Donald Trump

Treason (!), Sedition, and Trump Derangement Syndrome

What if we actually took what Trump said seriously? As though he were, say, the President of the United States?

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

I understand that actually taking seriously what the President of the United States says and writes brings with it the risk of being accused, at least by the more vigorous of Trump's defenders among our readers, of having succumbed to Trump Derangement Syndrome.  (More about that below.)

But he is, as his stoutest defenders continually remind us, the duly elected president, and they might be more persuasive in their defense if they treated him as such, and not as some bumbling nincompoop whose says meaningless and nonsensical things that we shouldn't be getting so bent out of shape over.

Here are a few of the things, repeated verbatim (italics added), that Trump has tweeted, or said, in the last few days:

Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?

Why isn't Congressman Adam Schiff being brought up on charges for fraudulently making up a statement and reading it to Congress as if this statement, which was very dishonest and bad for me, was directly made by the President of the United States? This should never be allowed!

His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason…..

Adam Schiff made up my conversation, every word of it, and then read it to Congress as though I said it.  I'll tell you what, he should resign from Congress … he's a low-life, he should be forced to resign.  He took a perfect conversation, realized he couldn't read it to Congress, it was a perfect conversation … He took that conversation, which was perfect, he said: "I can't read this."  And he made up a conversation and said it to Congress and to the American people.  And it was horrible, what he said.  And that was supposed to be coming from me, and it was all fabricated.  He should resign from office in disgrace, and frankly they should look at him for treason, because he is making up the words of the President of the United States, it's a disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Congressman Adam Schiff should resign for the Crime of, after reading a transcript of my conversation with the President of Ukraine (it was perfect), fraudulently fabricating a statement of the President of the United States and reading it to Congress, as though mine! He is sick!

One hardly knows where to begin to dissect the venality and stupidity of these remarks.  Arrest for Treason?  No, you cannot arrest Adam Schiff for treason.

Let's begin with the Speech and Debate Clause of the US Constitution (Art. 1 Sec. 6), shall we? The President, who has sworn and oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, appears not to be aware of its existence.  It provides that members of Congress "shall not be questioned in any other Place" for "any Speech of Debate in either House."  If Rep. Schiff "fraudulently fabricated" a statement of the President and "read it to Congress as if it was [his]"—a ridiculous charge (see below), but let that pass for the moment and assume it is true—it is not a crime (or even a "Crime"), and he cannot be arrested for it.

Second: Schiff's speech does not and could not possibly, by any remote stretch of the imagination or any remotely plausible interpretation of the law, constitute treason. Another clause of the Constitution that the President appears unaware of is in Art. I Sec. 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Notice, among other things, the requirement of an "overt Act"—you cannot be guilty of treason for speech alone. So even if Rep. Schiff made up a conversation that he purported was Trump's, and even if he were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, he's not committing treason by doing so.

And the notion that Rep. Schiff's statement—even if totally fabricated and bearing "NO relationship to what [Trump] said on the call"—constitutes "levying War" on the United States, surely, is too ridiculous to need serious rebuttal, no?  Donald Trump is not the United States, and an attack on him is not an attack on the United States.  And the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to

" … write, print, utter, or publish, … any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States …

was repealed some time ago—in 1801, to be exact.  Having flirted with the idea, embodied therein, that the government and the nation were one and the same, and that an attack on the one is an attack on the other, we rid ourselves of that idea, and it is deeply unfortunate that Trump is resurrecting it now.

And finally, on the actual merits of Trump's claim.  Here is the portion of the statement read by Rep. Schiff at the start of last week's hearings that the President of the United States asserts is a "Crime," a "FRAUD," and, possibly, "TREASON":

"It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We've been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I'm going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I'm going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I'm going to put you in touch with Rudy. You're going to love him. Trust me. You know what I'm asking. And so I'm only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I asked.

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine." (italics added)

Was what Schiff said a fair characterization of what Trump said?  Reasonable people can, I suppose, disagree about that—the way that reasonable people disagreed about whether AG Barr's summary of the Mueller Report was, or was not, a fair characterization of that document.

But bear in mind, please: we don't know what Trump saidAll we know is what Trump's White House said he said—a "Memorandum" that states, on the first page of the document:

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.

We don't know what Trump actually said because he has not released a full transcript or recording of the call.

It is somewhere between outrageous and laughable for Trump to claim, on the one hand, that Schiff's characterization constitutes not just a crime but quite possibly a capital crime, while simultaneously not releasing the actual transcript of the conversation so we can judge for ourselves.

Here's my characterization of what he's doing now:  "Trust me.  I've given you my version of the conversation.  It was perfect. Trust me.  Saying otherwise is criminal and possibly treasonous."

Moroever, no reasonable person could possibly think, listening to Rep. Schiff or reading his remarks, that he was giving us a verbatim account of the Trump call—"putting words in the mouth of the president." He couldn't have been much clearer: This is the "essence," in "not so many words," the "sum and character" of the conversation. It's not what he said verbatim, it's what I think he meant to say.

Does anyone—anyone?—not see Trump's tirade here for what it is: a transparent (and rather clumsy) attempt to distract our collective attention away from Trump's own behavior? It is difficult for me to how anyone—whatever grievances one may have with the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, the Squad, etc. etc.—can fail to call it out as unbefitting a president of the United States.

Finally, regarding Trump Derangement Syndrome: I'm getting rather tired of the phenomenon whereby anyone who examines and tries to comprehend what our president has done or said and to have a rational conversation about it is accused of suffering from TDS.  Let's change that narrative, shall we?  A number of diseases or syndromes are named after well-known sufferers from the disease—Lou Gehrig's disease being best known in this category. We've been thinking about Trump Derangement Syndrome all wrong! It refers, actually, to the particular form of derangement from which our president appears to be suffering.  I invite readers to read what I have written about the Ukrainian Affair and what Trump has written about the Ukrainian Affair (additional excerpts from Trump's Twitter feed are below, and the rest can be found here), and to ask yourself: who's the deranged one here?

 

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

More verbatim excerpts from the President's Twitter feed:

Rep. Adam Schiff fraudulently read to Congress, with millions of people watching, a version of my conversation with the President of Ukraine that doesn't exist. He was supposedly reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible, and me sound guilty. HE WAS DESPERATE AND HE GOT CAUGHT," Trump wrote. "Adam Schiff therefore lied to Congress and attempted to defraud the American Public. He has been doing this for two years. I am calling for him to immediately resign from Congress based on this fraud!"

As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!

The congratulatory phone call with the Ukrainian President was PERFECT, unless you heard Liddle' Adam Schiff's fraudulently made up version of the call. This is just another Fake News Media, together with their partner, the Democrat Party, HOAX!

To show you how dishonest the LameStream Media is, I used the word Liddle', not Liddle, in discribing Corrupt Congressman Liddle' Adam Schiff. Low ratings @CNN purposely took the hyphen out and said I spelled the word little wrong. A small but never ending situation with CNN!

The Fake News Media wants to stay as far away as possible from the Ukraine and China deals made by the Bidens. A Corrupt Media is so bad for our Country! In actuality, the Media may be even more Corrupt than the Bidens, which is hard to do!

Very simple! I was looking for Corruption and also why Germany, France and others in the European Union don't do more for Ukraine. Why is it always the USA that does so much and puts up so much money for Ukraine and other countries? By the way, the Bidens were corrupt!

WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Again, the President of Ukraine said there was NO (ZERO) PRESSURE PUT ON HIM BY ME. Case closed!

 

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Brazenly Suggests Ukraine, China Should Do Opposition Research for His 2020 Campaign

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. worst post ever!

    1. Only until the next…

      1. The TDS is strong with this one.

        Signs of TDS include…
        1. Repeated long, rambling, raging posts about how bad Trump is (see above).
        2. Disproportionate criticism of a less than desirable behavior. (IE, “Treason” commonly used by dozens of people, not a word. Trump does it. EVIL!)
        3. Redefining poor behavior away from commonsense definitions to new and unique definitions (IE, rather than the commonsense definition of treason as betraying one’s country and/or looking to overthrow the lawful head of government to the more specialized legal definition).
        4. Ignoring logical and clear flaws in those arguments of those who oppose Trump (IE, the “Steele Dossier” or missing the collusion between Representative Schiff and the “whistleblower”)

        1. Treason has a specific definition, both in the text of the Constitution and in the applicable federal statute. Trump is a fool and a demagogue.

    2. Explain why. Try to be specific. And convincing.

      1. I decline to explain my jokes. Figure it out.

        1. I’m with you 100% on this one, Bob.

          Never explain the joke.

          1. For many, explaining the basis for a joke would reveal their motives, and be humiliating.

        2. The fact that you won’t explain your joke is obstruction. You can be impeached for that by very serious people who aren’t totally aren’t clownish blowhards.

      2. Bob, maybe you need to play with capitalization to help?

      3. I assume it’s a joke about the poster’s last name. Although “Post” wasn’t capitalized in the original comment, so I’m only assuming it now that Bob has made it clear that there was some kind of joke involved.

    3. Sounds like PDS to me.

  2. A hallmark of TDS, like Kafka’s The Trial, is a denial of having TDS.
    Witness Prof Post, making long posts (even rational ones, unlike Somin) about how we should be upset about Trump’s rhetoric and ignoring that all he is doing is counter-punching.

    As I have seen written elsewhere, the media and dems go to “11” about the Russia hoax (and other things) and Trump turns it up to “12” and we are supposed to be upset just at Trump? Methinks not.

    1. It should be rationally possible to be upset at Trump AND elected Democrats AND other elected Republicans, all at the same time. That a particular post is only calling one of them out is not evidence against the poster believing all of those things.

      Rather than accusing people of being deranged, maybe engage with their substance instead of resorting to namecalling (which, those of you with passing familiarity with actual intelligent discussion, may remember is a fallacy). Are Trump’s words and actions truly appropriate conduct for the POTUS? Whatever the Democrats are doing is *irrelevant* to that question. (Bringing Democrat behavior up in response is *also* a fallacy – it goes by the name of “tu quoque”).

      1. The appropriate guys get name-called and treated 90% as bad as Trump, and then they lose because they can’t form an appropriateresponse to barbaric liars. Lesson learned. We have Trump by natural selection.

        You want someone “appropriate”, you need to make a political environment where someone “appropriate” succeeds. You’ve been doing the opposite for decades.

      2. Tu Quoque is the fallacy of claiming that, because your accuser is guilty, you must be innocent. Obviously a fallacy, because you could both be guilty.

        Somebody says your shit stinks, and you argue that your shit smells like a rose because THEIR shit stinks.

        The problem is that it’s usually brought up in political arguments, where nobody is claiming to be innocent, they’re just claiming that they’re not MORE guilty than their accuser.

        Somebody says your shit stinks, and you say, “So what, so does yours.”

        That’s not tu quoque, that’s just context.

        1. In science, you address the argument, not the arguerer. In politics, it is the opposite, since surface arguments are rarely the real motivations.

          I could grant every last accusation against Trump is real and serious, and still the endless shooting gallery of different attacks demonstrates trying to get rid of him for political reasons, policy differences.

          Both sided do it (“Lock her up!”) Both sides did it during the Clinton imeachment. And both sides will continue to do it in the future.

          All it does is point out the wisdom of many principles in the Constitution to (try to) forbid the powerful from using government investigation against political enemies.

          The most disgusting long-term takaway from this is the ease with which attorney-client privilege was tossed away, precisely where and why it was needed most, in political battles among the most powerful.

          1. In politics, the argument is never just, “X shouldn’t be in office.” It is always at least implicitly, and often explicitly, “Y should be in office instead of X.” Because SOMEBODY is going to be in that office if X isn’t.

            This means we are not evaluating X in a vacuum. We are evaluating X relative to Y.

            The whole point of yelling “Tu quoque!” or “Whataboutism!” is to prevent that relative evaluation from taking place, in order that Y can sneak into X’s place without being evaluated by the same standard.

          2. I could grant every last accusation against Trump is real and serious, and still the endless shooting gallery of different attacks demonstrates trying to get rid of him for political reasons, policy differences.

            I don’t think it’s viable logic that the number of attacks against someone can imply they are all made in bad faith.

            A/C priv? There were third parties present who broke priv in all the conversations I’m tracking.

              1. Considering Cohen himself did some crimes, we have a pretty clear crime-fraud case.

                1. Only as to Cohens crimes though.

                  Just because your attorney isn’t a crook doesn’t mean you lose protections for when he wasn’t being a crook working for you.

                  More complicated is when you both sometimes conspired together (definitely not protected), but other times he was validly representing your legal interests.

                  1. Cohens crimes were at Trump’s request. And a judge signed off on that.

                    This is an odd case to call some disgusting miscarriage of justice.

                    1. The judge signed off on it because he was persuaded to plead guilty, by threatening to prosecute him for OTHER crimes they could indeed have proven. It’s virtually unheard of for a judge to refuse to approve a guilty plea.

                      The problem here was that they went through all his records, much of which absolutely would have been protected by A-C privilege. Sure, they used a “taint team”, who supposedly would not relay any privileged information to the prosecutors. In their spare time they sell bridges, too.

      3. Squirrelloid you are correct, but I’m still waiting on a post from Post (heh) decrying in equally garrulous terms the words and actions of prominent dems and media figures regarding what Trump is counter-punching too.

      4. > Rather than accusing people of being deranged, maybe engage with their substance instead

        And there’s the problem. The entire point of the accusation is to avoid engaging in substance, which is why engaging with these idiots is pointless. You beat them, and then let them either come to their senses or be ignored.

        1. Substance: There was a call. If you take everything in the call, it doesn’t add up to much. If you imagine a lot of other stuff, then maybe it adds up to something.

          Comment on the substance: stop making stuff up, stop pretending, stop imagining, stick to facts, be honest.

          1. The summary of the call that we have is pretty damning, especially Truump´s kvetch about the absence of reciprocity in the context of an offer to buy Javelin missles.

            1. Only if you imagine a bunch of stuff beyond what was said and reported on.

    2. He’s “counter-punching” by accusing people of the one crime that the Founders correctly thought was so dangerous to accuse people of that they put a narrow and specific definition in the Constitution. And in doing so, he meets exactly zero of the elements of the charge.Not only has he failed to meet any element of the charge, he confuses himself with “The United States.”

      You’d think the party of “law and order” “constitutionalism” and “respect for our Founders” would care about basically ignoring all of those things in defending his “rhetoric.”

      1. Well, if we are going to get all Founding Era in context, Trump should ask Schiff to a duel with pistols at 15 paces for his scurrilous lies.

      2. Even those who do care are numb by this point. You can’t go through three years of this petulant asshole spouting off nonsense and not be left feeling like it’s just another drop in the bucket.

    3. “A hallmark of TDS, like Kafka’s The Trial, is a denial of having TDS.”

      This is also a symptom of TDSS.

  3. Every time I see a post like this, or have asked to me by liberal friends, how one can support Trump, I respond with an apt comparison to Lincoln and the succession of genteel loser generals he replaced before he settled on the chain smoking and possibly over-drinking U.S. Grant.

    When Grants personal shortcomings were remarked upon to Lincoln, his responded “I can’t spare this man; he fights.”

    The right has only won in the culture war in the last 50 years where it fights…which is just about nowhere except the gun issue.

    1. The “culture war”? That encompasses politics?

      More to the point, this is not much of a defense. “Yeah, okay, the president lies constantly and has no idea what words mean, but he fights!”

      1. Continually, Trax2, the word is “continually”. If he lied “constantly”, he’d have to be lying when he wasn’t saying anything, too, which is hard to pull off.

        The Washington Post has a database of Trump’s “lies”. It purports to list over 12, 000 lies he has told.

        But, if you look at that list, it’s lousy with things that are purely matters of opinion, or where the Post is just disagreeing with Trump’s characterization of undisputed facts, or just doesn’t like his spin on things that are perfectly true.

        To give an example, Trump says of Afghanistan, “We’ve been there for 19 years. We’re really serving as policemen. We could win Afghanistan in two days or three days or four days, if we wanted. But I’m not looking to kill 10 million people.

        The WaPo labels it a lie on the basis that it had only been 18 years and change, and that nuking Afghanistan wouldn’t necessarily stabilize the country. Seriously?

        1. Nope, they don’t label it a lie. Note the absence of a “Pinocchio” rating under it. They have plenty of clearcut lies to work with; no need to push the envelope.

          1. The whole list purports to be a list of lies. Try another one.

            1. Nope, it says “false or misleading claims.”

              1. OK, and you’re defending the notion that “19” as shorthand for “18 and change” is misleading? That saying that you don’t want to win in Afghanistan at the price of 10 million dead is misleading??? Because 10 million dead might not bring victory?

                That’s what you want to defend?

                1. It certainly is misleading to say “we could win Afghanistan in two or three days,” insofar as, if “winning” a country has any meaning, wiping out a third of the population is not it.

                  But once again, there are plenty of clearcut lies on the list, so quibbling over one of them isn’t a great use of anyone’s time. I said he lies a lot. Do you dispute that?

                  1. He lies a lot. Rarely about anything consequential, but a lot.

                    Obama lied less often, about more consequential things. Does that make him better, or worse? Depends on how you view it, I suppose.

                    The point of quibbling over one of the supposed “lies” is that the list is just lousy with items like that. Their whole methodology in compiling it was whacked.

                  2. “we could win Afghanistan in two or three days,”

                    Is clearly a matter of opinion, so not a lie, just bad judgment

              2. Brett may be is an even bigger liar than Trump.

                EVERYTHING he says about the WaPo fact-checker is a lie. It’s like those conspiracy emails that say “confirmed by snopes” with a link. In ALMOST every instance it’s a lie, but goobers never click the link! Likewise, Brett can make all the claims he can imagine about the WaPo fact-checker, because hardly anyone will check.

                Thrax2 is doing a good on or correcting, but the odds are that he, like me, is a regular reader of it. (I follow FIVE fact-checkers)

                I gotta hand it to Brett. He is slick. He claims here that Trump tells more lies than Obama, but Trump’s are less consequential. O M F G

                Try this. Trump campaigned on paying off the entire debt in 8 years. Instead, he has already added more 8-year debt (CBO 2024 forecast) than Obama added AFTER 8 years.

                That’s OBSCENE when you realize Obama handed Trump the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President.

                Obama added less debt, starting from the 2nd WORST economy since the 1930s! Including most of Bush’s TARP.

                This is a failure of massive proportions. The worst President ever (after FDR). fiscally.

                That’s why the stock market goes ape, with ANY bad news on the economy. A recession in ANY of the next five years will be catastrophic, at these debt levels. Booms are for paying down debt, so that adding debt in a downturn does not crash the whole shebang.

                Did I mention that Trump’s average GDP growth is LESS than Obama’s? (starting with the recovery.)

        2. you can’t win in Afghanistan by nuking it unless you cover the entire country’s surface. Even then you’d probably miss significant numbers of people in the mountains because of the shadows they create. Of course that is not the issue here–DJT is crazy!

      2. Not much of a defense? That it is weak is your opinion, people have died for sillier things. Another popular defense offered is, and this is equally true for me, that the more the dems attack Trump, the tighter his supporters cling to him.

        Personally, I voted for him because if the president was a disease, Hillary was cancer and Trump is diabetes. You can manage the latter. But as per the meme going around the past couple years, and that Trump’s twitter has explicitly pointed out recently, the dems and the left isn’t after Trump so much as they are after ME, and Trump is just in the way.

        So, in a way, I continue to support Trump for my social preservation. It would take him literally shooting someone on 5th Avenue at this point for me to drop my support.

        1. What other things would you support to, ah, socially preserve yourself?

          1. Post anonymously at Reason and not on Facebook? Don’t kid yourself about what the left would do with cancel culture combined with political power.

            1. Are you saying that “cancel culture” is NOT a feature of people seeking “social preservation?” Because I don’t think history supports that contention.

              I guess I should have asked the question more specifically, given your belief that you think the limits off your support for Trump is him personally shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. (Presumably this person is unarmed and not a registered Democrat in your mind.)

              So I put it to you more specifically: what level of violence (either state or otherwise) are you prepared to support (or engage in) for the purposes of your “social preservation?”

              For example would you support the extrajudicial execution of Democratic politicians or figures in the media?

              1. Are you saying that cancel culture is people seeking to PROTECT themselves socially?

                Please, don’t presume I support murder. While I may have made the occasional joke about commies getting helicopter rides, jokes are just that, jokes.

                1. No. I’m saying that people seeking “social preservation” have historically engaged in attempts to “cancel” things, whether through cultural and social pressure or political power and violence. What do you think the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was?

                  And remember, jokes are just jokes until they aren’t. RadioRwanda was just heated rhetoric until Hutus decided to socially preserve themselves using machetes.

                  1. So, you’re really, really, reaching if you think that the Catholic Church’s list of prohibited books applies to anything today. Besides, in the modern era it was (it ended in the 60s) it was more a guide as to what heretical works the faithful should avoid because the church hasn’t had political power in hundreds of years. If you were more knowledgeable, you’d have said that the Hollywood blacklisting of commies was some cancel culture from the Right.

                    Again, if were more knowledgeable, I’d was figuring you’d come back and say “oh what truth is said in jest.” But jokes are not “heated rhetoric” and we haven’t had an attempted genocide here in America and it’s laughable if you think jokes are on the path to that. I recommend the latest Chappelle special for you.

                    Frankly, it’s the dehumanization of opponents that leads to that, which is….exactly what the Left has been doing lately.

                2. One man’s murderer is another man’s freedom fighter.

        2. “they are after ME”

          WTF is that supposed to mean? What kind of weird persecution complex is this?

          1. The kind that eventually gets people killed once it reaches a certain point.

          2. Me, as in one of the “the people who elected Trump”.

        3. Yeah, the flight 93 election mindset.

          That’s some dark craziness right there – you can rationalize just about anything with that persecution complex.

          Of course, you seem pretty all on board with Trump’s agenda these days, so it’s interesting you’re seeking to distance yourself.

          1. Flight 93 mindset, yes, you’ve identified what that author gussied up as a long standing American tradition of voting for the lesser evil. He was entirely correct, though, that Hillary would have been balls to the wall liberalism, and after 8 years of Obama, it was a serious risk to what the Right holds dear. So please, don’t call it crazy, except in your fevered imagination.

            Oh, I’m been very happily surprised what Trump has done, policy-wise. Remember, voting for a politician is not a cafeteria, where one can pick and choose only what you want to support. You have to judge them holistically compared to their opponents.

            1. No – that’s not about voting for the lesser evil, it’s a crisis thesis that rationalizes a great deal more than that.

              Just as the flight 93 passengers ignored even their self-preservation instincts, you can throw away any rights, ignore all principles. Scorch the earth and wreck democracy.

              It’s not even a hard choice. That’s what you’re buying into.

              1. Where in the Flight 93 editorial does it call for scorched earth? Let me help you, it doesn’t. It says Hillary will f*ck things up so badly, that what else have we got to lose but to go all in or Trump FOR THE ELECTION, not afterwards to support him come hell or high water.

                And if you think it wasn’t a hard choice, then you are not understanding how Trump is a rejection of much of elite conservatism, and further, you don’t understand how much pushback there was/is against Trump from the Right. In the end, it WAS a hard decision, which is why the flight 93 editorial acknowledged and made a case to vote for Trump.

                1. There is no limit to that logic, is there?

                  Explain to me the limit on what you’re not willing to vote for to keep ze libs from killing you or your culture or whatever.

                  1. There is a limit to that logic…the left stops nominating either crony crones like Hillary or people who want to “fundamentally transform” America like Obama.

                    You can search for it, but I’ve said on this blog that I would have voted for Jim Webb in 2016 over Trump, but Webb never won the primary because he was to practical and patriotic. I also think that Webb would have won in an landslide too.

                    1. Putting the limit on the potential future actions of other parties is not really a limit. It seems that in the current juncture, there is no limit to your crisis rationalization.

                      Which, if you follow through with that logic, takes you to places that have not been very good historically. Lets Goodwin this sucker, to really see if you have a limit. Replace the liberals with the Jews, and what do you get? They were also accused of trying to fundamentally transform the fatherland…

                      For all your drama Obama the deliberate incrementalist who got repeatedly rolled by McConnell really wreck your America, though?

                    2. Asking a party to nominate someone who plays within the 40 yard lines is a limit. You do understand what the word “limit” means, right? Anyway, I thought you were centrist.

                      Obama was an incrementalist only because the system worked as intended. You’ll get no disagreement with me on that.

                    3. “There is a limit to that logic…the left stops nominating either crony crones like Hillary or people who want to “fundamentally transform” America like Obama.”

                      What’s weird about this criticism is that President Trump is, by all accounts (including many of his supporters) a crony crone, and he ran on a transformative platform of making America great again.

                    4. Never said I was a centrist. I’m a bog-standard liberal of the incrementalist moderation in all things school.

                      I’m to the right of the Bernie crowd, and to the left of you lot. Definitely more on the left than the right, but I have my apostasies. (Second Amendment is a collective right, affirmative action should be class based, Sanders is all flash and no substance, I’m a Christian. Probably others.)

                      Limiting the other guys isn’t a limit on you, dude.

                    5. That the Second Amendment is a “collective” right is a bad faith argument.

                      And if you support giving “marriage” licenses to deviant men, you’re not a Christian.

                    6. And if you support giving “marriage” licenses to deviant men, you’re not a Christian

                      Or perhaps a Christian with a brain, not a shameful bigot.

                      Marriage was not even a Christian sacrament until 1500 years after the death of Christ. That would be JESUS Christ, who you shame many times per day … as you even assault His race.

        4. “It would take him literally shooting someone on 5th Avenue at this point for me to drop my support.”

          Depends on the victim.

          1. THERE IT IS! There’s the tacit support for violence inherent in politics that we all know and love.

            1. Or it’s an obvious joke…..

              1. Only to another thug

                1. I’m not a thug. It was a joke. Bob sucks, but he’s not one of the kill the libs people.

                  1. You’re also not Robert Beckman.

                    1. And Trumptards be conscienceless.
                      By definition
                      And the victim’s politics are totally irrelevant here, because unknown)

    2. Interesting analogy, but the thing about Grant was, he won battles. Trump has been distinguished by his complete lack of success in getting legislation passed to implement any of his stated goals. So the only way your analogy would have been correct would be if Lincoln’s remark had been about a general like John Pope or “Fighting” Joe Hooker.

      1. That’s a fair critique, because I am wondering where the Wall is, but then again, I never expected that to be built and the Civil War wasn’t won for years after Grant was put in charge.

        However, I think your appraisal of Trump’s other successes is somewhat of a diminution. In the end, I am just happy about all the judges, and everything else is icing on the cake.

      2. “Trump has been distinguished by his complete lack of success in getting legislation passed”

        The GOP senate refused to end the filibuster. The Dems were all Resistance!!! from 11/9/16 to date.

        He did get a tax cut and a misguided criminal justice “reform” passed.

        1. Not to mention there are enough Klinton and/or Obongo judges to put nationwide injunctions onto anything Trump does, because #RESISTANCE!

          If the GOP would eliminate the filibuster, and Trump would get the balls to order the military to kidnap leftist judges, we’d have a real country.

          1. One thing that’s sort of admirable about you is that you drop the pretense in your calls to violence. It’s not even arrest and charge, you literally want them kidnapped. Your gleeful fantasizing about others committing violent crimes you’re too much of a coward to commit yourself is refreshing.

            1. He’s a parody account, like OBL. Took me a long time to figure that out, but it became obvious a few months ago when he made directly contradictory arguments in threads I happened to read back to back. He just keeps a more consistent version of the parody up, so I suspect he knows someone who really thinks that way and is mimicking them.

              1. Nope. I’m just willing to state what needs to be done to preserve the republic

            2. It’s not a “crime” if it’s done in the context of a military action. Would you argue that the Tea Partiers in the 1700s were criminals?

              1. Of course, DUH.

      3. Trump has appointed good judges and administrators, and cut taxes. The administrative appointees have done an excellent job rolling back harmful regulations, which is why the unemployment rate is at a 50 year low. Trump has also addressed China’s horrific trade practices: Clinton was paid by the Chinese to ignore these, and Bush and Obama were in the pockets of Big Capital and Big Tech, so they wouldn’t take action to protect American workers.

        1. His administrators don’t seem to have cut government spending.

          His tax cuts haven’t done much for the economy.

          His China trade war hasn’t changed their trade policies.

          You got judges. For realigning your entire party and wrecking a bunch of norms that our republic used to have, you got judges.

          Hope they’re worth it.

          Big Capitol? You some kinda Commie?

          1. There you go pretending to believe in “norms” your guys casually violate.

            1. Just yesterday, New York Democrats filed in court that the 10th Amendment protects their right to give illegals drivers’ licenses. LOL

              1. It does, (Technically, the 9th Amendment does that. The 10th says Trump is a fascist in challenging the law,)
                It’s a law.
                The lawsuit is by a Republican, so you lie AGAIN
                https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-lawsuit-illegal-immigrants-drivers-licenses

                Now tell us why Republicans are such phonies on the Constitution and federalism. And why are you?
                LOL

          2. “His administrators don’t seem to have cut government spending.”

            His first year in office, he proposed a budget with spending cuts. Congress responded by passing mandatory spending increases by veto proof bipartisan majorities. After that, what was he supposed to do, act like the dictator some people claim he is?

        2. Unemployment is at a 50-year low because we are in an economic expansion that is over 10 years in length and has lasted longer than any other expansion since the government started keeping meaningful statistics on this issue. That expansion has zero to do with Trump’s policies.

          1. In so booming an economy, Trump has FAILED to increase Labor Force Participation. EVERY recent large drop in unemployment has come from people abandoning the labor force, 3-5x greater than new jobs,.

        3. Is “Big Capitol” some movement that favors enlarging the Capitol building?

        4. Fantasies abound in Gooberville!
          Trump campaigned on paying of the entire federal debt in eight years … but he as ALREADY created more new 8-year debt (CBO 2024 forecast) … than Obama added AFTER eight years.

          HELLO? HELLO? Anybdy home?

          Also the first President to EVER increase the deficit by over 40% … in a single year … during the longest expansion EVER inherited by an incoming President … handed to him by OBAMA … who had inherited the second WORST economy in 70 years.

          And his tax cuts are DOOMED to fail at restoring out industrial base … too fucking stupid, on the amount and which taxes to cut.

          PLUS, he campaigned on a near 50% tax cut for HIMSELF, and very few other rich dudes. He’s e a billionaire paying a top income tax rate of ****20%*** … what’s YOUR marginal rate, suckers.

          THEN he said the tax cut INCREASED his own taxes … when he actually got a 20% tax DECREASE.

          Trumptards are totally brainwashed puppets of the political elite.
          Just as Bernietards and Elizabethtards

        5. “why the unemployment rate is at a 50 year low.”

          The unemployment rate is low because they stop counting people as “unemployed” when their unemployment insurance runs out.

          1. Actually, eligibility for unemployment insurance has nothing to do with how the BLS measures the unemployment rate. You do not have to be on or eligible for benefits to be counted as unemployed by the BLS. You have to be not working, but actively looking for work.

          2. The unemployment rate is low because they stop counting people as “unemployed” when their unemployment insurance runs out.

            No, the rate is based on surveys of how many are looking for work by the BLS.
            That’s why there are two ways to lower unemployment.
            1) Seekers finding jobs
            2) Seekers abandoning their job search .

            https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
            “Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

    3. “The right has only won in the culture war in the last 50 years where it fights…”

      Wrong. The fight on racism was long and difficult.

      The fight on misogyny was long and difficult.

      Creationism in science classrooms, gay-bashing, school prayer . . . all were fights (routs, eventually, but serious battles). The drug warriors are still fighting. Torture, endless detention without trial, dismantling of public education to favor schools that teach nonsense . . . all still fights.

      The conservatives have been fighting. And losing.

      1. It was the Democrats that lost the racism fight.

        Also, “Fight on misogyny”

        What?

        1. The Democrats have been the ones engaged in race-targeting voter suppression in North Carolina, the Deep South, and elsewhere? Sounds wrong.

          Democrats, shamefully, were largely on the wrong end of racism battles until Pres. Johnson went against the clingers on civil rights and the bigots migrated to the Republican Party. Today’s bigots (and not just the racists but also the gay-bashers, the misogynists, the “Jews will not replace us” choir, and the Muslim-haters) tend to be Republicans and conservatives, shamefully, embrace or appease the bigotry and bigots.

          1. There’s nothing wrong with suppressing the votes of welfare queens, single mothers, and other below average IQ people.

            1. THE HATE-MONGERING BIGOT IS BACK! (what hegemony means) If voting rights are based on IQ … would HE be disenfranchised??.

              He also says the ONLY citizens with voting rights must fit HIS diktats for BOTH race AND ethnicity.

              Did he also march with the assault gang in Charlottesville?
              The sick underbelly of Trumpism. America’s brownshirts.

              1. Race matters. Everyone knows it except for deluded liberal whites.

                1. Did he also march with the assault gang in Charlottesville?
                  The sick underbelly of Trumpism. America’s brownshirts.

                  To the alt-right, ONLY liberals oppose their blatant racism.
                  Because self-righteous

        2. It was the Democrats that lost the racism fight.

          Long ago. TODAY, it was Trump who re-empowered both racists and nazis with his totally shameful actions after Charlottesville. And, racists today are entirely GOP.

          1. He did no such thing, except in your fever dreams.

            1. Says the brainwashed puppet of the ruling class. (that
              responds to “fever dreams” when I can PROVE you wrong, on something you know nothing about, and spouting memorized words implanted by others.

              Initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking with clubs, against peaceful protesters
              “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
              Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
              Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

              Next, how shamefully did Trump LIE about that event?

            2. Part 2
              PROOF: Trump a lying sack of shit … defending nazis and white supremacists,

              The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating a PROVEN lie… as the rude punk he is.

              “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

              “Alt-left initiated violence.’ PROOF: Alt-right
              “Wearing black helmets.” PROOF: Alt-right.
              “Charged with clubs.” PROOF: Alt-right
              PLUS, Trump said he watched it personally on TV!
              That is PSYCHO. Your loyalty has been betrayed

    4. He “fights”… for himself. He suggested that impeaching him would spark a civil war. Would you put your life on the line for this man?

      1. Might be a way to also rid the country of Trumptards. (/sarc)

  4. Everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of a crime. Treason. Or whatever other crime.

    But that’s not derangement…?

    1. Ahh yes, we can no longer call out crimes or treason. You’re exactly who he’s talking about, dolt.

      1. One can be a lying psycho on what treason is.
        Especially if the psycho has a base of supporters who have very little knowledge. on anything, and fail at choosing who to believe.

    2. It is derangement – it’s what Trump is doing, and he is certainly deranged.

      1. Particularly for people who treat the presidency as High Priest. Instead we are getting 4 years of the jester being in charge of the court.

  5. “It is difficult for me to how anyone—whatever grievances one may have with the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, the Squad, etc. etc.—can fail to call it out as unbefitting a president of the United States.”

    You have no idea the mental gymnastics these cultists can pull off.

    1. Like the one where we notice jerks who threw out the rule book when it suited their interests pretending to care about standards now. And we don’t listen, we call them out on their double standards, and we give their phony words zero weight.

      1. So you seem to have just admitted you’ve jettisoned all your standards, because liberals were bad.

        Way to go. Nice job rationalizing away any responsibilities you have as a citizen.

        1. No, he’s saying calls for civility are bullshit, like a self imposed prisoner’s dilemma. To mix metaphors, Trump has cut the Gordian Knot. Now the Right, which hasn’t played rough since the Willy Horton ad (and that wasn’t even Bush), is playing the game by the same rules as the Left.

          Admittedly, this doesn’t bode well, but by historical standards, politicians are not caning each other in Congress or fighting duels, so we have a long way to go downward before we have to worry about stuff.

        2. Thanks. We had a nice country for a while. Too bad power-hungry jerks dedicated their lives to undermining it. Too bad so many otherwise reasonable people went along with it over and over and over and over. Too bad otherwise thoughtful people decided name-calling was creditable discourse. Too bad honesty lost out to lust for power and greed for money other people earned.

          1. Your welcome! I still think it’s a nice country though, and that while things are kinda bad with the name calling, and so on, nothing new. The election of 1800 was terribly decisive. It’s too bad, to you point, that so many on the left don’t just want higher taxes and more welfare or some such, but they have a different vision of America entirely.

          2. Ahhh nihilism. The last refuge of scoundrels.

            When your partisan lense burns away everything you could care about as insufficient, and are left only with being a bastard.

            Amusingly, you sound a lot like the Bernie-bro board I frequent to scratch my contrarian itch on the other side.

            1. Guy who hangs out on message boards to troll people accuses others of nihilism.

              1. You don’t know what trolling is, then. I’m sincere, and engage with substance.

                Honestly disagreeing with you and being snarky about it at times isn’t being a troll.

            2. What you call nihilism I call historical knowledge. One should always ask “compared to what”?

              If someone says that “politics is so coarse” and they don’t know about how Adams and Jefferson’s respective sides insulted each other, and how people still shot each other in duels, and how even in the post WWII era when things seemed nicey-nice, there was a lot of conflict about how to handle communism. Truman once wrote a letter to a critic saying he deserved a punch in the nose after a bad review of his daughter. He was a proto-Trump.

              1. Yeah, Trump is just acting like the founding fathers.

                Come on, man.

                1. Are you not aware that Jefferson founded his own newspaper and used it to write the most insulting stories against the Federalists? Or that Adams like to call Hamilton a bastard? Or that Andrew Jackson was insulted as the son of a whore? Or that Grover Cleveland was (probably falsely) accused of having a kid out of wedlock (ma ma, where’s my pa, gone to the whitehouse ha ha ha!) Or that…

                  You get my point…

                  1. You diminish the founders by confusing trees for a forest.
                    You elevate Trump by confusing a forest for only trees.

                    Step back and see the comparison you’re trying to make, and then ask yourself if it passes the laugh test.

                    1. Your continued intransigence to historical comparisons makes me laugh. It’s like you think that all history started when you were born and when you started to pay attention to politics.

                      In honesty, I don’t know how you see that I am elevating Trump. I think I am diminishing him by saying he’s nothing new. Your forest/trees analogy makes no sense to me in this context.

                      Look, human nature is the same, only technology changes. Why would you expect anything different when it comes to how politics plays out, especially with so much power in the presidency these days that it’s zero-sum.

                    2. Your comparison is ridiculous. I’ve explained why your comparison fails above.

                      But even beyond that, you’re dammed by your own comparison. It makes no sense to judge Trump as an elites of the 18th century.

                      Hey – Trump isn’t as bad as the average Mongul from back in the Golden Horde days. Whatta gent!

                    3. You’re painted into a corner by apt historical comparisons across the broad sweep of American history (Adams/Hamilton/Jackson/Cleveland/Truman) of politics and politicians being demeaned and being demeaning. Trump is no different. He is different in your MIND because his is NOW, not then.

                      And referring back to already debunked arguments you made, c’mon man.

                      And then you make a logical fallacy with a reductio ad absurdum. I did not compare Trump to a member of the Mongol Horde. But then again, I think that Trump would have been one of those who would drive their enemies before him and hear the lamentations of their women, as the Mongols didn’t have draft deferments.

                    4. You continue to compare anecdotes from days gone by to the main thrust of Trump today.

                      Your arguments assume that the America of today is different culturally, institutionally, and politically from the past century. It’s getting quite silly of you.

                      And your Truman example is notable for being so out of character for him. He wrote lots of hot-headed letters that he never sent. Trump could learn from that example.

                      You’re doubly wrong, and repeating yourself doesn’t address either of those criticisms.

              2. “What you call nihilism I call…”

                Cheeseburgers. It doesn’t matter what you call anything, you’ve already admitted that you don’t care what the President does.

          3. “Thanks. We had a nice country for a while.”

            Then things went badly for Ben.

            Gay-bashing is out of style. Women are welcome in graduate schools and have the vote. Muslims are being hired as police officers and teachers. Black men no longer need lower their gaze in the company of a white woman. America’s mainstream ended school prayers, then jammed evolution into science classes and ripped creationism from Ben’s clingy fingers at the schoolhouse door.

            Ben dislikes the progress that has been shaped throughout his life by America’s liberal-libertarian mainstream.

            This will continue. Until he is replaced.

            1. Nice list. Mind if I copied it?.

              What scares ME is that all these GOP fuckups have allowded extreme Progressives to kick liberty’s ass for DECADES … in the court of public opinion … on every major issue.

              They (GOP) may have ALREADY destroyed our health care … by refusing the originAl, BIPARTISAN Obamacare… which had a private alternative to the “public option” … A PRIVATE ALTERNATIVE ENDORSED AT DAILY KOS, THE MOST LIBERAL WEB SITE IN AMERICA! … thus, would have KILLED single-payer FOREVER.

              Dumbfuck McConnell instead wanted to deny Obama a second term, where he also FAILED …. instead, he made the FAR-LEFT
              Obamacare more popular than ever.

              And the rapidly shrinking GOP loyalists are CLUELESS puppets..

              Don’t take this literally, but the entire congressional GOP should be charged with treason.

    2. Found this gem elsewhere on this site

      TDS. Hmmm. May I suggest a few additions to the DSM-V.

      Trump Toady Syndrome (TTS): A form of delusional cognitive dissonance characterized by the inability to acknowledge and take responsibility for helping to put an antisocial malignant narcissist at the head of the U.S. Federal Government. TTS is characterized by frequent references to other persons conduct (whether real or imagined) when confronted with evidence of Trump’s malfeasance. For the TTS afflicted, these references serve the purpose of both public and self deflection and function as ritualized form of self-soothing. Such references are also known as “whataboutisms” by members of the general public.

      Trump Fluffer Syndrome (TFS): TFS is a form of delusional quasi-romantic transference onto Donald Trump. TFS is most often presents in males who show significant evidence of both latent homosexuality and a high degree of self loathing. TFS is characterized by the irrational worship and idealization of Donald Trump.

      TTS can present alone, however it is rare to have TFS present without TTS. The incidence of TTS and TFS is significantly higher in individuals whose IQ is materially below 100 and those without post secondary education (i.e., the “poorly educated”). While the term “TrumpTard” has entered the common lexicon with respect to sufferers of TTS and TFS, we find this term unhelpful in the diagnosis of TTS and TFS. Because of the high correlation between TTS and TFS and material cognitive deficiencies, the prognosis for treatment of these disorders is bleak.

      WARNING: Sufferers of TTS can often react violently and incoherently when presented with contrary evidence.

  6. Not to defend Trump, but the overt act associated with the (assumedly false) speech is the impeachment of the President, making it akin to a coup.

    It is more than hot blather in a council chamber. It is part of an act the same way a drug dealer standing on a corner telling you where a drug house is acting criminally.

    1. Not to defend Trump, but if you assume his rant is based on reality, and also ignore the Constitutional protection, and squint real hard, maybe he’s not as crazy as he sounds and looks.

      1. No Trump is plenty crazy, which is the reason no one should be taking him that seriously. He provokes and the seals bark furiously; he pleads his victimhood and the howler monkeys fling their feces. Is it not possible to not be one of the performing animals in this act?

        1. Sure – easy to be above it all if you commit to both sides as animals.

          Myself, I honestly worry about what he’s already done to the norms that keep our republic running, and worry about what he’s going to manage to do going forward.

          If you think that makes me a monkey, so be it.

          1. Trump is deflating and diminishing the office of the president. Good. It is an overinflated gas bag. That Republicans once screeched about this at Bill Clinton, I am hard pressed to concoct a more karmic payback.

    2. You give yourself away, Krayt.

      Impeaching Trump is an overt act of treason against the US? Wow. You really are in the cult.

      1. It might be worthwhile to credit the clingers with some good faith on this were they to lead the way on censuring Trump.

        They don’t.

        Mostly, I sense, because they like the bigotry, the disruption, the backwardness, and the chaos. They do not like America’s current or recent directions. They’d rather toss explosives than try to be part of solutions.

        Carry on, clingers. Until you are replaced.

        1. Damn right. We hate so much what America has become we’d rather just let it burn.

          1. Good thing you guys have been losing the culture war, and are positioned for even more intense failure.

    3. How can a constitutional process be an “overt act” for the purposes of the constitutionally defined treason clause?

      1. What “Constitutional act”? There is not currently an impeachment inquiry happening. The House has not voted to start one.

        1. Where does it say that the House has to vote to start an impeachment inquiry? Is it in the House rules which they approve at the start of each session, is it in the constitution or is it made up by the Republican minority as a roadblock?

    4. Not to defend Trump, but the overt act associated with the (assumedly false) speech is the impeachment of the President, making it akin to a coup

      So …..
      1) Our founders committed treason by allowing impeachment in the Constitution
      2) And making difficult to remove via amendment.
      3) Thus, Trump is CORRECT to call for a civil war … but a REVOLUTION is what we need.

      The guy is bat-shit crazy insane. And collapsing right in front of our eyes.

  7. Remember that guy we knew? He seemed thoughtful. Sometimes even wise. That was a while ago though. Now he writes long political screeds, all on the same subject, all with the same tone, same message, over and over, like all other modes of thought were crowded out of his head.

    It’s sad when something like that happens to someone. Maybe someone close to him can show him something beyond his tunnel vision? Maybe he can get past his obsession and go back to being thoughtful again someday?

    I hope so. Not everyone recovers, but there’s always hope.

    1. I mean, when’s the last time you commented on a non-Trump post on this blog?

  8. >while simultaneously not releasing the actual transcript of the >conversation so we can judge for ourselves.

    The idiom, “dumb as a Post,” carries a lot more meaning to me after reading this.

    You hear an allegation, and one in which the author freely admits that they have no first hand knowledge of the things being alleged. When the facts are released, the facts contradict the allegation. Would a rationale person or a deranged person insist on believing the allegation in spite of the facts? Would a rationale person or a deranged person continually suggest that there must be some other record that proves his case when all evidence suggests otherwise?

    I guess Mr. Post isn’t troubled by the fact that none of the 15 people who sat in on the call have come forward to say that the transcript was doctored. Or that none of the 15 people with firsthand knowledge thought it was worthy of submitting a whistleblower allocation themselves. How can you believe that Trump is a bumbling moron but also believe simultaneously that he had the foresight to have the Whitehouse situation room transcribers scrub this transcript back on July 25th when it happened? Remember, he had no knowledge at the time that this call would someday become public.

    If you had even a small amount of integrity, you would admit that you can’t write about the President in an objective manner, and you would refrain from doing so. You certainly wouldn’t write a post under the pretense of taking the President seriously and then conflate that with taking him literally. You would almost certainly hold Schiff and anyone else pushing impeachment to the highest possible standards, as what they are suggesting is the undoing of the will of the American people – not just a personal attack on Trump himself. You wouldn’t pretend that Trump’s poor defenses of himself are the best defenses of him. I don’t think anyone wants a country in which the votes of the entire nation can be overturned by an anonymous CIA officer with second hand information working hand-in-glove with the political opposition.

    1. Actually, the author checked the box saying he has firsthand knowledge of some of what he put down.

      No facts have contradicted the whistleblower. In fact, Trump’s admitted to just about everything that was alleged, making the whistleblower now more or less irrelevant.

      We have a partial transcript Trump released, plus admissions from Trump and Giuliani. Your attempt to argue that no one in Trump’s circle seems troubled is less evidence that Trump’s call was perfect, and more that Trump’s people remain slavishly loyal above any responsibility to the US. I’m troubled by the fact that everyone on the call seems cool with Trump using the power of the Presidency to directly assist his election even to this day.

      Trump didn’t scrub anything; his people did.

      Seems pretty rich for you to say someone isn’t objective enough to write about the President.

      1. Trump admitted to a quid pro quo?

        News to me.

        1. “China should start an investigation into the Bidens,” he said, adding, “I have a lot of options on China, but if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power,”

          1. Congrats, you created a quid pro quo that never existed by cutting and pasting comments together that occured nowhere near each other in real life!

            1. That wasn’t cut and pasted, they directly followed one another. I flip-flopped the order so you had it in quid-pro-quo order.

              You have a very, unrealistically narrow view of how a quid pro quo must be constructed. Notably, the State Department doesn’t seem to share that understanding.

              1. I just watched it ffs. The two statements are more than 30 seconds apart, and of course you had to swap the order of them to make it sound like they were part of the same answer. They weren’t. One was in response to a question on trade talks with China. The other was an entirely separate question on the Bidens and the Zelensky call.

                This is why people don’t trust or believe people like you on this issue. You’re making bad faith arguments.

                1. A Trumptard claiming others make “bad faith arguments.”

                  Fucking wow.

                  1. Where did I make a bad faith argument? What I stated was absolutely correct, and the fact that he didn’t come back to answer for his attempted rewriting of reality is proof of that.

                    1. Are you kidding?
                      The Quid pro quid DOES NOT HAVE TO BE STATED IN RESPONSE TO A SINGLE QUESTION. A request combined with a reward or threat.

                      What of he said them a MONTH apart?
                      1.) “If China does not do what I WANT, I have awesome powers.
                      2.) “I want China to investigate Biden.”

                      WHAT did he want China to do, under threat?

                      Here’s a bigger one: WHY must there even be a quid pro quo … if he ADMITS inviting a foreign country to interfere in THIS election? (different countries this time)

              2. Everyone who could ever be imagined to have a say in anything and also be imagined to have anything to gain is guilty by that standard.

                Spend an extra second being nice to someone because it makes you feel good? If it doesn’t help your employer in a tangible way, that’s corrupt. You used your employer’s resource (your time at work) for your own benefit (you felt good). You’re going to prison under the Sarcastr0 standard.

                1. My arguing that a quid pro quo offer needn’t be part of the same sentence isn’t the same as arguing that there is no limit.

                  They call what you just tried excluding the middle.

                  1. How does anyone defend against this presumption that things are linked?

                    The only defense is never having anything to gain, or the appearance of anything to gain, or any way to imagine you might possibly have anything to gain.

                    Everyone can be presumed guilty. Which is what you have done.

                    1. You are demanding quantitative structure in human communication. That’s impossible, and I’m sure you know that.

                      Not even courts work like that. You’re argument has lead you to demand strange and ridiculous things. Because you are defending a strange and ridiculous notion that even the White House no longer hews to.

                      Suffice to say most everyone on this blog who isn’t you – even the deep Trump supporters – see it. The State Department saw it. And Trump has stopped saying it’s not a quid pro quo.

                      Your vehemence on this point is not going to age well.

                    2. How’s that? There are currently no facts linking aid to Ukraine and investigating Biden corruption. In the future, facts might become known. My insistence that we not imagine facts will have aged well. Or facts might not become known. My insistence that we not imagine facts will have aged well.

                      Not making up imaginary stories (or parts of stories) to accuse people is a timeless principle of fairness, rationality, and logic. It’s very sad to see so many once-respectable people have given up on even the most basic principles of thinking.

                    3. Remember this in the future. Someone will make up a connection between things and unfairly presume guilt. And you will say it’s not factual. And they will say “that didn’t matter to you when it was Trump-Ukraine, so STFU”.

                      And you will make some lame claim about whataboutism or wtf-ever while you watch people acting unjustly, knowing it’s your side’s persistent degradation of standards and your personal cheerleading that led there.

                    4. I knew I saw the Sarcastr0 standard in action before.

                      There’s a 2018 story “Burned to death because of a rumor on WhatsApp”. They didn’t wait for facts that time either.

                      Can we put the Sarcastr0 stamp of approval on that? I guess anyone can presume it. Why not? Presuming is clearly not out of bounds.

    2. And what about the will of the American people who gave the Democrats the majority in the House?

      1. The American people didn’t give the Democrats the majority in the house. The majority of American citizens, most of whom are not Americans, did.

        1. Most of whom are not Americans?? What is your source of information?

          1. Most immigrants to the U.S. and their descendants post 1965 don’t really share American values, and thus, are not Americans.

            1. Based on birthplace, or naturalization, per the Constitution.
              You don’t know what American values are, in this sock, nor do you seem to realize that we are a Constitutional government.

    3. Woland: You would almost certainly hold Schiff and anyone else pushing impeachment to the highest possible standards, as what they are suggesting is the undoing of the will of the American people

      Actually, the notion behind impeachment is that it does do the will of the American people. Impeachment is a constitutional exercise of sovereignty, no less than an election is. Asserting that impeachment is illegitimate is akin to a demand to cancel the next election.

      I don’t think anyone wants a country in which the votes of the entire nation can be overturned by an anonymous CIA officer with second hand information working hand-in-glove with the political opposition.

      The votes of the entire nation? It wasn’t unanimous, which partly explains that political opposition you don’t like. They got more votes. As for undoing Trump’s votes, that is exactly the kind of nation I want, if the information against Trump proves out from sources that have it first-hand. If it does not prove out, then, pretty clearly, the extraordinarily high bar in the Senate will not be surmounted. My money, and at this point I would give odds, is that the information will prove out (barring successful obstruction), but the Republican Senate majority will refuse to vindicate the constitution anyway.

      These are dark times. Folks who advocate to obstruct the process prescribed for coping with this stuff are just making it darker.

      1. “My money, and at this point I would give odds, is that the information will prove out (barring successful obstruction), but the Republican Senate majority will refuse to vindicate the constitution anyway.”

        Senate will “vindicate” the constitution whichever way it votes.

        1. donojack, you mean, if the Senate holds a trial, examines witnesses, and then holds a vote? See the problem?

          1. However the Senate decides to handle it will be within the bounds of the Constitution. It gives the Senate the sole power to conduct the proceeding with no specific rules applied. If the Senate is called to order and there is a motion to dismiss and it carries then the matter is closed, and the Senate has discharged its duty.

            1. Senate internal rules do not currently allow that option.

              1. 51 votes to change Senate rules.

                1. They probably do not have the votes for that.

                2. “51 votes to change Senate rules”

                  Watching the clingers try rely on Sen. Romney, Sen. Sasse, Sen. Collins, and a few others to preserve their bigotry-and-backwardness spree would be quite entertaining.

                  Replacement of the clingers is getting easier and easier . . . and sooner and sooner . . . and more enjoyable.

                  1. I see that you and TheLibertyTruthTeller have become quite the tag team. Nice fit.

                    1. We’re both libertarians. DUH. Different factions.

                      Likewise, you and your fellow authoritarians function as a team, as in the psycho comment you made here. However, adults don’t sneer that you’re all some vast conspiracy, attacking different viewpoints, like your cohorts at Berkeley.

                      Authoritarians are the exact opposite of libertarians, based on their root words. “Liberty” is the opposite of “authority,” on the topic of governance.

                      Educate yourself, or stay ignorant, your choice. We’ll defend your right to do either, unlike your own contempt for individual liberty.

                      Left – Right = Zero

                    2. Do you guys have matching tattoo bracelets?

                    3. Even more childish when they lose.

            2. donojack, if the Senate disposes of an impeachment by any process except one which reflects a majority vote of the chamber, then it flouts the Constitution. The Senate, not Mitch McConnell speaking for the Senate, has the sole power to try impeachments. What I am saying is that the Garland process cannot validly be applied to an impeachment. Do you disagree?

              1. I kinda disagree. If a majority vote of the chamber chooses to adopt rules that dispose of impeachment with no process, that counts as reflecting the view of the Senate, no?

                1. Sarcastr0, unless you refer to some previously adopted Senate rule, meant to apply generally, without specifically considering this impeachment, I do not disagree with you. That is how I interpret the “sole power” clause.

                  But that was not the Garland process. With Garland, there was never any full-Senate action involved. For that reason, I have since contended that the denial of Senate action for Garland was illegitimate.

                  I assume that there are also previous, similar denials, which never got full-Senate action. I say those were also illegitimate. I do not think a constitutional requirement for Senate action, regardless of outcome, can be disposed of by anything less than full-Senate action with regard to the particular case which gave rise to the requirement.

                  1. And what is the basis for this opinion? I think the last minute fabricated sexual assault allegations against Kavanagh were illegitimate. I think the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act is illegitimate.

                    1. That’s directly related to
                      1) You say the Constitution is illegitimate
                      2) Because your expressed authoritarian mentality.
                      3) You’re a liberal, trying to make the far-right look like drooling psychopaths, which they can do on their own, just like the far-left.
                      4) Left – Right = Zero

              2. Yes I do disagree. This is not the same as Garland because it will come to the floor. It may or may not result in what you might call a full trial. Something like a motion to dismiss in fact would have a higher bar than a vote to convict. Also I don’t think that any votes would change as a result of a full trial. All of the evidence before the Senate will be known well before the trial begins.

                1. Something like a motion to dismiss in fact would have a higher bar than a vote to convict.

                  Explanation?

                  1. It takes 2/3 to convict, so on a “motion for summary judgement” the hurdle to clear isn’t 51 votes, it’s 67. If 34 wont vote to convict, even accepting the allegations as true, then a conviction is impossible (assuming none were to change their minds).

                    So: 51 vote to hold a “motion for summary judgement” vote, then 34 vote to discharge the entirety of the case.

                    Think of it as a filibuster-type rule, if you can’t get 60 votes then you can’t pass your bill, and here if you can’t gets 67 votes you can’t convict….. except that 67 is a constitutional rule, while the filibuster is not.

                    Relatedly, we should bring back the filibuster as an actual filibuster – if someone holds their view so strongly that they’ll keep talking we should respect their dedication, even if we disagree with their decision. No more of this “I’ll filibuster, so everyone moves on” gimmick where no price is paid.

                    1. I am baffled. How is 51 greater than 67? And what makes you think courtroom legalisms like, “motion for summary judgment,” apply to an impeachment trial in the Senate?

                      I am not saying you make no sense. I am saying I’m not getting it. Help me out, please. I just want to be sure there is no way to bypass a Senate trial if 51 Senators want a trial. Can you focus on that?

                    2. Seriously, you’re baffled?

                      49 is greater than 33. If you can’t get by the majority vote, you’re not winning the super-majority vote.

                  2. @ Stephen Lathrop
                    ” I just want to be sure there is no way to bypass a Senate trial if 51 Senators want a trial. Can you focus on that?” I’d say you are correct there, but also if the Senate just votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment without what you call a trial, that is still a trial. The Senate can dispose of the matter any way it chooses to do so.

                    1. I agree with that.

      2. The “process prescribed” includes a house vote to begin an impeachment inquiry. No such vote has been taken. You must have lost your rule book in all that darkness you carry with you.

        1. Ben, do you have some way to account for, “to begin an impeachment?”

          1. Zero idea what you’re asking.

            1. Nobody’s surprised by that, at least.

            2. Ben, you seem to have added that to the constitutional requirement. Yes, you need a house vote to complete an impeachment in the affirmative, and forward it to the Senate. But not to investigate with an eye to impeachment. Nothing in the Constitution says you need a full House vote to do that.

              1. What separates an official impeachment investigation from normal political games? A press release?

                Why should anyone take this investigation seriously if the house isn’t serious enough to initiate it or conduct it with any sort of procedural formality?

        2. Technically, it takes a house vote to impeach. To investigate whether to impeach? No, not really, even if that’s the way it has always been done in the past.

          I’m not saying that Pelosi isn’t violating the procedure used in prior impeachments, she is, and in a way that’s abusive, deliberately set up to deny the minority any role. But until she purports to “impeach” Trump without a vote of the whole House, she’s not violating the Constitution.

    4. The notion that impeachment seeks to overturn election results is specious. The consequence of removal pursuant to an impeachment trial is that Mike Pence — the duly elected vice-president — takes office. In order for the election to be overturned, Hillary Clinton would need to be installed.

  9. You claim to be taking those tweets seriously but read them out of context and interpret them in the worst possible light, willfully ignoring all other possible interpretations of those same words. For example, the calls for investigation could be a threat to trigger the investigation himself – or they could be protected speech petitioning (however inarticulately) for a co-equal branch of government to investigate their own. Congress does, after all, have their own disciplinary procedures.

    If you want to feel outraged by Trump’s tweets, feel free. But stop wasting our time writing about it and please stop pretending to be any less irrational than the very person you’re whining about.

    1. Rossami, with only one or two exceptions, there is not anyone commenting on this board who is not more rational than Trump. Ask yourself, if Trump could join the conversations on Volokh, and be challenged by anyone, what would you see?

      1. The right-wing version of Rev Artie.

        1. There are no right-wing versions of libertarians. We are neither right nor left, oppose both as evil, which confuses the hell out of both

          1. Hahaha – are you saying Artie is a libertarian (of any flavor)?

            1. you hahaha — I’m saying you just made an ass of yourself

              Your blunder is most often caused by three things, combined
              1) Ignorance that libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for over 50 years. Neither liberal not conservative.

              2) This explodes the bipolar “brain,” who cannot imagine anything that’s not liberal or conservative — a dwindling class of low mentality people, on both the left and right, who have been obsolete for at least 30 years. Over 60% of of Americans SELF-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal — also known as “live and let live” — HATED by your authoritarian right and by your equivalent on the left. The authoritarian left enforces its rigid discipline by mostly whining. The right by bellowing, or with mindless phrases like “Hahaha” EVERY time they’re way out of their intelligence level.

              3) The core of their low intelligence is the ass-umption that all people must mindlessly conform to 100% of their own views or be “supporting” the opposing tribe. (Which is why you’re both obsolete.)

              For example: This is a longer version of what caused you to self-humiliate in response

              There are no right-wing versions of libertarians. We are neither right nor left, oppose both as evil, which confuses the hell out of both.

              A confusion they’ve shared for maybe 40 of our 50-years-that-you-never-heard-of.

              Anything else?

      2. I’d expect him to be about as rational as Post, the author of the diatribe at the top of the page (which is to say, not very much at all). I can’t do anything about Trump but there’s at least a faint hope that Post will read some of these comments and maybe reflect on the fact that he’s lost perspective.

        1. Like most READERS here, he knows you have just proved his point, unwittingly as always.

  10. Trump is certainly acting below the dignity of the office by all his tweets. I am, myself, a never trumper.

    … but …

    Do you really want to write this post while defending Schiff? As if his actions were ok (DP seems to use equal mental gymnastics to rationalize them)?

    TDS isn’t blind support for Trump. It’s the idea that everything the left does to bring him down is “normal” and acceptable. The treason line is funny because it has literally been hurled at Trump for two years by members of Congress, and DP lets it slide … it’s only when Trump does so, in turn, that we are lectured about the charges definition.

    1. What did Schiff do? Do you think anyone interpreted his bad Trump impression digressions as real?

      I don’t think Trump even saw the tape; he’s just grasping at straws. And now you’re adopting that position.

      Check out the primary sources. Else you’ll end up voting Trump in 2020 to own the fantasy libs Trump and his media create.

      1. Sadly, no.

        I voted Johnson in 2016, and will almost definitely vote Trump is 2020.

        Biden – I’ll assume he didn’t know his son was leveraging his dads position for millions of dollars, and I’ll give him a pass on lying about how his wife and daughter died (because if my daughter died I’d have killed the guy), but I can’t give him as pass on those and also give him a pass on the IRS scandal, which he claims wasn’t a scandal, nor on gun running to Mexican cartels.

        Harris – an actual Drug Warrior, who fabricated evidence in multiple prosecutions both to protect murderous cops and to shut down backpage.

        Warren/Sanders – actual socialists. I guess we just haven’t tried it hard enough, no way that could go poorly, just because it has literally everywhere else it’s been tried, including in the early pre-US colonies.

        O’Rourke – at least he’s honest that he wants to deprive me of the ability to defend myself (I can’t walk, so necessarily I can’t run).

        Gabbard – I’d totally vote for her, no way she’ll get it though.

        1. As is your right. And I will judge your seeming rationality accordingly.

          You didn’t actually discuss Trump there. That’s quite telling regarding your logic.

          Purely negative tribal affiliation is no way to go through life.

          1. He’s also as ignorant as Trump on what “actual socialism is.

  11. Oh for Pete’s sake! Not everything the President says is Presidential. LBJ showed his appendix scar, I think. Andrew Jackson fought off an attacker. JFK had affairs. Reagan ate jelly beans, even a specific brand (Jelly Bellies™). Obama somehow made enough money as a side job to afford a $14M seaside mansion (so much for global warming!), in addition to all his time golfing and holding post-racial beer summits. Hillary and Bill claimed to be broke when they left the White House, in spite of the same speech tours as Obama.

    On and on it goes, Presidents with private lives while they were President! The horror! The horror!

    1. What? This isn’t his “private life.” It’s his conduct as President that in no way befits the office.

      1. You too are conflating everything Trump says with his job. You, and TDS victims like you, are the ones giving Trump legitimacy. When you treat every last word of his as if it were Presidential and not political or personal, you elevate him to legendary status.

        To disprove my point, all you have to do is list a few things Trump has said or done which you do NOT consider Presidential.

        I bet you can’t.

        1. You have it wrong way around.

          Trump’s conflating his job with everything else he does, using his job purely as an instrument of his desires to get reelected, go after his enemies, and rant to adoring crowds.

          His duties to America seem to have been quite forgotten as he orders his DoJ and State department to prioritize chasing conspiracy theories that even if true would hardly be top concerns in American foreign policy.

          1. Can you name one single politician who didn’t conflate his personal goals with his job?

            1. Interesting change of generality level there. And getting rid of the purely.

              I mean Huey Long used his job as a mere instrument to attain his personal goals. Other than that, I’m not finding much at this level.

              1. In other words, no, you can’t even back up your own statement.

                1. No, I think your question has little to do with my charge.

                  It’s like I said ‘Trump walks on water’ and you said ‘well, name a politician that hasn’t touched water at one time or another.’

        2. You mean Trump’s personal character defects? I mean, they’re pretty well documented. He’s repeatedly cheated on his wives, he cheats at golf, he’s incredibly vain and can’t admit a mistake, he has the attention span of a flea (to the point where he won’t read a one-page document), he’s completely ignorant of history, he lies about his personal life and business history, etc.

          None of those are particularly salient as reasons to vote against him, in my view. Now can we get back to all the ways he screws up his actual job? I mean, there are so many that it’s hardly necessary to pay much attention to the above.

    2. LBJ showed his appendix scar

      2-3 times per day, for over 2-1/2 years?

  12. Note: not a fan of the President. He is an uncouth, lying, self sabotaging, unbalanced child, temperamentally unfit for the job to which he was elected.

    Of course Rep. Schiff didn’t commit a crime, of any kind in reference to his speech, however, Rep. Schiff is a disingenuous, lying scoundrel, of enormous proportions. He, like Trump, can barely open his mouth without a lie spewing forth. We had years of this worthless POS telling us they had evidence of collusion, it was coming any day now. His characterization of Trump’s call with Zelenskiy falsely characterizes the memo (I agree that it’s not a transcript) but his “whistleblower” had no direct knowledge either, and Schiff apparently helped arrange the whistleblowing in the first place.

    Now, all that said, from the honey traps and plots, to the FISA warrants based almost entirely on a false dossier and press reports about the dossier, (a mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes litany if lies), all designed to enable an investigation from before his election, to the report that only supports the notion that the only crime of the idiot in chief was to rail about quashing (but not actually quashing) the investigation into the non existent collusion, the notion that there isn’t a seditious plot against him is patently ridiculous.

    Trump, with his limited emotional depth, lashes out against these conspirators in his own pathetic way doesn’t change the fact that there are legions who oppose him so virulently that they are willing to break laws to get him, for crimes he didn’t commit, but don’t have the decency to even admit he didn’t commit them.

    1. There was no Russia Collusion.
    2. Trump did not strong arm Zelenskiy.
    3. There is more than a little fishy about Biden strong arming (he admitted the quid pro quo) Poroshenko to get a prosecutor looking into the company that was employing his crackhead son (with no gas experience beyond sucking cocaine gas out of a glass dick at $50K a month right after he got booted from the Navy (and leaving a glass dick in his rental car)) fired.

    Just because other scumbags wanted the prosecutor fired does not excuse Biden’s actions. If true, someone other than Biden should have delivered that demand.

    However, Hunter Biden is a scumbag. He, Chris Heinz, and Devon Archer are tied up in tons of bad stuff via Rosemont-Seneca and the fact that no Foreign Corrupt Practices investigation is ongoing, while all of these fraudulent investigations continue to swirl around Trump is a moral outrage.

    1. +1, what this guy said.

    2. There’s plenty of evidence of collusion in the Mueller report. But the President can’t be indicted for it.

      Zelenskiy didn’t give in, but the latest texts released show, even more so than the transcript, that it’s not for lack of Trump and his people trying up to and including withholding aid.

      No one was looking into Biden’s son. Biden got the prosecutor fired for slow-rolling the investigation into that company. This is on record.

      The phenomenon of neverTrumpers spending all their time hating on the Dems who are going after Trump, swallowing every bid of mid Trump is throwing at them, is an interesting one. I don’t doubt their good faith, but tribalism is a helluva drug; moreso negative tribalism, it seems.

      1. “There’s plenty of evidence of collusion in the Mueller report. But the President can’t be indicted for it.”

        Mueller literally said that not one solitary American he could identify knowingly colluded with the Russians, and he only found one guy who did it unknowingly.

        1. Look at this guy’s other comments – he’s particularly obnoxious. And can’t proofread. Don’t bother feeding the trolls.

        2. I think it’s evidence in the Ukraine sense. If you take the bare facts and dress them up with an imaginary tale woven from the threads of your personal discontent and derangement, you get a pretty damning story. That’s what evidence means in these contexts.

          1. You’ve not read the Mueller report, then? He’s not weaving an imaginary tale.

            1. Mueller disagrees with your characterization of his report. He must not be as good at reading between the lines as you.

              1. Yeah, the part where Mueller exonerated Trump and provided no evidence about his campaign and Russia was pretty lit.

        3. It’s not like that entire section on collusion was blank or exonerated anyone.

          Mueller said there was no exoneration, and wrote out a bunch of evidence that the Trump admin wanted to collude, and tried to. But then he didn’t follow up because, per OLC opinion, that was not a rout he thought he could go down.

          1. Yes, Mueller said there was no exoneration, and if there’s a special Hell for prosecutors, he’s damned himself to it by that statement.

            Nobody needs to be exonerated in America. We have the presumption of innocence here. If he didn’t prove Trump guilty, that’s the end of it. It was never his job to prove the negative, or else Trump is presumed guilty.

            He said that deliberately so people like you could repeat it, as though it had any significance. He threw you something you could cling to as an excuse to think Trump guilty, despite coming up empty in proving it.

            Despicable conduct on the part of a prosecutor. There is no “exonerate”, prove the charge, or don’t prove it.

            1. Using criminal standards for political evaluations is pretty rich, coming from the guy totally fine with calling Hillary a felon.

              1. It’s now obvious that you haven’t read the Mueller report. All of section II is about obstruction of justice. That is very much a “criminal standard,” in which there is no provision for “exoneration.”

                1. It’s quite clear you haven’t read my comments. This whole way through I’ve been quite clear that I’ve been speaking to the collusion section of the report.

                  1. The exoneration business only came up in section 2.

                    1. He looked for a criminal charge of collusion, didn’t find one, and so told a quite detailed story about Russian interference and the Trump campaign being open and eager to collude.

                      Dunno what story you’re looking for, but I don’t think that’s it.

                  2. There is no criminal charge of collusion.

                    1. In Democratic fantasyland there is.

                    2. As I noted at 2:39.

                    3. Umm, collusion is NOT a crime, sucker. It’s CONSPIRACY, There is no criminal charge, yet, ONLY because a sitting President cannot be indicted … as Mueller explained in his report (to the literate).

                      But there is PLENTY of evidence, which he also said was gathered for future use.

                      Trump keeps bellowing “no collusion” because his puppets are ignorant enough to swallow it.

                      The best known conspiracy is Don Jr. KNOWINGLY conspiring with an agent of the Russian government, to help his father’s campaign (Trump Tower)… known because Retard Jr. ADMITTED iit!!!

                      Trump totally misled the American people on the purpose of the meeting and, when he got caught, claimed he had no advance knowledge of it. BECAUSE: If he did, that makes him a co-conspirator in the conspiracy against American election,.

                      “Conspiring” means PLANNING together. Junior released the emails PLANNING the meeting, KNOWING it was on behalf of the Russian government, to help elect his father,

                      Wait for it ….

                      Donald Junior KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian government, KNOWING the Russian government wanted to help his dad win … PROOF as released to the public by ….. wait for it …. DONALD JUNIOR! … dumb as any other Trumptard.

                      Russian invitation to Donald Jr.
                      “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

                      “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin”.

                      Also a sucker

                      Ben_
                      In Democratic fantasyland there is.

                      SEVEN criminal charges were passed down to the Southern District of New York … then vanished. My own assumption is charges against Trump will be filed closer to the election. (He CAN be indicted in a state court)

                      Proof against Hillary? NONE
                      Proof against Trump. TONS
                      And they VOTE! (smirk)

                      LOCK HIM UP!

            2. Brett, that argument is apt, and applies in the case of criminal prosecution. But not in this case. In the case of criminal investigation involving the President—by the DOJs standard—not only is there no exoneration, there is also no prospect of conviction. All that means is that the process cannot end with the investigation. After the investigation, exoneration or conviction remains to be found, by impeachment and trial.

              1. Wrong. There is no exoneration and no place for it. The President is either convicted by the Senate and removed or he is not. The whole exoneration thing was cooked up so that the Dems could save face and pretend to keep the balls in the air.

                1. By your logic if the President has a minority of Senators behind him, he can not only get away with any crime, but literally be innocent of any crime.

                  Congrats on your king.

                  1. That’s the Constitution. Sorry you don’t like it but your group won’t be able to just whine your way into forcing the Senate to act the way you want it to. I’m sure there will be a lot of caterwauling about how this wasn’t a real trial and so forth. Who cares? Cry me a river.

                    1. I don’t think the founders intended the President to be constitutionally incapable of criminal guilt in any circumstance. Liability/sanction perhaps, but guilt is a different concept. I don’t think you’re realizing that.

                      What part of the Constitution are you talking about?

                      I didn’t say anything about what the Senate has to do, only about the implication of your legal interpretation. Your fan fiction at the end is substance-less.

                    2. “I don’t think the founders intended the President to be constitutionally incapable of criminal guilt in any circumstance. ”

                      That is just complete nonsense. The Constitution refers to “high crimes and misdemeanors” and doesn’t bother the elaborate. Criminal acts may fall within that but the Senate trial is political not criminal.

                    3. Criminal liability while holding office is not the same as criminal guilt while holding office. Liability is the conviction-jail stuff. Guilt is like you did the thing.

                      You’ve used the presumption of innocence in criminal trials with the President’s immunity from indictment to create a presidency that’s above not just the law, but actually metaphysically unable to perform a criminal act.

                      Maybe pull back your logic a bit if you get there.

                    4. I honestly don’t even know what you’re talking about. Impeachment and conviction is political not criminal. If Trump were removed and there was evidence of him having committed a crime he could be indicted after removal.

                    5. As far as the Constitution is concerned, there’s absolutely nothing saying that he couldn’t be prosecuted for criminal matters before leaving office, too. Criminal law and impeachment are independent of each other, and the Constitution, (As opposed to DOJ policy gives Presidents no immunity to the law.

                      The Constitution explicitly grants members of Congress quite limited criminal immunity, for speech in chamber, and minor offenses enroute to attending a session. I simply don’t buy the idea that Congress was explicitly given weaker protection than Presidents gain by mere implication.

                      That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be awkward for one of his own employees, subject to his own orders, to try prosecuting him. But nothing shields him from state prosecution.

        4. Which is the basis for Mueller’s determination that “conspiracy” could not be proven. There is a difference between “conspiracy” and collusion. Collusion is not a legal term and that is why it is not used by Mueller–a by the book lawyer. I don’t know why you conflate the two?

          1. That’s not what Mueller said. That you’ve been manipulated and suckered is described here.

            https://reason.com/2019/10/04/treason-sedition-and-trump-derangement-syndrome/#comment-7960611

            Linked to PROOF. Sorry.

      2. Are you a semi-retarded autistic?

        1. Looks like you’re the only one. But keep looking!

    3. “Just because other scumbags wanted the prosecutor fired does not excuse Biden’s actions.”

      To be clear, the other scumbags were the United States of America, of which Biden served as representative in the matter, and the European Union.

    4. 3. There is more than a little fishy about Biden strong arming (he admitted the quid pro quo) Poroshenko to get a prosecutor looking into the company that was employing his crackhead son (with no gas experience beyond sucking cocaine gas out of a glass dick at $50K a month right after he got booted from the Navy (and leaving a glass dick in his rental car)) fired.

      Lying Trumptard also INSANE enough to believe a board member … at, say, GM, …. MUST be an experienced autoworker … and he makes so massive an ass of himself IN PUBLIC!

      Which is why we call them Trumptards! They stand in line, eager to say bat-shit crazy things (and psycho lies), with a few infantile dick jokes.
      .

    5. We had years of this worthless POS telling us they had evidence of collusion,

      Would you like a list? (smirk)
      Despite the crazy lies of Trump’s cult, Mueller SAID the redacted report had no conclusions on collusion, because a sitting President cannot be indicted. He ALSO said that he gathered all possible evidence, while recollections were still fresh, for possible LATER action. MUCH proof of obstruction. BET on Trump being hauled away, when his Presidency ends …likely as soon as he exits the White House.

      Also seven criminal charges in the Southern District of New York, which have become invisible. Are those trials on hold until closer to the election?.

      MOST of the redactions in the Mueller Report were large sections in the collusion segment. For YOU to claim knowledge of ANY SINGLE SENTENCE of the redacted and/or classified report … makes YOU the lying Piece of Shit … Shame on you

      While all of these fraudulent investigations continue to swirl around Trump is a moral outrage.

      You have been PROVEN a liar. Just another manipulated sucker of the political class. YOU are a moral outrage.

      But Giuliani may give you a cookie, for performing as trained.

  13. Everything said by every politician ever, has been meaningless and nonsensical.

    1. Your comment is dumb and you should feel bad.

    2. Are you getting a tummy ache yet Matthew?

  14. The problem is that childish semantics arguments (word games) don’t work because everyone recognizes them for what they are. What you do when you don’t have an actual argument. Lawyers are famous for this. Losers like Adam Schiff take it that extra bit farther and get caught fabricating and lying. And that’s why very few people take the DNC serious now.

    1. Schiff fairly paraphrased the substance of Trump´s proposed quid pro quo. Did he use colorful language? No doubt. But Trump should heed Harry Truman´s maxim: if you can´t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

      1. PLUS, Schiff SAID he was giving the ESSENCE of it.
        That means, “This is how I interpret what he MEANS.”
        But Trump’s cult swallows all his bullshit, on blind faith alone, when he’s a proven serial liar.

  15. Why does this man keep writing the same stupid column three times a week. Is there no adult supervision on this blog?

    1. Orin, the resident adult, probably agrees with a lot of this.

    2. Well you must admit that he throws us a lot of much-desired red meat. And to his credit he doesn’t seem to ban anyone who knocks him or delete comments that he doesn’t like (as one other poster does). He is also willing to engage with the commentariat so why not just enjoy the ride?

      1. Which Conspirator deletes comments?

        1. It’s a conspiracy.

        2. You’ve been around long enough that you should know.

            1. I don’t know either.

              This is one of the lighter moderated blogs I’ve ever seen that hasn’t become nonfunctional because of it.

              1. You have a generous understanding of “functional,” but essentially, yeah.

  16. Schiff’s actions were bad because he has caused an outright falsehood to be entered into the record while claming it was true. Onlya few days later, he claimed it was “parody”, but at the time, he pretended that he was quoting. Just days ago, Nancy Pelosi was on the news claiming that it was a quote.

    I would be harder on Trump saying “treason” if so many people had not been constantly screaming that word in all directions. I cannot put too much blame on the hothead when people have been saying the exact same thing for every last thing he does.

    Repeat a 2017 news post that his impeachment could lead to civil war? TREASON!
    Talk to Ukraine about potential corruption? TREASON!
    Say sky is blue, TREASON!

    1. LIAR. The actual text of his statement SAYS it reports THE ESSENCE of Trump’s call … which he did, if one understands the English language..

      Swallowing Trump’s lies and lame excuses — or any politician’s — on blind faith … can be self-humiliating.

  17. DAVID POST NOW TREASONOUS … PUT HIM TO DEATH.

    It’s the Trumptards who are deranged … and whiny pussies.
    EVERY word Post wrote is true … but assault him for saying them. Because authoritarian worship.

  18. Post said: “We don’t know what Trump actually said because he has not released a full transcript or recording of the call.”

    The memorandum disclaimer states in part: “The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.”

    So there is no recording, there is no “actual” transcript aside from the memorandum. You have at least several and possibly a half dozen people or more who were present during the conversation and who were responsible for producing an accurate version of it.

    Are we supposed to assume that they are all in on some conspiracy to hide the “real” transcript, that they were either extreme Trump loyalists or were threatened and/or bribed to conceal the truth?

    The reason we are getting this is that the memorandum as it stands doesn’t get the job done for the Dems. That’s why Schiff felt he had to sex it up with his “parody” and why the impeachment fans have to fantasize about those missing parts of the conversation, the parts that will really get Trump.

    1. These memos are the standard way to memorialize presidential conversations with foreign leaders. Post ought to know this but …

    2. Didn’t Trump say there was a stenographer? Very talented stenographers, IIRC.

      1. He says a lot of things.

        1. I’m not saying it’s true, I’m saying we still don’t know what’s out there, and anyone trying to declare either way is letting their partisanship author their knowledge.

          Dunno if it matters, what we have is pretty hard to miss. And there are plenty of post-Ukraine avenues that remain pretty fertile.

          1. “Dunno if it matters, what we have is pretty hard to miss.”
            Then why are you falling all over yourselves to conjure up more?

            1. Because that’s how investigations work.

              And because accretion of evidence has political valence well beyond it’s truth value.

              1. Speculating without any evidence about an imaginary section of a transcript is not “accretion of evidence.” It may have “political valence well beyond it’s [sic] truth value” (that’s a real gem by the way) meaning our wild speculations have propaganda value regardless of how ridiculous they are.

                1. I pretty carefully didn’t speculate about anything. You’re the one declaring So there is no recording, there is no “actual” transcript aside from the memorandum.

                  1. Ok, do you then think that those folks charged with creating the memorandum are part of a cover up? They are likely career people at a fairly low level.

                    Because that is the only way that you can get to your “missing” conversation.

                    1. donojack, whether anyone is part of a cover up depends on what is in the full narrative of the call, which has not been released publicly. If the “memo,” faithfully conveys all the meaning of the full narrative, then no cover up. But otherwise . . . So who knows?

                    2. The transcript is about 5 minutes of verbal, from a 20-minute call.

                      PLUS. educate yourself. Trump SAID he’d release a FULL, UN-REDACTED, UNCLASSIFIED TRANSCRIPT of the call.

                      That leaves only only two possibilities.
                      1) There IS the transcript he first promised, then lied about, for the same reason he made it super classified. Incriminating evidence.
                      2) There is no transcript, thus more proof that he’s an imbecile on the nature of his office … after over two years!

                      What’s your own best guess from those?

                      THIS may all be a side show, since he now seems dedicated to self-impeachment.

      2. Maybe some of them were using a stenograph. Do your inside sources say they weren’t?

        1. If by inside sources you mean the disclaimer on the transcript that says ‘not a verbatim transcript.’ Kinda countermands the idea that it comes from stenography, doesn’t it?

          1. No of course it doesn’t. Stenographers make mistakes all the time. Why do you think that deponents are encouraged to read very carefully the transcript of a deposition? I have been a deponent on several occasions and found numerous errors in the transcripts.

            1. Do court transcripts say ‘not a verbatim transcript’ if there were stenographers because there might be a typo?

              Not that I’ve seen.

              Whatever. This is a pedantic side issue. You can go on with your declaration that there’s no other transcript. Maybe you’ll be proven right in time. But at the moment, that’s not supported.

      3. I doubt Trump said there was a stenographer, as I suspect that word isn’t in his vocabulary.

    3. No. You’re not supposed to think at all. You’re supposed to emote.

      Of course they’re hiding the real transcript. Of course that transcript has the exact words that prove whatever crime. Making up emotionally satisfying stories and deciding they’re true is what being a Democrat is all about. The stories ring true. The stories feel true. It’s a truth above and beyond anything mere reality has to offer.

      1. Yes. I remember when Democrats told stories that felt true despite observable reality!

        Like when they drew a sharpie on a National Weather Service Map because despite local meteorologists saying otherwise it felt like a hurricane would hit Alabama.

        Or that time they felt that a serial cheater who had zero demonstrated interest in Christianity was a great moral and spiritual leader.

        Or that time they felt that the President lost the popular vote because of 3 million illegal votes.

        Or the time they thought an electoral college margin was a historic blowout, despite it being in the bottom quartile of electoral college margins.

        Or that time they felt a federal judge from Indiana who used to be a federal prosecutor was biased in a run of the mill fraud trial because of his “Mexican heritage.”

        Or that time they felt they had the largest inauguration crowd of all time despite aerial photographs showing otherwise.

        Or that time that they said they were the healthiest Presidential candidate in history despite having a well documented history of bad diet and lack of exercise.

        Or that time they felt the Central Park 5 was still guilty despite overwhelming evidence they were not.

        And of course, who can forget that time they felt that the inspiration for Biff Tannen in Back to the Future 2 should be President.

        1. What a weird rant. I hope you feel better.

          Does that line on the weather map still keep you awake at night, muttering into your whiskey glass?

          If you have a dog, he’s probably worried about you.

          1. How much Trumptard bullshit and whining in one thread?
            First, it’s fucking STUPID to say this is a typical memorandum, which is a COWARDLY DIVERSION from what Post said. The GROSS hypocrisy of slamming Schiff’s words, while his own words are unavailable ON THE SAME MATTER (doesn’t matter why, DUH).

            Lots of bullshit on what was included in the “memorandum,” when Trump said he’d release a “full, declassified, unredacted TRANSCRIPT.” The following link is to the RESULTS of a search showing dozens of news reports on that FALSE claim.
            https://www.bing.com/search?q=Ttump+ful+unredacted+transcript.&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

            If you read the “transcript” verbally, at a normal speaking pace, it will take about five minutes. The call was 20 minutes,

            So, despite all the whining on minor issues,
            1) Trump is full of shit on another thuggish treason threat.
            2) We KNOW he invited a foreign country to interfere in our 2020 election, NOT the same country/adversary he invited for 2016.
            3) And we can only wonder what Trump is afraid to reveal THIS time.

            Lots of the typical sneering, snarling, denial and lies here. Again causing libertarians to wonder about those who place loyalty to a party or politician above loyalty to country, truth and American values … which now seems the norm, from both the left and the right. Sad.

          2. It may be a rant, but it’s only weird if you lack self-awareness about the person you support.

            I wouldn’t say I stay up at night about the sharpie thing. You should though. A man is lying so stupidly and transparently to you just to protect his own ego, and he knows it won’t cost him your support. He doesn’t respect you. Have some self-respect. For the love of God.

            1. “He doesn’t respect you.”

              You think politicians have a relationship with you? Do you think the news is about you?

              Personally, I could care less about politicians except to the extent they are a threat. Trump is less of a threat than most politicians.

              1. No. But respecting people doesn’t require a personal relationship. Particularly if you’re engaged in a job that is predicated on earning people’s trust, votes, support, and money. My singular vote and support may be worthless to any politician except to the extent it is part of an aggregate level of votes and support they require. But it matters to me. And because it matters to me, I’m not going to waste it on someone who believes he can lie about hurricane trajectories with a sharpie (among an endless list of other reasons).

                1. I can’t argue with feelings. Good luck finding a politician/soulmate who meets your emotional needs.

            2. The sharpie thing? I was staggered by that. I have been convinced for a long time that Trump is crazy, but not psychotic. But in the entire menagerie of Trump weirdness, the sharpie thing is the one that for me seems most redolent of psychosis.

              Look at all the reality Trump must be unaware of. Leave aside that he does not understand the graphical principle the expanding arcs represent—a lot of people don’t get that. But with his diminished arc, Trump shows he doesn’t understand that there is any graphical principle at work to understand. He shows he doesn’t understand that hurricane forecasting is technical work, for which he is unqualified. He doesn’t understand that his intervention and public foolishness are a gratuitous slap at the experts who do forecasting. He doesn’t understand he is supposed to be in charge of the forecasters, not competing with them. He doesn’t even understand that the graphical incongruity of the sharpie marker on a professionally presented graphic puts a clown nose on the guy who did it.

              The sharpie thing shows us Trump as delusional—a guy who experiences whatever random process his head serves up as equivalent to everything else in the world of thought. There it is, the sharpie thing—pure 25A material. Psychosis. Anybody else, it’s a checkup from the neck up. Trump? Just another day at the office.

              1. He’s not delusional, more a psychopath
                EVERY time he’s cornered, he invents absolute and total, and doesn’t even care if it’s believable, or even sane, since his core base is a cult who’ll swallow anything .

                This is no uncommon among his type of family business owners. I’ve been a consultant and/or coach to maybe a hundred of them. o the authoritarian mentalities like his, they’ve had decades of absolute power. That’s all they’ve ever known, and why he acts like a monarch. If the it’s not an actual business, say a real estate investor, they can have fewer skills in strategy and tactics than even junior managers in an operating business.

                Also why he sucks as a deal-maker, he SAYS “being tough” is his thing. That can work fine among the mostly small contractors he’s dealt with, but win-lose FAILS with heads of state, where win-win is required, WHY he has a string of unbroken failures. … Except Ukraine, where the new head, an ACTOR/COMEDIAN, is desperate for outside financing, thus kinda helpless.

              2. It definitely shows the depth of how weirdly obsessed people are. When something so meaningless has you howling at the moon, it’s time to pause and reflect.

                1. Trump made stuff up in an obvious way and tried to get the country to believe it.

                  You can call that trivial, but that’s not normal behavior.

                  Defending that a guy who does that is a great leader for our country becomes more about your needs than America’s.

                  1. He’s pretty good at trolling people into revealing how foolish they are.

                    1. Got you. Three times in thos thread alone.

                    2. TLTT: I don’t read your posts. I would be surprised if anyone does.

                    3. Like WesternHegemony, trolling is not a defense. See: the rule of goats.

                    4. Ben_
                      TLTT: I don’t read your posts.

                      a) Proves HIMSELF a liar!
                      b) Or responds to a comment he ADMITS never having read!!!
                      Either way, worthy of ridicule (in response to aggression)

                      I would be surprised if anyone does.

                      Caused by your MASSIVE ignorance!
                      80-90% of the people who read online forums NEVER post. Most are shy. Others fear getting bullied by your ilk. At this site, THOSE readers are mostly libertarians, which is who I post for, and who email me their appreciation.

                      There’s also visitors, often curious about libertarians. I’d like them to SEE libertarian values … instead of snarling bullies who shout down opposing views — even worse than Berkeley students.

                      Why should I give a flying fuck what some thug thinks?.

                      (Who all can now see the REAL reason he avoids my comments! LOL)

                    5. No defense offered. No defense needed.

                      Making news media/leftists reveal their foolishness and their weakening grasp on sanity is an invaluable public service.

                    6. Behold the authoritarian right!
                      PROVING him wrong is “revealing foolishness.”

                      Craziest of all, I’M A LEFTIST. Which is what all conservatards screech, when they’ve been called out.

                      In their primitive mentality — called bipolar — there is ONLY left and right. PLUS everyone on the right thinks and talks the same. EVERYONE who does not conform can ONLY be a leftist.

                      He’s been obsolete for 50 years. Left and right combined are less than 40% Americans.

                      Over 60% are neither left nor right. They self-identify as conservative fiscally and liberal on personal/social issues. A growing majority now sees what we began saying 50 years ago.

                      Liberals want government out of your bedroom but into your wallet. Conservatives want government out of your wallet but into your bedroom. BOTH want government controlled … something. Their only fight is WHERE big government will occur.

                      And that’s why we’re fucked today. As control shifts, we now have big government in BOTH fiscal and personal matters. Which delights Ben_, who gets half a loaf. Under liberty he’d get nothing, And power lust is addictive..

        2. I never said the President didn’t win more votes on a state level (there is no popular vote) because of illegal votes. I said that he didn’t win more votes because of the votes of people (and the descendants of people) whom Americans DID NOT WANT. Americans, in 1965, overwhelmingly opposed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has flooded America with tens of millions of semi-retarded third-worlders. We didn’t want these people then, we don’t want them now, and we’re not obligated to give any moral credence to their “votes,” as they’re not our countrymen.

          1. If one does not know what hegemony means, behold the hatred-spewing bigot … and proud to be one!

            Says citizens should be allowed to vote, ONLY if they are his approved color or ethnicity

            Donald Trump’s America, spawned in the Charlottesville assaults,

            1. Race matters. And every racial group realizes it, EXCEPT for deluded liberal whites.

              1. Thanks for confirming your raging, fascism, as I described it … perhaps worse.

                It’s not JUST race and ethnicity that determines voting rights in your gulag. It MAY also be that they don’t vote, reliably, based on your own diktats.

                (Some readers may need to learn what it means, the hegemony he is so proud of. Based on the intelligence we see here, I’m guessing he or she is a cross between American Indian and Oriental, with black skin, who marched in the Charlottesville assaults.)

    4. The memorandum standing alone is inculpating.

      1. Self-impeachment. It was inevitable. Sooner or later, with his compulsion for bellowing (to offset a tiny ego), he’d destroy himself. Like he destroyed himself as a BUSINESS owner (12 actual business failures, not the real estate investor )

  19. As Carl Schmitt explained in his seminal work of constitutional scholarship “The leader protects the law,” strong nationalist leaders follow substantial law, which is not divorced from morality and justice, and not the empty formalities of so-called “neutral” “principals of law” of the sort professed by empty and weak republics. As the fundamental characteristic of a nationalist leader is to embody the nation, the leader protects the law when he immediately creates new law by virtue of his leadership. As the Supreme Judge, it is the leader’s job to determine what that law should be.

    Professor Post appears to be doing nothing more than repeating the bleatings of the old discredited republic. A new day has dawned. New leadership is in power. The natural job of university professors in a nationalist regime, at least those don’t wish to meet the fate of traitors, to praise its greatness and its strength, it’s justice, it’s rightness, and to deplore its, enemies, communists, socialists, racial subhumans, and similar traitors to Leader, Volk, and Reich.

    1. As the Supreme Judge, it is the leader’s job to determine what that law should be.

      (shudder)Only to authoritarians, lesser thugs, and Trump’s American brownshirts.

      the leader protects the law when he immediately creates new law by virtue of his leadership

      SEIG HEIL!

      and to deplore its, enemies, communists, socialists, racial subhumans, and similar traitors to Leader, Volk, and Reich.

      NEVER MIND!!! hahaha.
      This was satire, a clever and biting ridicule of Trump and his American brownshirts,

  20. “But he is, as his stoutest defenders continually remind us, the duly elected president, and they might be more persuasive in their defense if they treated him as such, and not as some bumbling nincompoop whose says meaningless and nonsensical things that we shouldn’t be getting so bent out of shape over.”

    porque no los dos?

    Have folks learned nothing from the Clinton impeachment, where the President lied under oath to a judge and a grand jury about sex with an intern in the Oval Office, and people reacted by punishing the party that tried to hold him accountable?

    Nobody thinks Schiff is going to be arrested for treason. People will tolerate an awful lot of buffoonery as long as there is no real damage.

    1. “Nobody thinks Schiff is going to be arrested for treason. ”

      Post intentionally ignores the fact that most [all?] people often use treason and traitor to describe a general betrayl and not in the Constitutional/legal sense that almost know one knows. I think EV once had a post to that effect.

      1. “I have NO CLUE what happened, so I’ll invent some lame shit. For the Holy Cause”

        Post intentionally ignores the fact …

        Shame on you

        that most [all?] people often use treason and traitor to describe a general betrayl and not in the Constitutional/legal sense that almost know one knows

        Umm, Trump explicitly referenced the CRIME of treason

        Donald J. Trump

        @realDonaldTrump
        Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?
        122K
        6:12 AM – Sep 30, 2019

        Trump also lied, YUGELY on what Schiff said.
        But you can still defend him from cold-blooded murder, in broad daylight, with another shameful excuse!

    2. Recall the feminist response to Clinton’s perjury scandal:

      “I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

      1. First, that wasn’t the feminist response, that was one person.

        Second, that doesn’t give you license to hold yourself to that same low standard.

        1. “First, that wasn’t the feminist response, that was one person.”

          How about Gloria Steinem, in the NYT?

          Writing about the allegations that Clinton exposed himself to Paula Jones and demanded oral sex, and groped Kathleen Willey, Steinem said,

          “The truth is that even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment.”

          That’s not the feminist response either, I guess.

          1. How’s Steinem doing these days? Not exactly in good graces with the movement.

            I was too young at the time, but I do seem to recall no small amount of concern in the air about the power dynamics between Clinton and Lewinsky being per se unethical. Dunno if it was from feminists, but I doubt it was solely from the right.

            But anyhow, we return to your holding yourself to the low standards you’ve found in the other side. That’s a pretty sad way to organize your principles.

            1. power dynamics between Clinton and Lewinsky being per se unethical.

              It was consensual.

    3. and people reacted by punishing the party that tried to hold him accountable?

      AL GORE WAS THE NEXT PRESIDENT???
      REPUBLICANS DID NOT CONTROL BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS??

  21. David,
    It is possible to believe more than one thing simultaneously. For example (1) I believe that Trump is a total nut bag who has inappropriately asked foreign countries to investigate his political rivals. He is a manic buffoon who has a poor understanding of just about everything. His conduct is wholly unbecoming of the office of the president. (2) The media coverage of Trump is often misleading and seeks to portray things Trump has done as unprecedented when they are part of normal governance. The later is incredibly annoying because there is no reason to play things less-than-straight when there are so many valid things to point to.

    Yes, Trump is insanely wrong in suggesting or stating that Schiff’s conduct was criminal. But it’s not worth getting worked up over things where all Trump is doing is ineffectually bloviating about nonsense. Doing so will drive you insane.

    1. Prof. Post needs to read more Williamson at NR on how to hate Trump without succumbing to derangement.

      1. What of your own derangement?

    2. MonitorsMost, among a certain crowd, Trump is a pretty effective bloviator. If you could convince Trump supporters to stop paying attention, it would be a lot easier for me to pass it all off as harmless.

      1. Stephen,
        I’m not convinced that jumping up and down screaming while pointing out how lousy he is a particularly effective persuasion strategy. I think that it’s even less effective when it’s directed toward him being a jackass on Twitter.

        I don’t like it. It’s not appropriate. But it’s not a hill I am willing to die on and it’s not worth my mental health to get worked up over every obviously stupid thing he spouts off.

  22. I’m honestly curious. For all the back-and-forth, does anyone at this point deny that Trump withheld vital military aid from an ally unless they provided him political fodder in his reelection?

    1. Biden was credibly accused of corruption, and Trump just wanted an investigation. That seems to be all the rage recently.

      And this “vital” military aid wasn’t so vital during the Obama administration. What do you think Obama was trying to gain by withholding it?

      1. So the latest is that there was a quid pro quo but it’s totally fine because Biden is close enough to guilty that Trump should get what he wants.

        And the aid wasn’t vital.

        Also But Obama

        Oy.

        1. “And the aid wasn’t vital.

          Also But Obama”

          Well, you said that the aid was “vital”. But the aid in question was not provided by Obama, but represented an increase in aid under Trump.

          So your position that the aid is vital comes off as rather motivated, no?

          When did you form your opinion that the javelins were vital?

          1. I thought the vitality of the aid was pretty clear, given where Russia and the Ukraine are these days.

            Maybe that’s wrong, but seems pretty straightforward to me.

            1. Russia and Ukraine were in the same place or worse when Obama was in office. Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2014, who was President then?

      2. A la Columbo, one other thing. About Ukraine being an ally…

        1. Always appreciate a Columbo ref. But Ukraine is legally an ally, and at this moment of great power competition, a pretty good one strategically as well.

          1. Really – how exactly did Ukraine become a legal ally? They didn’t get NATO membership, and I’ll be damned if I recall the Senate ratifying some other treaty establishing a legal relationship with them.

            The strategic value is very debatable. England learned something about that when they and France guaranteed Polish sovereignty/integrity. We are even further removed from guaranteeing such.

            1. We have a defense treaty with them. Don’t you remember the drama when Putin looked like he was going to invade?

                1. I mean, it still makes us mutually bound together. That’s an alliance.

                  Your trying to throw the Ukraine under the bus to defend Trump strongarming them into doing his political dirty work is weird. Maybe attack our alliance with Saudi Arabia instead.

                  1. No, actually it doesn’t and that was the point of the article.

                    Where did I defend Trump – anywhere on this entire thread let alone this part of it? You’ve made claims you really couldn’t back up and now that’s my fault? Painting yourself into a corner isn’t something I did to you.

              1. “Looked like”? What are we doing, pretending he didn’t actually invade?

      3. Biden was credibly accused of corruption,

        Bull …. shit

        And IGNORANCE

        And this “vital” military aid wasn’t so vital during the Obama administration. What do you think Obama was trying to gain by withholding it?

        Regime change, along with much of Europe and the World Bank. TRY to keep up on things.

        But largely, you’re a liar about Obama.
        https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamelder/trump-ukraine-aid-impeachment

        Trumpsters be scary

    2. I’ll dispute the vital nature of the aid, it was as much pork-barrel as anything (or was Ukraine free to spend it on anything THEY thought vital?).

      I’ll even consider there could have been other reasons for the delay. Perhaps less likely, but plausible nonetheless.

      1. It was in the form of missiles, I think. Unless it was actual javelins which would be a trip.

        1. IT WAS A LOAN GUARANTEE … NOT ONE PENNY OF AID.
          For how much longer will you tolerate Trump betraying your trust in him? (blind faith puppetry)

        2. Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin thank you for your generosity!

          And actually the meme you should’ve alluded to was 30-50 javelinas.

          1. Female javelins?

    3. I’m not 100% sure he did. But there is evidence which suggests he did and there are obviously people who were close to the situation that think that’s why he withheld the aid. If the standard is preponderance, yes I think he did. Beyond a reasonable doubt, I’m not sure.

      1. That’s where I am.

        Impeachable assuming the truth is as the evidence suggests?
        Impeachable given the current quantum of proof?

        Investigations? The stonewalling is pretty egregious given what it looks like is going on.

        1. I guess it depends on how you interpret “egregious.” Should he be stonewalling? No of course not. Does his stonewalling suggest he has something to hide? I’m not really sure. It’s pretty clear to me that Trump likely obstructed justice because he fights for the sake of fighting and is a paranoid self-obsessed asshole. I don’t think he thinks stuff through enough to evaluate what is or isn’t serious.

          A perfect example is that the Whistleblower thought that the White House putting the call memo in the classified code-required server meant that the White House knew it was a big deal and was engaged in damage control. Turns out they put every call in the classified server since 2017 because Trump was mad about leaks.

          1. “Turns out they put every call in the classified server since 2017 because Trump was mad about leaks.”

            Paranoid for sure.

            1. Well, no, if the White House hadn’t been leaking like a sieve, it would have been paranoid. Paranoia is, by definition, irrational, and moving things to a higher security server when they’re being routinely leaked is a rational action, not irrational.

            2. I guess I should have put the sarc tag on.

          2. Classified, but not codeword. It still looks like moving conversations codeword was made on a case-by-case basis.

    4. There’s not information to conclude that. The “unless they provided him political fodder” is 100% fantasy with no facts to suggest any connection.

      1. We now have diplomatic texts, of our diplomats pressuring Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 elections, with THREE explicit quid pro quos.

        It can be dangerous defending Trump, when he so often reverses to a different lie, leaving you publicly humiliated.

    5. Yeah about that “political fodder” for his re-election. Only potentially useful if Biden is the actual Democratic nominee, no? At this point in ’16, who was actually betting on Trump being the Republican nominee (let alone winner of the general election)?

      1. By ,…. 39,000 voters in the Electoral College, after nearly 10 million voted against Trump. And Trump got a RECORD number of “anti” votes (against Hillary, NOT for him)

        How much influence was NEEDED by … Russia/Wikileaks/Comey .. to flip 39,000 voters in three states combined — for what Trump calls a “landslide victory?” (lol)

        1. Michael, even for you that is a mind-boggling non-sequitir. Sorry to see that your caretaker is slipping in their duties.

          1. ANOTHER FUCKUP BY THE STALKING BULLY, juris imprudent!
            Trumptard punished me with HIS STUPIDITY, for exposing Trumpian FRAUD! (sneer)

            Michael. even for you that is a mind-boggling non-sequitir

            HOW stupid are they?

            non sequitur
            [ˌnän ˈsekwədər]
            NOUN
            a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement

            BEND OVER, JAMMED UP YOUR SORRY ASS … AGAIN!

            The previous statement, and my response. (smirk)

            “… (winner of the general election)?”

            “By ,…. 39,000 voters in the Electoral College, after nearly 10 million voted against Trump. And Trump got a RECORD number of “anti” votes (against Hillary, NOT for him)”

            TWO TRUMPTARDS CRUSHED – ONE THREAD
            Defending liberty from its defilers.

            1. Hooray for me, I finally made the bully list!

              1. Hooray for me, I finally made the bully list!

                (smirk) You made the STUPID list — as I said.
                And again! now!

  23. You bring up good points. Let me point out another point about the constitution. Amendment #1

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Given that the Presidents twitter feed is considered his speech, the congress may make no law abridging it either.

    For a little whataboutism, want to me to link to youtube videos for public (not in congress) speeches made by pretty much every democrat in the house and senate indicate that they want to lock up or harass republicans? Since its not on the floor of the congress, would that be able to held in the same light by the OP?

    Now where do we stand.

    1. Do you realize … have even the slightest clue … a smidgen … that you have stated … in public … NOTHING can be a crime, if done verbally.

      Fraud does not exist.
      Trump may offer (verbally) any bribes, threats or corruption.
      Ever hear of the SCOTUS, which included, “no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?” THAT is the best-known example that NO rights are absolute … because absolute rights can be in conflict.

  24. I only read the first few paragraphs, but someone needs to teach Trump what “treason” means. After that, they can start on the much bigger job of unwinding the panties of the TDS suffers.

    1. While you’re at it, teach liberals on what “marriage” means.

      1. It’s conservatives that are fucked up on marriage … not QUITE as crazy as the notion that the sole purpose of sex is procreation, which SEVERELY denies the Will of Almighty God.

        But what does any one bragging of hegemony know of morality, individual rights, ANY religion …?

        1. This isn’t my political issue. But to be fair, what is messed up is that for thousands and thousands of years, all of human history, marriage was a male female thing, and then . . . language and use gradually changed over time? No. People voted and passed legislation to expand the tax and legal benefits? No. Instead, a few judges suddenly changed the definition of the word by judicial fiat under the guise of interpreting the Constitution.

          1. You poor, brainwashed soul. Full of shit, whoever taught you that. Marriage was not a Christian sacrament until 1500 years after the death of Christ. For most of those thousands of years, marriage was a private arrangement, in many cultures the exchange of ownership, from father to husband. Anyone who claims to know details of the practice is a rather shameful liar,

            The Old Testament Bible is not a very encouraging source for behavior. In Deuteronomy 13, God orders the immediate killing of all infidels, even one’s own brother spouse, child or friend.

            On Deuteronomy 22, God orders to all women be stoned to death, if it is learned they were not a virgin on their wedding day. No such standard for men, of course

            In His Sermon on the Mount, Christ essentially ridicules those who make a public spectacle of their religion as being like pagans and hypocrites. (The pray in a closet section)

            These days, SOME Christian conservatives, mostly the Church/State Theocrats, place their own judgments and choices above the Word of Almighty God (as taught by morally corrupt preachers, so not their fault, exploited for their faith)

            1. That is an interesting story you are telling, and I’ve no doubt there’s some truth to it. However I’m not sure how you think you’ve contradicted my comment. In no way has marriage been an exclusively Christian concept, instead it has been a common feature of human societies all over the planet. And of course we don’t know all the details of everything that has happened in the past. What I’m referring to here is the historical record.

              1. It’s 100% accurate. And your liem NOW, is even more pathetic than your original ignorance!

                However I’m not sure how you think you’ve contradicted my comment.

                CRUSHED IT
                TYPICAL LIES
                OF THE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN

                for thousands and thousands of years, all of human history, marriage was a male female thing, …. a few judges suddenly changed the definition of the word by judicial fiat under the guise of interpreting the Constitution.

                Christian Taliban SHITS on equal, unalienable and/or GOD-GIVEN rights … as Christ weeps in silent shame.

                (That’s the “unelected judges” line they are brainwashed with …. by preachers for SATAN .., and/or the broader right-wing authoritarians who all SHIT on the Constitution)

                In no way has marriage been an exclusively Christian concept,

                “UNELECTED JUDGES” CHANGED THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE FOR … MUSLIMS, BUDDHISTS, CONFUCIANISTS … IN THE CONSTITUTION ,..THEN
                HE BOTH ADMITS AND DENIES HE’S A LIAR!
                …. WITH THE MIND-NUMBING MORAL HYPOCRISY OF THE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN…

                And of course we don’t know all the details of everything that has happened in the past. What I’m referring to here is the historical record.

                SEE IT??

                “The historical record” of … what, of course, WE DON’T KNOW.
                ;… and ALREADY shot down

                You poor, brainwashed soul …. Marriage was not a Christian sacrament until 1500 years after the death of Christ. For most of those thousands of years, marriage was a private arrangement, in many cultures the exchange of ownership, from father to husband. ….. Anyone who claims to know details of the practice is a rather shameful liar,

                A now PROVEN liar.

  25. TDS. Hmmm. May I suggest a few additions to the DSM-V.

    Trump Toady Syndrome (TTS): A form of delusional cognitive dissonance characterized by the inability to acknowledge and take responsibility for helping to put an antisocial malignant narcissist at the head of the U.S. Federal Government. TTS is characterized by frequent references to other persons conduct (whether real or imagined) when confronted with evidence of Trump’s malfeasance. For the TTS afflicted, these references serve the purpose of both public and self deflection and function as ritualized form of self-soothing. Such references are also known as “whataboutisms” by members of the general public.

    Trump Fluffer Syndrome (TFS): TFS is a form of delusional quasi-romantic transference onto Donald Trump. TFS is most often presents in males who show significant evidence of both latent homosexuality and a high degree of self loathing. TFS is characterized by the irrational worship and idealization of Donald Trump.

    TTS can present alone, however it is rare to have TFS present without TTS. The incidence of TTS and TFS is significantly higher in individuals whose IQ is materially below 100 and those without post secondary education (i.e., the “poorly educated”). While the term “TrumpTard” has entered the common lexicon with respect to sufferers of TTS and TFS, we find this term unhelpful in the diagnosis of TTS and TFS. Because of the high correlation between TTS and TFS and material cognitive deficiencies, the prognosis for treatment of these disorders is bleak. WARNING: Sufferers of TTS can often react violently and incoherently when presented with contrary evidence.

  26. “The President, who has sworn and oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, appears not to be aware of its existence.”

    This is because the President is confused about the job he holds. He thought he was running for King, and is disappointed every time they tell him he isn’t king of America.

  27. At this i point i really feel like Trump could be literally be sending people to extermination camps and there were be a contingent of people (many apparently in the comments here) going “lol you SJWs are nuts with your virtue signaling and ‘orange man bad’ empty takes. Get over your TDS. MAGA!”

    1. In fairness, he has yet to rack up the body count of Americans that Obama did. Nobody seemed to get too worked up about that.

      1. In fairness, you’re a liar, and kinda wacky. Democrats are the ONLY ones didn’t get worked up on Obama — but only the craziest ones — just as only the craziest Republicans defend Trump’s atrocitie. With such cowardly whataboutism, you’ve shown that Jellis58 has UNDERSTATED the moral hypocrisy of Trumptards.

        It’s called Tribalism. Both sides do it. Mostly their low IQ factions.
        As libertarians have noted for over 50 years, Left – Right = Zero

        1. Hey Mikey, how the hell are you? Crazy as ever I’m sure.

          1. (posted in defense of a childish assault by a brainwashed sucker)
            PROVE IT, PUNK
            Here’s UNDENIABLE proof of how MASSIVELY juris imprudent has been SUCKERED. (sneer)

            He also proved my point!

            1. Dude, when you’re trying to play a different character, reverting back to your default one, in caps and underlines is a huge giveaway.

              1. PROVEN A LIAR, WHINES ABOUT ….. PUNCTUATION!
                Here’s a more recent … and MORE MASSIVE FUCKUP!

                https://reason.com/2019/10/04/treason-sedition-and-trump-derangement-syndrome/#comment-7960813

                I can’t stop this right-wing goober from seeking revenge for being humiliated … but I will continue PROVING his stupidity and bullshit. HIS choice, not mine.

                Mess with the bull, get the horns.

              2. P.S. When you get to high school you’ll have a course in English Composition, including how and why to use emphasis, to simulate verbal emphasis when speaking.

                But here , it was to ridicule your latest childish fuckup

                Hey Mikey, how the hell are you? Crazy as ever I’m sure.

                Childish, proven.

                (Why do ALL the alt-right wingers WHINE about punctuation — when they’re assaults blow up in their puss — juris SIX blowups on this page, so far)

                Okay, stick out your tongue, call me Mikey again, and talk like a 12-year-old, also again.

                1. Your responses remind me of someone… guy that uses Twitter a lot, makes wild accusations, screams about being bullied while bullying/blustering for all he is worth, demonstrates little ability to actually think.

                  And you deserve just as much attention as he does. Relax, you may now have the last word.

                  1. THAT many have PROVEN you a LIAR?
                    Wow, dude.

    2. I think Trump could be liberating people from extermination camps and the mainstream press and the Democratic party would say Trump was committing some crime in the process.

      1. You call that thinking? Being so totally brainwashed and manipulated.

  28. “Yes, calling things you don’t like “treason” is a common form of political hyperbole. We know this. However, it is also a crime that is actually prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice. So this isn’t just any random politician, with no power over criminal justice, casually making an accusation of treason. In fact, it’s not even the President of the United States casually making an accusation of treason (which he has done before). It is the President of the United States saying in no uncertain terms that he wants a U.S. Congressman questioned on suspicion of having committed treason.

    Pointing to random Democrats who have yelled “treason!” over Russiagate is not a valid response to the concern I address here, unless those random Democrats have the power to order someone arrested for treason. If they do, I want them gone from their jobs yesterday. […]

    Trump’s threat to have Adam Schiff investigated for treason is impeachable all by itself, but the threat is also part of a larger pattern of Trump’s view of criminal law as nothing but another tool he can use to protect himself and threaten his enemies. There are too many examples to cite them all: threatening Michael Cohen’s father with an investigation; expecting Jeff Sessions to un-recuse and exonerate him out of personal loyalty; asking the FBI director to drop an investigation of one of his former campaign and White House officials; asking a foreign leader to criminally investigate a likely political opponent; dangling pardons in front of potential witnesses against him; ordering subordinates to fire a prosecutor investigating his own wrongdoing. Donald Trump sees law enforcement as a collection of henchmen there to serve his personal partisan political interests. That’s not what they are there to do, and we can’t continue to have someone running federal law enforcement who sees the Department of Justice as his personal hit men.

    This can’t continue like this. This has to stop. Donald Trump has to be removed from office.”

    Patterico

    1. “Donald Trump has to be removed from office.”
      I’m going to make a wild guess and say that you believed that, and maybe even said it to your friends, on November 8, 2016. In fact it is now clear that people in high places in the government were making plans for his removal when it became obvious that Trump would be the nominee.

      So your parade of horribles is set in a backdrop of nothing really. Politics as usual, why would anyone be upset? Trump came into office as a political naif, without any idea about how to accrue power. He has since wised up about what they are trying to do to him, but he still doesn’t have that innate sense of how to get and use power that FDR or Johnson had. He still talks about things being “unfair.” Can anyone imagine FDR saying that, or at least meaning it? He knew things were unfair and he wanted to keep it that way.

      The coup attempts were and are real. That is the danger to our republic, not Trump. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in this but I hope that the indictments come soon and encompass the whole sorry, criminal bunch. This must be exposed.

      1. “Politics as usual”

        You noticed, I assume, that my comment is a cut and paste from Patterico, a conservative ally of Andrew Breitbart (when he lived), and more recently a Ted Cruz supporter. Hardly a politics as usual critic of a GOP president. I stand with people of principle across the political spectrum, with many of whom, e.g., Patterico, I agree on little else, that Trump’s contemptuous and often criminal assault on the rule of law and constitutional norms require that he be impeached. And in the unlikely event 20 GOP senators grow a spine, that he be removed from office.

        But no, I neither said nor believed he should be removed from office on Nov 8. By then I’d long said he’s unfit and manifestly unqualified, but I didn’t think he should be impeached until, as president, he started committing impeachable acts.

        That’s how our constitutionally prescribed rule of law works. Or, as you call it, a “coup.”

        1. Cut and paste or not it’s yours if you put it up. Using the usual never-Trumpers as unimpeachable because of so-called credentials is cheap. Just say what you think.

          The “coup” is by no means “our constitutionally prescribed rule of law.” Just the opposite but you will never see that. The whole rotten business from ridiculous notions of invoking the 25th amendment to fabricating bases for FISA warrants to using foreign intelligence agencies for setup and entrapment, to running a whole two plus year phony investigation based on lies is going to come out. And you and your ilk will tut tut it away.

          Do you think that if they succeed that this will end with Trump? You will no longer have a democratic republic. Apparently you don’t care about that but you should.

          1. I have no idea why you think calling your attention to who wrote a comment means I don’t stand by it myself. I do. Instead of insulting what you imagine I’m thinking, you might try refuting the argument.

            As for your implication that legal process + debunked conspiracy theory = coup, I don’t have a response to that.

            1. ” debunked conspiracy theory”

              Debunked by you and your pals? You’re going to debunk your own conspiracy? If you haven’t taken an active part in it then your side has been working overtime to make sure it stays covered up. I listed four things above, and there are plenty more of course, and “I don’t have a response to that.” You don’t care that there has been an extra-legal and illegal attempt to remove an elected president.

              There will likely never again be a president who is accepted as legitimate by the opposition, and your side is completely responsible for that. You are no longer the opposition but the enemy.

              1. Yeah, don’t trust anyone to debunk a conspiracy theory, because they’re already part of the conspiracy.

                Enjoy your personally curated reality.

                Go join QAnon with that logic.

                1. Well he needed someone to come to his defense and he still does.

                  1. No, this is about you. Debunked by you and your pals? You’re going to debunk your own conspiracy? If you haven’t taken an active part in it then your side has been working overtime to make sure it stays covered up.

                    You now get to believe whatever you want to believe. Which is how you are well on your way to becoming a crazy person.

                    1. I haven’t resorted to ad hominem with you Sarcastro but you seem comfortable with it. How am I to distinguish you from one of your admirers below?

                    2. First, that’s not what ad hominem means.

                      Second, I’m not insulting you as a person, I’m criticizing the logic your comments indicate.

                    3. It is what ad hominem means. When you characterize someone as “becoming a crazy person” you are no longer obliged to engage their arguments, you just claim the crazy.

                      But all this gets very intense so I’m not holding it against you.

                2. ^THIS ^THIS ^THIS
                  Have I made myself clear? 🙂

  29. “Was what Schiff said a fair characterization of what Trump said? Reasonable people can, I suppose, disagree about that”

    This is insane. How on Earth is anyone taking you seriously?

    1. Read the piece again. I’ll keep laughing at you for while.

  30. Trump may be like the devil, but even the devil is entitled to the protection of the law. Bad as Trump may be, it is the Democrats who are potentially causing serious and possibly irreparable damage to our system of government by mowing down the laws to get at Trump. Because Trump is not the devil. When the last law is down, we will go after each other and we won’t have the law to protect us. Each side will do worse on the other until our whole nation is burning.
    Sad thing is, all the Dems have to do is wait a year (or at most 5 years) and the Trumpublic presidency will be over. He would be out of office and our system would have survived. Instead, I read articles suggesting (hoping) that Trump and Pence will both be forced from office and that Speaker Pelosi will become president. If that happened, over 40% of our country’s population would be outraged and would refuse to accept the legitimacy of the federal government. The establishment and the elites would win…but their victory would only be ashes.

    1. GMT, on that standard, where would government legitimacy stand if your 40% wins, and 60% are outraged? In your view, is there ever a role in politics for conceding to a majority without going postal?

    2. This is why the Founders added impeachment. .
      NO laws are being mowed down, except by Trump.

      Instead, I read articles suggesting (hoping) that Trump and Pence will both be forced from office

      PROOF? Sounds more like the raving hysteria of Fox News (the NON-news folks)

      If that happened, over 40% of our country’s population would be outraged and would refuse to accept the legitimacy of the federal government

      Kill them, if they revolt per Trump’s wet dreams. (/sarc)

  31. So, to be clear, Trump is venal for defending himself from a ‘parody’ masquerading as a true statement in a congressional hearing while Schiff is noble or something for putting on a short play in a well televised theater.

    There was a time when the vote of the people was respected, Congress was respected, and the news was actual journalism.
    Welcome to the 21st Century where all that is swept away, facts and truth are unnecessary and we will do whatever is necessary to destroy anyone with whom we have a different opinion.

    As for law and equal standards? The country is run by Lawfare. The president, no matter who he/she is from now on will be little more than a figurehead.

    1. Nice melodrama. Impeachment is part of rule of law, chief. So is Congressional investigations and oversight.

      Sorry you think checks and balances don’t respect the will of the people, but that’s the country the founders made.

    2. One more brainwashed sucker of the ruling class

      So, to be clear, Trump is venal for defending himself from a ‘parody’ masquerading as a true statement

      READ HIS TEXT, SUCKER. He explicitly stated that it’s only the ESSENCE of Trump’s phone call.

      Then read the definition of “essence”
      How can you people go out into the world, make such positive and inflammatory statements … on matters you are TOTALLY clueless of … because you are so easily manipulated, and your blind faith trust so betrayed.

      Will you continue being suckered, with loyalty to your political tribe greater than loyalty to your country … to Truth, Justice and the American Way?

  32. I must admit not making it all the way through this post due to the rambling and unstructured nature of it and lack of clear points. However, as far as I made it…

    National level politicians lie, they mislead, they posture. That’s the only way to be elected to, for example, the office of the President. As someone (who said this when there is some debate about) said “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” To be elected President today you must fool most of the people much of the time.

    One does not have to look further than the Democratic primary debate stage to see examples of this as Warren, Sanders, Harris each try to give more taxpayer money away each week trying to one-up the vote buying efforts of their “progressive” opponents. They claim to, of course, pay for all this by soaking the “rich” (as an aside, I’m not sure why they think it is more ethical to steal from a small number of people, but it is clearly more practical – just as robbing a bank is more practical than robbing a homeless drunk). However (assuming they made it past fourth grade and have managed even just their own assets for a few years as an adult – which I assume they all have since AOC is not on the stage this time), they have to know the math doesn’t work out. Yet, they continue to deceive and lie to anyone who will listen.

    I don’t like Trump, but he’s just doing what politicians do – more effectively than some, less effectively than some. For example, Clinton almost got away with it by sticking to lies – if it weren’t for The Blue Dress™ defenders would still say that he didn’t perjure himself. Obama privately (with, unfortunately for him, an open mike) told Medvedev “This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility” but was deceiving voters by not telling them this. It’s hard to fault a mountain lion for attacking and eating a doe no matter how cute that doe is, why fault a politician for doing what politicians do?

    1. The argument that Trump’s behavior is normal is just not true. I get how you need to believe that to live with yourself, but it requires you to excise any sense or proportion or degree.

      1. Trump wasn’t elected to be “normal”, he was elected to be different. Glad to see that he’s delivering.

        1. He was NOT elected to be THIS kind of different.
          He was NOT elected to be a psychopathic liar, shamelessly defending violence by nazis and white nationalists.

          And you have no clue how he was elected … by 39,000 voters
          Even the MINORITY who voted for him did not endorse everything he’s done or will do. Nearly a fifth were voting against Hillary, NOT for him..

          Glad to see that he’s delivering.

          I have no doubt you are glad to see the President of the United States lying, so shamelessly, to defend nazi/racist violence.
          I do wonder how you can live with yourself.

  33. The argument that Trump’s behavior is normal is just not true.

    That’s what you are reduced to debating “normal”?
    Yet, I’m to believe the very, survival of the union is in danger.
    Because “normal”

  34. One hardly knows where to begin to dissect the venality and stupidity of these remarks. Arrest for Treason? No, you cannot arrest Adam Schiff for treason.

    Mr. Post, let me introduce to the concepts of “hyperbole” and “trolling”, so expertly demonstrated by Mr. Trump here; it results in press coverage and over the top reactions from intellectuals like you.

    Your article is mainly a testament to the fact that you’re out of touch with how the real world operates or how modern societies and media function. Why don’t you retire to some nice beach somewhere and leave the government of the nation to people who actually understand the real world? Thank you.

    1. So you EXPECT Trump to act like an asshole!
      It’s FINE that he’s threatening the whistleblowers, OBSTRUCTION
      NO PROBLEM offering a $50,000 for the whistleblowers name.
      Saying that Trump is JOKING has blown up in your face, so you encourage the fomenting of hysteria as … hyperbole, which NON-psychos call BULLSHIT..

      All this on TOP OF, defending him for inviting a foreign government to interfere in our 2020 election … while DENYING he worked with Putin in 2016 .. and BELEEBING that’s NOT bat-shit crazy.

      Same-old, same-old.

      You may now revert to sneering and snarling now YOU employ that same hyperbole bullshit.

    2. NOYB2 writes: Mr. Post, let me introduce to the concepts of “hyperbole” and “trolling”, so expertly demonstrated by Mr. Trump here; it results in press coverage and over the top reactions from intellectuals like you.

      Your article is mainly a testament to the fact that you’re out of touch with how the real world operates or how modern societies and media function. Why don’t you retire to some nice beach somewhere and leave the government of the nation to people who actually understand the real world?
      So glad to have someone with such a fine sense of “how the real world operates” enlighten me – I’ll never make that mistake again.
      And just curious – was today’s tweet also “hyperbole” or “trolling”? Here’s the text – and remember, this is the President of the United States …
      “As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over the captured ISIS fighters and families. The U.S. has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory. THE USA IS GREAT!”
      The guy is deranged. The sooner you recognize that, the less you will look like an idiot.

      1. Post for the win!
        Trump has TOTALLY lost it.
        He KNOWS he should not offer quid pro quos, BECAUSE he keeps denying having done so.

        He does it an anyhow, to feel “tough” and “in control.” I’ve worked with dozens of owners of small and family businesses. They have absolute power, but few choose to use it. The authoritarian mentalities all share a few highly negative traits.

    3. Mr. Post, let me introduce to the concepts of “hyperbole” and “trolling”, so expertly demonstrated by Mr. Trump here; it results in press coverage and over the top reactions from intellectuals like you.

      The president “trolling,” if that’s were what he was doing, would be evidence of his unfitness for office.

      As George Conway noted, if he were in any other job, he’d be fired for his behavior. (Separately from Trump’s crimes — just for the way he conducts himself.)

Please to post comments