Jon Ossoff was great yesterday, but he still didn't ask the question I would have posed about the 2020 election. I would ask the nominees, "Do you believe that the president would rescind your nomination if you stated clearly and unequivocally that Joe Biden won the 2020 election?"
Listening to Adam Kinzinger and Charlie Sykes talk about all the ways in which a corrupt DOJ and ODNI would further enable a complete lack of checks and balances is scary. This is America's defining moment people!
Senator Cornyn, Sir. Please do the right thing today.
It is a good question but would not have elicited more than “I would not deign to predict the decisions of the president. He would certainly have the right to fire me for that or any other reason.”
Great comment, but Blanche would have deflected and said, “sorry I don’t speculate on what the president thinks—I’m not clairvoyant, or something to this effect….:)
"What do you think would happen if you said, "Donald J. Trump won the 2020 election, fair and square and in a landslide the likes of which the country had never seen before?"
A whole cottage industry has sprung up around the corruption of the pardons. Lawyers in DC advertise that they'll get you a pardon for the right retainer price and the right amount of money crossing the right palms. I'm sure Blanche won't be "involved" but guaranteed he (and his one and only boss) get a to wet their beaks.
Maybe but somebody needs to be the middle man. I dont think the dealings are directly with Trump and the payments could be described in many different ways. Suppose I had several million dollars and I wanted to secure a pardon for a client. I would probably want to deal with another attorney so one could assert attorney client privledge in the event of an investiation.
Remembering the famous John Erlichmann in an SS uniform cartoon by the late Pat Oliphant, during the Watergate hearings, the penguin in the corner said, "we could have a very nice country if everyone followed otders" (IIRC).
That many of us no longer believe in the values, rule of law and constitutional government handed down to us and cultivated over 250 years: we have bot been good stewards of our heritage.
While the news likes to report that Trump's "favorable" rating is 39% as a low number, what it also means is that two in five respondents *approve* of what he is doing. This to me is a much more damning statistic and reinforces your point.
Nope , starting in a major way with us baby boomers it's been all about who can steal the most . I remember a bumper sticker from the 80s the heyday of yuppies ,
Today is one of those days. I feel completely beaten down by everything and I don't want to know anymore about any of this. I'll bounce back, but how many more times will that be the case? How many of us who care so much about furthering the values and principles this country was built on have felt as I do today and turn away?
For me, today is one of those days where I feel vindicated. The modern GOP, to be frank, are a bunch of moral degenerates. They're faithless to their oaths, indifferent to the damage they're causing, and complicit with stunning acts of evil performed by this president. You'd think that protecting a likely pedophile would cross one line too many for a decent person, but the modern GOP are not decent people. I think it's time, far past time, to treat them like the filth that they are.
I think it says there will always be a % of Americans who are racist, misogynist, and xenophobic. They are a minority. It’s up to us to pull the levers of liberal democracy to curb their ability to harm citizens, visitors, and the rule of law.
JD went on Joe Rogan's podcast two days ago talking about Epstein links to CIA and other potential foreign intelligence.
Their everything everywhere all at once strategy concludes today with our democracy in the hands of Senator Cornyn in Texas. Please, Mr. Cornyn Sir - do the right thing.
Just thinking back to 2017 when I repeatedly begged fellow Democrats to vote for Hillary only to be rebuffed by restrains of "But she stole the nomination from Bernie! I'd rather vote for Trump. At least he won his nomination fairly."
Just like the Naderites in 2000 and liberal idiots in '24, none of this would be happening if maddeningly stubborn, self righteous, so-called "Progressives" would abandon their sickening aversion to voting for the "lesser of two evils."
One can even go as far back as 1968 when members of the left were determined to punish LBJ for Vietnam so they forced him to essentially resign. The result: Tricky Dick who inaugurated Republican emphasis on putting right wing extremists on the Supreme Court.
(Before he was derailed by Watergate, he managed to appoint four justices even though one of them - Harry Blackmun - turned into a big time liberal before he retired. Of course, with the rise of the Federalist Society, these days, careful vetting ensures that no more Blackmuns or David Souters or John Paul Stevenses will interrupt the Republicans' relentless march toward unadulterated authoritarianism.)
Thank you! They're as much to blame for what's happening as the fascist magats!!! I think they're worse than magats because they should've known better!
For all or Trump’s actions and fascist instincts he has been aided and abetted by SCOTUS. They have had choices to make and precedent to destroy, but their project on the unitary executive has meshed with Trump’s own fascist one. Do they care or do they not see it, or merely think their own project on executive power will outlast him? It seems unclear. But they have not provided a check on the executives power or the interpretation thereof and interpreted the constitution in ways the founders would likely be horrified by and certainly they never intended a supreme court to have or exert these sorts of powers.
I think they know what they are doing. I also think that a future President Buttigiege or Ossoff or AOC would not benefit similarly from the unitary executive theory. Suddenly there'd be a lot of "major questions doctrine" rulings from the Supreme Court, with the conservatives finding a new passion for the Article I branch and insisting a do-nothing congress stamps off on what the President can do.
Totally agree. I just question if it is realistically possible, politically.
There are only three things that Dems should focus on:
1. Kill the filibuster.
2. Add states.
3. Pack the court.
All will be incredibly difficult if impossible and they will only have 2 years to do it so it has to be done FAST. they will almost certainly lose reelection in 2032 too. So it also has to be implemented fast. I’m also not confident that the new Republican trifecta wouldn’t just pack the court and say “everything the Dems did in 2029-2033 is unconstitutional.”
And many Dems will somehow find a way to blame the president of 2029 for “not doing more….not making the laws/changes stick” as if they ever could do that.
Here is a question for Mr. Blanche - is there anything that Donald Trump could do that would lead you, Mr. Blanche, to resign from the so-called department of justice?"
That will result in: "I don't answer hypotheticals."
Another one of the hearings yesterday was Erica Schwartz for CDC Director. When she was asked about a scenario that had actually occurred, she refused to answer, insisting it was a hypothetical.
Chris Coons asked that question. Blanche replied something like: That would never happen. But if it did, I would not violate my oath to the Constitution.
Ugh.. the questions that these nimrods ask Blanche and Clayton. You don't ask who won the 2020 election, you ask if they think Trump won the election. You don't ask Blanche what he thinks of Trump's pardons, you ask him what his personal red line is that he won't cross on behalf of the president. You do your homework and find those moments of their past criminal and/or gray area of behavior and you make them account for it. This shit drives me nuts.
You think they’d answer differently with hard hitting questions? The stupidity of their answers was pretty obvious—despite trying to use not-so clever legal language. Blanche was very clear in his attempts to avoid responsibility. That’s why a judge in NY had already referred him for disbarment. Sometimes the way to trip people up is to use their words against them. The point of these hearings was to the audience of the 2 or 3 senators who might change their minds, not the American public.
The point of these hearings should be to get the right person in the position who will uphold the constitutional law, be a reasonably moral person, not have questionable backgrounds, etc.
Blanche answered exactly how a lawyer would answer - very rote. The questions need to get him out of the lawyer mechanics and into who he is, what he stands for, etc..
People need to stop focusing on the questions and focus on the answers. The answers tell you exactly how they would have responded to whatever stupid variation of the question you (not you specifically) think was better. The answer tells you there was no better question available because the answer would be virtually identical.
I wish dem voters were as jaded as I am. Then they would realize that this was all kabuki theater. It makes zero difference to the nomination and will make zero difference in the next election.
The reason that these douchebags can lie and dissemble is because the Republican senators don’t care. Until that changes it will remain kabuki theater (and I see no evidence that it will change).
Shoot it’s getting worse. Now Republican senators are openly questioning if the Georgia senators are you know, duly elected senators.
The idea isn’t so much to change their answer. I’d like to see more moments that can be clipped and circulated in single bites. The algorithm showed lots of people Pam Bondi screaming like a deranged lunatic at her hearing, over and over. That was great. She’s gone now. Blanche said, “I’m his lawyer.” I saw a few pundits say “Dems should clip that and put in an ad next fall.” Sure, but that can’t be the first reaction! Everyone here has seen it, and none of us saw it on an ad on our local station during Jeopardy months after the fact.
Yes. Or push back when he falls back on Trump’s authority to say “I’m not asking about the President’s authority;I’m asking about your judgment in the execution of your own authority.” It’s a powerful position and they let him make it look like he’d just be another lackey.
Even if he was asked if he thought Trump won the election, he is smart enough to come back with the same answer - Joe Biden was "certified" as the winner. I don't think there is any way to get these goons to answer any of these types of questions directly and honestly. These hearings have become boring spectacles of cat and mouse games that seem to achieve absolutely nothing.
Sadly, yes. Mechanical, no real investigative basis for the questions, not forethought on how to corner them into a better answer - plus 10 mins isn't much time
Be specific: If Biden was *certified as president* by the process, does that mean you believe Trump won the popular vote. Point out where Ghislaine Maxwell has lied and ask if she is a reliable witness.
I doubt the answers to those questions would be any different from the answers to the questions asked. The president has sole power over the executive branch and I'm in the executive branch so I do what he tells me to do. They know they'll be out if they don't say that and then do it.
There were many, many Germans who opposed Hitler, but did’t dare speak up because of his grip on the military, police, not so secret police—sort of like Trump now. Trump’s problem is that he’s tanking the economy, Hitler famously “improved” public services after the disastrous Treaty of Versailles.
Sounds like Blanche in his answers to Senators’s questions is trying to actually lay the foundation for a future “only following orders” style defense for when it all hits the fan. Didn’t work for Nazis then and it won’t work for today’s Nazis either! Our Unitary Executive authoritarian (courtesy of our SCOTUS) won’t take accountability or responsibility for anything leaving all you idiotic chumps out in the cold at the denouement. Don’t take it personally said the scorpion!
Sarah had so much to say, like in Bill’s podcast on Sunday, about democrats going hammer and tongs at Blanche over Epstein. It all made so much sense. Does anyone ever ask them why they don’t? I thought their unified attack on Clayton over the 2020 election was very good, although I agree a great follow up would have been to make him squirm over “do you think the president would rescind your nomination if you said Joe Biden won?”
Jon Ossoff was great yesterday, but he still didn't ask the question I would have posed about the 2020 election. I would ask the nominees, "Do you believe that the president would rescind your nomination if you stated clearly and unequivocally that Joe Biden won the 2020 election?"
What about “Do you believe Donald Trump won the 2020 election?”
I like this. Failsure to give to give an enthusiastic yes could put them in a nice pickle.
Love this idea!
Listening to Adam Kinzinger and Charlie Sykes talk about all the ways in which a corrupt DOJ and ODNI would further enable a complete lack of checks and balances is scary. This is America's defining moment people!
Senator Cornyn, Sir. Please do the right thing today.
It is a good question but would not have elicited more than “I would not deign to predict the decisions of the president. He would certainly have the right to fire me for that or any other reason.”
Great comment, but Blanche would have deflected and said, “sorry I don’t speculate on what the president thinks—I’m not clairvoyant, or something to this effect….:)
That would have been THE question to ask!
Whats the point of asking a question you know they would say “no” to? Or, some version of “I serve at the pleasure of the President.”
Great question
"What do you think would happen if you said, "Donald J. Trump won the 2020 election, fair and square and in a landslide the likes of which the country had never seen before?"
I wish someone had asked Blanche if he is an agent for selling pardons and if he is recieving a commission on such transactions
A whole cottage industry has sprung up around the corruption of the pardons. Lawyers in DC advertise that they'll get you a pardon for the right retainer price and the right amount of money crossing the right palms. I'm sure Blanche won't be "involved" but guaranteed he (and his one and only boss) get a to wet their beaks.
Maybe but somebody needs to be the middle man. I dont think the dealings are directly with Trump and the payments could be described in many different ways. Suppose I had several million dollars and I wanted to secure a pardon for a client. I would probably want to deal with another attorney so one could assert attorney client privledge in the event of an investiation.
Maybe Blanche is who Bossie the NO rapper is trying to get a refund form .
"You work for somebody, and you’ve got to do what you’re told to do.”
I remember the Nuremberg trials where "I was only following orders." was not an accepted defense.
Remembering the famous John Erlichmann in an SS uniform cartoon by the late Pat Oliphant, during the Watergate hearings, the penguin in the corner said, "we could have a very nice country if everyone followed otders" (IIRC).
Will: "He represents exactly what our government has become."
And what does this say about us?
That many of us no longer believe in the values, rule of law and constitutional government handed down to us and cultivated over 250 years: we have bot been good stewards of our heritage.
While the news likes to report that Trump's "favorable" rating is 39% as a low number, what it also means is that two in five respondents *approve* of what he is doing. This to me is a much more damning statistic and reinforces your point.
Nope , starting in a major way with us baby boomers it's been all about who can steal the most . I remember a bumper sticker from the 80s the heyday of yuppies ,
" He who dies with the most toys wins " .
Today is one of those days. I feel completely beaten down by everything and I don't want to know anymore about any of this. I'll bounce back, but how many more times will that be the case? How many of us who care so much about furthering the values and principles this country was built on have felt as I do today and turn away?
For me, today is one of those days where I feel vindicated. The modern GOP, to be frank, are a bunch of moral degenerates. They're faithless to their oaths, indifferent to the damage they're causing, and complicit with stunning acts of evil performed by this president. You'd think that protecting a likely pedophile would cross one line too many for a decent person, but the modern GOP are not decent people. I think it's time, far past time, to treat them like the filth that they are.
Please Christine don't turn away , decent people who love the country need you !
I think it says there will always be a % of Americans who are racist, misogynist, and xenophobic. They are a minority. It’s up to us to pull the levers of liberal democracy to curb their ability to harm citizens, visitors, and the rule of law.
"While Vance has already...changed his tune more often than a toddler with Spotify..." - brilliant!
JD went on Joe Rogan's podcast two days ago talking about Epstein links to CIA and other potential foreign intelligence.
Their everything everywhere all at once strategy concludes today with our democracy in the hands of Senator Cornyn in Texas. Please, Mr. Cornyn Sir - do the right thing.
Unlikely - bordering on no chance whatsoever. Would love to be wrong.
Blanche is like all three monkeys rolled into one: See no, Hear no, Speak no. the Uber-Monkey.
the Ur-Monkey of Ur-Fascism
They are fascists so they fear antifascists (Antifa).
Just thinking back to 2017 when I repeatedly begged fellow Democrats to vote for Hillary only to be rebuffed by restrains of "But she stole the nomination from Bernie! I'd rather vote for Trump. At least he won his nomination fairly."
Just like the Naderites in 2000 and liberal idiots in '24, none of this would be happening if maddeningly stubborn, self righteous, so-called "Progressives" would abandon their sickening aversion to voting for the "lesser of two evils."
One can even go as far back as 1968 when members of the left were determined to punish LBJ for Vietnam so they forced him to essentially resign. The result: Tricky Dick who inaugurated Republican emphasis on putting right wing extremists on the Supreme Court.
(Before he was derailed by Watergate, he managed to appoint four justices even though one of them - Harry Blackmun - turned into a big time liberal before he retired. Of course, with the rise of the Federalist Society, these days, careful vetting ensures that no more Blackmuns or David Souters or John Paul Stevenses will interrupt the Republicans' relentless march toward unadulterated authoritarianism.)
Thank you! They're as much to blame for what's happening as the fascist magats!!! I think they're worse than magats because they should've known better!
For all or Trump’s actions and fascist instincts he has been aided and abetted by SCOTUS. They have had choices to make and precedent to destroy, but their project on the unitary executive has meshed with Trump’s own fascist one. Do they care or do they not see it, or merely think their own project on executive power will outlast him? It seems unclear. But they have not provided a check on the executives power or the interpretation thereof and interpreted the constitution in ways the founders would likely be horrified by and certainly they never intended a supreme court to have or exert these sorts of powers.
I think they know what they are doing. I also think that a future President Buttigiege or Ossoff or AOC would not benefit similarly from the unitary executive theory. Suddenly there'd be a lot of "major questions doctrine" rulings from the Supreme Court, with the conservatives finding a new passion for the Article I branch and insisting a do-nothing congress stamps off on what the President can do.
I don’t disagree and time may tell, but all the more reason to reform the court and we know the easiest route.
Totally agree. I just question if it is realistically possible, politically.
There are only three things that Dems should focus on:
1. Kill the filibuster.
2. Add states.
3. Pack the court.
All will be incredibly difficult if impossible and they will only have 2 years to do it so it has to be done FAST. they will almost certainly lose reelection in 2032 too. So it also has to be implemented fast. I’m also not confident that the new Republican trifecta wouldn’t just pack the court and say “everything the Dems did in 2029-2033 is unconstitutional.”
And many Dems will somehow find a way to blame the president of 2029 for “not doing more….not making the laws/changes stick” as if they ever could do that.
Fucking depressing.
Here is a question for Mr. Blanche - is there anything that Donald Trump could do that would lead you, Mr. Blanche, to resign from the so-called department of justice?"
That will result in: "I don't answer hypotheticals."
Another one of the hearings yesterday was Erica Schwartz for CDC Director. When she was asked about a scenario that had actually occurred, she refused to answer, insisting it was a hypothetical.
Chris Coons asked that question. Blanche replied something like: That would never happen. But if it did, I would not violate my oath to the Constitution.
Ugh.. the questions that these nimrods ask Blanche and Clayton. You don't ask who won the 2020 election, you ask if they think Trump won the election. You don't ask Blanche what he thinks of Trump's pardons, you ask him what his personal red line is that he won't cross on behalf of the president. You do your homework and find those moments of their past criminal and/or gray area of behavior and you make them account for it. This shit drives me nuts.
You think they’d answer differently with hard hitting questions? The stupidity of their answers was pretty obvious—despite trying to use not-so clever legal language. Blanche was very clear in his attempts to avoid responsibility. That’s why a judge in NY had already referred him for disbarment. Sometimes the way to trip people up is to use their words against them. The point of these hearings was to the audience of the 2 or 3 senators who might change their minds, not the American public.
The point of these hearings should be to get the right person in the position who will uphold the constitutional law, be a reasonably moral person, not have questionable backgrounds, etc.
Blanche answered exactly how a lawyer would answer - very rote. The questions need to get him out of the lawyer mechanics and into who he is, what he stands for, etc..
Exactly THIS.
People need to stop focusing on the questions and focus on the answers. The answers tell you exactly how they would have responded to whatever stupid variation of the question you (not you specifically) think was better. The answer tells you there was no better question available because the answer would be virtually identical.
I wish dem voters were as jaded as I am. Then they would realize that this was all kabuki theater. It makes zero difference to the nomination and will make zero difference in the next election.
The reason that these douchebags can lie and dissemble is because the Republican senators don’t care. Until that changes it will remain kabuki theater (and I see no evidence that it will change).
Shoot it’s getting worse. Now Republican senators are openly questioning if the Georgia senators are you know, duly elected senators.
We are so screwed
The idea isn’t so much to change their answer. I’d like to see more moments that can be clipped and circulated in single bites. The algorithm showed lots of people Pam Bondi screaming like a deranged lunatic at her hearing, over and over. That was great. She’s gone now. Blanche said, “I’m his lawyer.” I saw a few pundits say “Dems should clip that and put in an ad next fall.” Sure, but that can’t be the first reaction! Everyone here has seen it, and none of us saw it on an ad on our local station during Jeopardy months after the fact.
Sure but once again will make zero difference in the nomination and zero difference in the next election.
I see that. I don't know how you get those clips into the algorithmic feeds used by the people you want to persuade.
100%. It’s truly depressing how bad Dems are at this.
Eh, it is our brand. It is why people like Stuart Stephens and Rick Wilson have banked big paychecks.
If you are counting on the dems getting competent to defeat MAGA, you will wait a long damn time.
Sadly, fixing MAGA and the Republican Party has to happen from within the Republican Party.
Don't hold your breath
Yes. Or push back when he falls back on Trump’s authority to say “I’m not asking about the President’s authority;I’m asking about your judgment in the execution of your own authority.” It’s a powerful position and they let him make it look like he’d just be another lackey.
Even if he was asked if he thought Trump won the election, he is smart enough to come back with the same answer - Joe Biden was "certified" as the winner. I don't think there is any way to get these goons to answer any of these types of questions directly and honestly. These hearings have become boring spectacles of cat and mouse games that seem to achieve absolutely nothing.
Sadly, yes. Mechanical, no real investigative basis for the questions, not forethought on how to corner them into a better answer - plus 10 mins isn't much time
Be specific: If Biden was *certified as president* by the process, does that mean you believe Trump won the popular vote. Point out where Ghislaine Maxwell has lied and ask if she is a reliable witness.
Would make zero difference politically.
I doubt the answers to those questions would be any different from the answers to the questions asked. The president has sole power over the executive branch and I'm in the executive branch so I do what he tells me to do. They know they'll be out if they don't say that and then do it.
Would make absolutely no difference in their response. Focusing on the exact question being asked is useless. What is important is their answers.
Everyone’s entitled to their opinion but it’s unpersuasive to repeat it more than a couple times.
The Democrats should tag team questions, since they only have 10 minutes, and stop the politeness, drive for at least one straight answer.
Blanche is going to be confirmed by the Republican kneewalking, Florsheim licking Whores. Even those not up for office, F Tillis.
And Mengele Miller's goons continue to murder.
Sick to my stomach.
No wonder I know people applying for passports elsewhere.
Germany had law in 1933. It succumbed to authoritarianism, as ours has.
Unlike Hitler, Trump is unpopular.
There were many, many Germans who opposed Hitler, but did’t dare speak up because of his grip on the military, police, not so secret police—sort of like Trump now. Trump’s problem is that he’s tanking the economy, Hitler famously “improved” public services after the disastrous Treaty of Versailles.
And possibly crazier .
Funny that Trump refers to ICE as fighting crime, as opposed to enforcing immigration law.
Sounds like Blanche in his answers to Senators’s questions is trying to actually lay the foundation for a future “only following orders” style defense for when it all hits the fan. Didn’t work for Nazis then and it won’t work for today’s Nazis either! Our Unitary Executive authoritarian (courtesy of our SCOTUS) won’t take accountability or responsibility for anything leaving all you idiotic chumps out in the cold at the denouement. Don’t take it personally said the scorpion!
Sarah had so much to say, like in Bill’s podcast on Sunday, about democrats going hammer and tongs at Blanche over Epstein. It all made so much sense. Does anyone ever ask them why they don’t? I thought their unified attack on Clayton over the 2020 election was very good, although I agree a great follow up would have been to make him squirm over “do you think the president would rescind your nomination if you said Joe Biden won?”
Because people believe these things matter when the senators don’t believe they do…and they are right.