer BITD when he was a US Attorney -- Dershowitz talked about him in his book The Best Defense which was written 35 years ago -- but he hasn't practiced law in decades as far as I can tell (and I'm not aware that he was ever a defense lawyer) and he's now pretty much a clown with cartoonish views on matters such as this.

I don't see how he could help in the Mueller probe. Certainly not by doing any actual lawyering, which you wouldn't want him to do. If the prosecutor isn't in the tank for the target as Lynch was for Hillary, you're not going to talk the prosecutor into throwing the game for the target. And that's all that Giuliani really offers at this point: connections and influence. But I don't think Mueller will be influenced by anything other than the facts he uncovers. And anything Giuliani "negotiates" for Trump with Mueller -- e.g., the scope of an interview -- is not likely to be in Trump's favor, because Giuliani is out of his depth and moreover is too concerned about mugging for the cameras and Doing Something so that he can say he was a big help.

Pass.
   861. zenbitz Posted: April 20, 2018 at 01:10 AM (#5656932)
He said he was trying to protect the reputation of the FBI.


"Mission Accomplished"
   862. Ray (CTL) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 01:16 AM (#5656933)
I do find it amusing that you insist on putting HRC in the same category as DJT.


She told three different versions of her story to the public, as far as sending/receiving classified material went. She also misled people (at least, those who didn't know any better) into thinking that whether something was classified turned on whether it was "marked classified." She also had lies about using "one device for convenience." On and on and on she told lie after lie after lie to the public.

Then when she got into her FBI interview she apparently told the truth.

If a congenital liar such as Hillary could do so -- someone who couldn't stop telling lies to the public but then suddenly told the truth to the FBI -- then Trump could do so.
   863. Stevey Posted: April 20, 2018 at 01:43 AM (#5656935)
Would be a monumental blunder by Trump.


This would seem to require there being a better lawyer willing to work for a guy known to shirk his bills and completely ignore what his lawyer advises. Anyone who doesn’t have to chase ambulances already has a better gig than representing Trump, and some of the chasers probably do too.
   864. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 20, 2018 at 02:23 AM (#5656937)
Well, this should settle it. Nancy Pelosi at her News Conference Today:

Whether or not the President should be impeached is a matter that is being dealt with in the Justice Department. I don’t know that they are talking about impeachment, but whether they have the facts and the law to make a determination of how they go forward.

Hmmm.

Pelosi is pretty clearly saying that the Ds will take their lead from the Mueller investigation's findings.

That's an interesting use of "pretty clearly", but if Pelosi was just somewhat awkwardly indicating that Dems would take their lead from Mueller or the DoJ, it would seem even clearer that she is suggesting that evidence of a crime is needed for impeachment. Neither Mueller nor the DoJ are investigating Trump for possible maladministration, political incompetence, or offputing personal style.
   865. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 02:32 AM (#5656938)

#1 - For a guy who never ###### Russian hookers or never had Russian hookers pee on him... yeesh... he sure seems awfully interested in Russian hookers possibly captured peeing on him. Hmmmm....


He’s fixated on Russian hookers in general. I like the idea that his first discussions with Putin somehow have the subject of Russian hookers broached for absolutely no reason.

I’m telling you, if Jesus hadn’t washed away all of his worldly sins I’d start to this Donald Trump was immoral.
   866. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 20, 2018 at 02:42 AM (#5656939)
I'm still waiting for something substantive to come out of Whitewater.

Whitewater led to 15 convictions on more than 40 counts:
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)
   867. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 20, 2018 at 03:05 AM (#5656940)
tshipman, #848:
Comey memos leaked:
The President said "the hookers thing" is nonsense but that Putin had told him "we have some of the most beautiful hookers in the world."


YR, #865:
He’s fixated on Russian hookers in general. I like the idea that his first discussions with Putin somehow have the subject of Russian hookers broached for absolutely no reason.


It's being noted that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin had had a grand total of one conversation when Trump recounted it to James Comey.

It's also being noted that a Russian TV clip of Putin either bragging or joking about Russia having the best-looking hookers HAD been shown on U.S. cable news.

And so, it's being suggested that Trump confused or conflated what he'd watched on television with an actual personal interaction.

Which wouldn't be his first. Previously, on numerous occasions, candidate Trump boasted of his "relationship" with Putin, who he'd never met or spoken to.

At a Trump-Clinton debate, he said, "I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes." During the time he was getting to know the Russian leader well, Trump's and Putin's 60 Minutes segments were being filmed on separate continents.
   868. perros Posted: April 20, 2018 at 05:10 AM (#5656942)
Yet as you keep pointing out, presidential candidates are on average 90+ years old these days :). The odds of a president someday behaving chronically erratically due to incipient dementia are going to increase. And frankly, a lot of Trump’s language is already indistiguishable from someone demented, or drunk. Where’s the point at which you take action? I don’t think it’s a bright medical line; I think it’s a tough political decision.

But it's actually got to be a tough political decision, preferably with bipartisan support and popular consensus. It can't be carried forth by people who have been seeking any reason to rid themselves of a leader they despise. I mean, you can do that, but you might not like the consequences.

Regardless, little need to exercise yet another round of wishful thinking.
   869. Ishmael Posted: April 20, 2018 at 05:43 AM (#5656943)
I never really got this. Is ordinary chess a piece of cake?

To our AI overlord AlphaZero it is, apparently.
   870. Hysterical & Useless Posted: April 20, 2018 at 05:44 AM (#5656944)
And so, it's being suggested that Trump confused or conflated what he'd watched on television with an actual personal interaction.


Is DJT a fan of old war movies? I hope not; it'd be awkward to have him call for an attack on some unsuspecting country because he got "confused" after watching Pork Chop Hill or The Sands of Iwo Jima.
   871. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 20, 2018 at 06:30 AM (#5656945)
Apparently the Kremlin is denying Vladimir Putin has ever discussed his proud nation's greatest resource, good-looking hookers, with Donald Trump.
   872. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 20, 2018 at 06:30 AM (#5656946)
Yesterday, the James Comey memos were...

CNN: "released"
MSNBC: "released"
Fox News: "uncovered"
   873. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: April 20, 2018 at 06:35 AM (#5656947)
It would seem that the Tennessee GOP has enough to concern themselves with this session to not get caught up in retaliation over the removal of Confederate statues in Memphis.
I just can't imagine why a city that's 65% black wanted to remove a statue of a founder of the KKK, whose troops were responsible for the Fort Pillow Massacre, from one of its largest parks. The city council are no better than the Taliban.
   874. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 20, 2018 at 07:06 AM (#5656949)
Let us welcome the new nation of eSwatini!

No official word on how hot their hookers are yet.
   875. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 20, 2018 at 07:53 AM (#5656952)
Trump says the Comey memos vindicate him...

It's kind of horrifying and yeah, perhaps a little jaw-dropping - but has anyone else noticed how the old, 2008 Sarah Palin troopergate response is now kind of SOP? I.e., "I'm glad to be vindicated" - when the report found the exact opposite of vindication...

I mean, hey - by all means - say Hillary tried it too, regarding her e-mails in some interview back in summer 2016... but she got called on it and had to walk it back.

For Trump, though, it's surreal... EVERYTHING vindicates him, even the things that indict him and his credibility vindicate him.

Sarah Palin could win a copyright infringement case against Trump for stealing her schtick and I'm sure that would vindicate him, too.
   876. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 20, 2018 at 07:56 AM (#5656953)
I do find it amusing that you insist on putting HRC in the same category as DJT.

She told three different versions of her story to the public, as far as sending/receiving classified material went. She also misled people (at least, those who didn't know any better) into thinking that whether something was classified turned on whether it was "marked classified." She also had lies about using "one device for convenience." On and on and on she told lie after lie after lie to the public.

Then when she got into her FBI interview she apparently told the truth.

If a congenital liar such as Hillary could do so -- someone who couldn't stop telling lies to the public but then suddenly told the truth to the FBI -- then Trump could do so.


So then I'm assuming that if you were Trump's lawyer, you'd advise him to allow himself to be interviewed under oath by Mueller, and that nothing he said would be contradicted by any evidence that Mueller has already dug up but hasn't made public.

Sounds reasonable to me. Let's just hope we'll get to see a test of your supposition.
   877. DavidFoss Posted: April 20, 2018 at 08:04 AM (#5656955)
Let us welcome the new nation of eSwatini!

I like the camel case! Maybe they'll become a hub for eCommerce. All of that 90s dot-com money might start flooding in.
   878. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 20, 2018 at 08:23 AM (#5656957)
We are still going to be hearing about Hillary and the 2016 election in 2024 aren't we? I get it conservatism likes the past and everything, but time does move on.

Anyway looking over the RCP Presidential approval polls

41.6 Approve
54.3 Disapprove (Net +12.7)

Not much to get excited about if you are a Trump supporter and zooming over to the generic ballot I am struck by how consistent it is over time. The trend line on it for D versus R is pretty darn flat. There are ups and downs, but man it seems really stable over time.

I am starting to think the results for the midterms are pretty much already locked in, absent something major happening.
   879. Greg K Posted: April 20, 2018 at 08:38 AM (#5656960)
Low approval rating seem to be the new market inefficiency.

Shinzo Abe is in the 20s and he just got re-elected. Michel Temer is Brazil has been in the single digits for a while now, though perhaps he is a special case.
   880. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 20, 2018 at 08:59 AM (#5656963)
Trying to match presidential approval ratings to upcoming midterm results is, to say the least, problematic. At the far edges-- POTUS in the toilet, POTUS soaring high-- yeah, there's some correlation. But the middle is kind of mushy, and not as parabolically predictable as people presume. (Try saying that in a Daffy Duck voice with a mouthful of cereal.)

41% or 42% for Trump isn't any good, but it's not seismically, historically bad.(*) You can't take a 41% President and say with any confidence, "His party's going to do worse in the midterms than a 48% President's party would." We are talking about a fairly small bag of data points here. The numbers correspond a little better with presidential year election results, though, which isn't super surprising.

(*)However, it seems that the current "the other side must suffer and die" political tenor has narrowed the approval rating spectrum. It's harder and less common to get a 29% or a 68% than it used to be. And Bush Jr. aside, there's been less noise in the timeline graphs. Trump's approval graph is flat enough that it looks almost like a country's flag design. So it's likely that Trump is closer to the bottom with his 41% than GHW Bush or Reagan or Carter were when they were at 41%.
   881. perros Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:04 AM (#5656965)

To our AI overlord AlphaZero it is, apparently

So it moved on to more complicated human endeavors.

Are we even pawns in its game?
   882. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:05 AM (#5656966)
Buried in the Giuliani story --


Trump also complained this week about Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, saying the judge had proved too liberal in recent cases, according to administration officials who heard about the complaints. Associates said he was incensed that Gorsuch had voted against the administration on an immigration case and said it renewed his doubts that Gorsuch would be a reliable conservative. One top Trump adviser played down the comments as unhappiness with Gorsuch’s decision rather than with Gorsuch broadly.


Gee.... it's too bad nobody pointed out this would probably happen! Still, I suppose we're not at Threat Level Tweet yet, so there's that.

Good thing all the folks who complained to BM about he didn't understand the case and Scalia and blahblahblah when this was EXACTLY his point got your practice in explaining it in.

Now, your explanations are well-honed enough that you can send them to the WH.... because Trump, open-minded, intellectually curious dude that he is, loves when people explain such things to him.
   883. Greg K Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:08 AM (#5656968)
So it moved on to more complicated human endeavors.

Are we even pawns in its game?

The machine can only beat us by not beating us.
   884. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:10 AM (#5656969)
Re: #882--
No need, Zonk. Clapper's post #810 on this very page suggests that pointing out which party's President appointed whom is once again a good thing.
   885. BDC Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:19 AM (#5656972)
Are we even pawns in its game?

I actually went to a lecture on metaphysics yesterday. The gist:

1) Derrida says that there is no pure gift; you always expect something in return.
2) Plato would say that God gives us pure gifts, among them our own existence.
3) A.O. Lovejoy would say that a God who needs to create people and give them stuff must be incomplete, and so must get something in return for all that giving.
4) Nobody makes rules for God.
   886. Lassus Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5656976)
1) Derrida says that there is no pure gift; you always expect something in return.

I really hate this kind of nihilistic phenomenology horseshit.
   887. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5656979)
Missed this one yesterday:

Appeals court rules against Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’
A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled Thursday against the Trump administration’s effort to withhold federal funds for law enforcement from “sanctuary cities” — saying the term itself is an unfair attack on local authorities.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled unanimously against the Justice Department, saying the administration wrongly sought to use “the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement.” All three of the judges who issued the opinion were appointed by Republican presidents....

Trump and other conservatives who have pushed for a crackdown on undocumented immigrants have used the term sanctuary cities to describe jurisdictions that don’t notify federal immigration agents when they have taken into custody possible undocumented aliens unless they have some reason to think the person poses a threat to public safety, such as an outstanding felony warrant.

The term sanctuary cities, the judges wrote, “is commonly misunderstood.” Chicago “does not interfere in any way with the federal government’s lawful pursuit of its civil immigration activities, and presence in such localities will not immunize anyone to the reach of the federal government. . . . The federal government can and does freely operate in ‘sanctuary’ localities.”

The ruling also criticized Sessions’s description of the dispute, saying he “repeatedly characterizes the issue as whether localities can be allowed to thwart federal law enforcement. That is a red herring. First, nothing in this case involves any affirmative interference with federal law enforcement at all, nor is there any interference whatsoever with federal immigration authorities.”...
   888. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:48 AM (#5656985)
Gee.... it's too bad nobody pointed out this would probably happen! Still, I suppose we're not at Threat Level Tweet yet, so there's that.

Good thing all the folks who complained to BM about he didn't understand the case and Scalia and blahblahblah when this was EXACTLY his point got your practice in explaining it in.


What a lovely Friday morning gift. Thanks! In fairness GOP President Trump being bitter at Gorsuch was about the easiest prediction in the world, which is why it was so utterly bizarre that I got such push back. But hey Trumpkins gonna Trumpkin.
   889. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:50 AM (#5656987)
1) Derrida says that there is no pure gift; you always expect something in return.
2) Plato would say that God gives us pure gifts, among them our own existence.
3) A.O. Lovejoy would say that a God who needs to create people and give them stuff must be incomplete, and so must get something in return for all that giving.
4) Nobody makes rules for God.


1) Bull crap. Unless the good feelings one feels when giving count as "something in return".
2) There is no God, so no.
3) There is no God, so who cares.
4) Correct, nobody makes rules for a God that doesn't exist.
   890. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:52 AM (#5656988)
What a lovely Friday morning gift. Thanks! In fairness GOP President Trump being bitter at Gorsuch was about the easiest prediction in the world, which is why it was so utterly bizarre that I got such push back. But hey Trumpkins gonna Trumpkin.

Gorsuch may wind up voting 90% of the time the way Trump wants him to, but Trump demands 100% obedience from all of his hirelings, regardless of whether it's his caddy, his media spokesman, the head of the FBI, or a Supreme Court Justice.
   891. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5656992)
Low approval rating seem to be the new market inefficiency.


I think it is like many other things, neither necessary nor sufficient alone to drive an outcome, merely indicative of the environment. Besides which we are not voting on re-electing Trump for another couple of years (if ever).


41% or 42% for Trump isn't any good, but it's not seismically, historically bad.(*) You can't take a 41% President and say with any confidence, "His party's going to do worse in the midterms than a 48% President's party would." We are talking about a fairly small bag of data points here. The numbers correspond a little better with presidential year election results, though, which isn't super surprising.


The generic ballot does seem to correlate though, and it seems pretty stable. Also as you mention partisan attitudes seem to be more locked in in recent cycles than in previous cycles, which is part of the nationalizing of the parties. As parties become more national and down ballot elections become less idiosyncratic it wouldn't surprise me to have Presidential approval become more closely correlated with mid term election outcomes (for obvious reasons).

When projecting what is going to happen in November I would look (in order) at current polls of the races, what has happened in recent (special) elections, the generic ballot, other factors (including economic) and lastly Presidential approval. But seriously, what fun is that?
   892. Greg K Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:11 AM (#5656993)

1) Bull crap. Unless the good feelings one feels when giving count as "something in return".

I believe Derrida wrote that episode of Friends where Joey challenges Phoebe to do a completely selfless act, but she is constantly undermined by the fact that she feels good about helping people.

What a lovely Friday morning gift.

Careful, upon opening said gift you are contractually obligated to provide one unspecified favour to God, to be delivered at a time of His choosing.
   893. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5656999)
Another Florida school shooting

A student was wounded and a suspect is in custody after a shooting Friday morning at a high school in Ocala, Florida, according to the Marion County Sheriff's Office.

The student was shot in the ankle, said Kevin Christian, Marion Public Schools spokesman.

Authorities asked residents to avoid the area of Forest High School, which was surrounded by emergency vehicles and buses transporting students away from the scene.


I wounded, zero fatalities. I guess this counts as good news?
   894. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:27 AM (#5657001)
So Rudy says he'll be getting the Mueller investigation wrapped up in a couple weeks.

I cannot help but remember a season 5 arc in Veep - when they're going through the Nevada recount... Team Meyer brings in Bob "The Eagle" Bradley, Ben Cafferty's old mentor... a supposed legend who comes in spouts some blue language, rattles some cages.... and then turns out to be rather senile at the worst possible moment.
   895. -- Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:27 AM (#5657002)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.


Susan McDougal rotted in jail rather than testify about what she knew about the Clintons and Whitewater (*) ... and then got pardoned. So if you want to start on about pardons being potential "obstruction," there's your actual starting point.

(*) And she knew a lot.
   896. -- Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:29 AM (#5657006)
If a congenital liar such as Hillary could do so -- someone who couldn't stop telling lies to the public but then suddenly told the truth to the FBI


I wouldn't, and don't, assume she did tell the truth to the FBI. She might have, but they weren't going to call her to account if she didn't, and they certainly weren't going to do much to test whether she did.
   897. Ishmael Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:29 AM (#5657007)
1) Bull crap. Unless the good feelings one feels when giving count as "something in return".

Derrida definitely relies on that sort of thing, yes.

So, BDC will probably be able to fill this in better than I will, but I think it’s probably helpful to think about Derrida as trying to bring out contradictions or paradoxes in particular concepts.

Gifts require donors, receivers, and some object that doesn’t enter into the circle of economic exchange. So receiving a gift shouldn’t incur a debt, and giving one shouldn’t assume a credit. But as soon as you recognize that you have received a gift you take on some obligation, even if it’s simply a feeling or expression of gratitude, that makes the gift no longer unencumbered by reciprocity. Even if you don’t realise you’ve been given a gift, the donor knows, and assumes his part of the symbolic exchange (he feels good about himself, for example). Also Derrida reckons the gift itself is tricky, because if it’s valueless then it’s not much of a gift, but if it has value then we’re back to economic obligations.

Derrida has, naturally, rigged the game with his own idiosyncratic definition of a gift. Myself, I've always liked that "Gift" is the German word for "poison." That's symbolism enough for me.
   898. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5657008)
Heh. Risk Factors for 2018 GOP House Incumbents

Multiple indicators, including generic ballot polls , President Trump's approval ratings and recent special election results, point to midterm danger for Republicans. But without robust race-by-race polling, it's trickier to predict individual races six months out. Are Democrats the favorites to pick up the 23 seats they need for a majority? Yes, but it's still not certain which races will materialize for Democrats and which won't.

Our latest ratings point to 56 vulnerable GOP-held seats, versus six vulnerable Democratic seats. Of the 56 GOP seats at risk, 15 are open seats created by retirements. Even if Democrats were to pick up two-thirds of those seats, they would still need to hold all their own seats and defeat 13 Republican incumbents to reach the magic number of 218. Today, there are 18 GOP incumbents in our Toss Up column.


Good thing the only thing that matters is the Presidential election and that is in the bank. I know I didn't particularly enjoy the Obama era midterms, but his accomplishments made up for it.
   899. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5657009)
Derrida has, naturally, rigged the game with his own idiosyncratic definition of a gift.


Thanks. Very clear explanation.
   900. Omineca Greg Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5657010)
Jacques Derrida went to Prague.

He didn't like it...January 1982

PARIS — ''On my arrival at Prague, I perceived I was being followed step by step,'' Jacques Derrida said.

He was right. Three days later, Derrida, France's most renowned philosopher, was in a Czechoslovak jail, charged with drug trafficking.

The Prague government, scared by the events in Poland, is cracking down on intellectual freedom in Czechoslovakia, observers say. The regime plans to snuff out any remaining dissident elements before they can gain public support.

''The drug charges against Derrida were absurd, absolutely ridiculous,'' a French government spokesman said. ''Derrida was arrested as an example to Czechoslovak intellectuals not to meet with foreigners and as an intimidation to foreign intellectuals.''

Exiled Czechoslovak leaders agreed with this assessment, but saw even more ominous meaning behind the arrest. ''Poland has scared them,'' said Artur London , leader of the Committee for Defense of Liberties in Czechoslovakia.

''The Czech government is just preparing the psychological climate for a great crackdown which I think will come in a month or two.''

And though French government officials had no information about a new crackdown, the spokesman said, ''Of course, Czechoslovak authorities are vigilant to what happened in Poland and more suppression is not impossible.''

Although an estimated 100 intellectuals remain in prison throughout Czechoslovakia for political offenses, Mr. Derrida was back teaching at the Ecole Normale Superieure here on the evening of Jan 7.

The philosopher, also a professor at Yale University and author of numerous books on symbolism and linguistics, spent only three days in jail before pressure from the French government forced his release.

But instead of lecturing on Descartes as planned his first night back, he spent the entire two-hour class describing what had happened. ''Kafkaesque'' was the word he used to summarize his experiences. The famous Czech author would have well understood the ''diabolical scenario'' that was filled not only with tragedy but also with overwhelming black comedy, he said.

Ironically, Mr. Derrida traveled to Prague last week to do research on Kafka as well as to attend unofficial seminars with independent philosphers and students at the home of Ladislav Hejdanek, a spokesman for the Charter 77 human rights movement. Even more ironically, he said he believes ''someone put the drugs in the suitcase'' when he left his hotel to visit Kafka's home.

Last Wednesday when he went to the airport, he said customs officials began meticulously searching his luggage. Inside the suitcase lining, they found four small packets of a brown substance, he said.

Interrogations started at once at the airport. He was questioned for hours not only about the drugs but also his reason for being in Prague, and even his friends and family.

''You have the right to file a complaint against your incarceration,'' the police interrogator told him. He did so immediately, and just as quickly the policeman shot back, ''Your complaint is refused.''

''It was just like all the cliches,'' Derrida said.

He was then taken to a prison at Ruzyne, some 18 miles from Prague, where he was put in a dungeon some 250 yards long and one yard wide, which he said was very dirty.

Two hours later a drunk Gypsy was thrown in with him.

All he could do, he said, was wait and wonder. ''It was terrifying,'' he said. ''I was scared for my life.''

Since Russian tanks rolled into Prague in August 1968, crushing the ''springtime'' of liberalization, the Czechoslovak government has been harsh with dissidents.

In 1977 more than 300 Czechoslovaks, many of them prominent intellectuals, signed Charter 77, a petition calling on the regime to live up to the pledges it made when it signed the Helsinki Agreement on human rights.

While seeking to assure the regime that it had no political goals by stressing that they were not ''an organization,'' the Chartists insisted that the government recognize freedom of speech, of meeting, and of public discussion.

The government responded by cracking down harshly against dissidents. Exile groups estimate that only about 30 Chartists are currently imprisoned. ''But that's not the only way of intimidating people,'' explained Jacob Francis of the Committee for the Defense of Liberties in Czechoslovakia.

''They are followed everywhere, many stopped every other day or so and brought down to police headquarters to be interrogated. Their wives and children are also stopped, and all of them are denied access to jobs and apartments.''

''Fear is widespread,'' the exiled Mr. London added. ''Remember the tanks from '68 are also still there.''

As a result, although Jacques Derrida looked visibly shaken after his experience, he said he will return to Czechoslovakia because he cannot ignore his oppressed colleagues.

''The reality -- all those prisoners -- remains there,'' he said. ''Until one is touched by something like this, one cannot imagine what a paradise of liberty we live in.''
link

Prague?

In January?

That's when they have the Winter Festival!

Who could pass that up? It's a fine art performance festival, opera, ballet, symphony. There are also opportunities to meet a nice slečna wearing opera gloves.

I mean, I guess you could go to Kafka's house. (hint: it's the blue one!) too, if you wanted to.

And it's not like I work for the Czech Tourism Commission or anything, but they hardly ever plant drugs on deconstructionist philosophers any more, so just let go of that worry.

Loved the part about the drunk gypsy. Oh the indignity of it all.
Page 9 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogLEAGUE CHAMPION SERIES OMNICHATTER! for the 2018 Playoffs!
(2208 - 11:18pm, Oct 18)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(682 - 11:15pm, Oct 18)
Last: SteveF

NewsblogCatch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (October 2018)
(350 - 11:06pm, Oct 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOTP 2018 October 15: The shift in focus from sport to politics
(1169 - 10:52pm, Oct 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-17-2018
(32 - 10:25pm, Oct 18)
Last: bobm

NewsblogFan interference negates Jose Altuve home run
(46 - 10:18pm, Oct 18)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogRustin Dodd on Twitter: "Here’s the space between the yellow line and the first row in right field at Minute Maid Park:… "
(18 - 10:11pm, Oct 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTexas Rangers Asking Taxpayers To Cover 60% Of Bribes Related To New Stadium
(1 - 9:42pm, Oct 18)
Last: ajnrules

NewsblogRed Sox Voice Joe Castiglione Falls Off Chair Calling Game 4 Final Out | Boston Red Sox | NESN.com
(19 - 8:46pm, Oct 18)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogBryce Harper’s Future in the League
(9 - 8:24pm, Oct 18)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMore questions after Astros get free pass on dugout spying
(16 - 7:22pm, Oct 18)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogDave Littlefield latest candidate to interview for Mets' GM role
(15 - 6:27pm, Oct 18)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogMLB playoffs 2018: Brewers used a fake starter, Dodgers used Clayton Kershaw - SBNation.com
(70 - 5:51pm, Oct 18)
Last: --

Sox TherapyALCS Thoughts
(94 - 5:37pm, Oct 18)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT - 2018 NFL thread
(59 - 5:14pm, Oct 18)
Last: PepTech, the Legendary

Page rendered in 0.9864 seconds
46 querie(s) executed